Minor Rechtspsychologie | Samenvatting | Jaar 3
1
Legal Psychology
Legal Psychology: Psychological science
Within psychology, there are four approaches that analyse a psychological phenomenon in competing
manners:
I. Psychodynamics: is generally associated with Freud (contemporary psychology). There are at
least three consistent themes in his work:
a. He believed that all individuals have to go through five predetermined developmental
stages in order to reach a sane mature mental state (oral, age 0-1; anal, age 1-3;
phallic, age 3-6; latent, age 7-11; genital, age 11<). In all stages, the mental energy
(lebenstrieb) is remarkably consistently directed at the pertinent body parts.
b. The human mental system can actually be subdivided in two different ways:
● The first division is based on the guiding principles. The Ich is guided by the
reality principle, the Überich is guided by morality and the Es is guided by
pleasure. These three systems are likely to get into conflict, because
pleasure and morality do not always go hand in hand.
● The second division is between conscious and unconscious processing. The
two divisions are tied asymmetrically in that Überich and Es are almost
completely unconscious, while Ich is partly conscious.
c. The last recurring theme is that of the defence mechanisms. Ich, having a fulltime job
reconciling conflicting input from Überich and Es meanwhile trying to adapt to
external reality, has numerous defence mechanisms at its disposal to keep up
appearances. Notably, these defences are often unconscious. These defences all
have in common that some part of reality is distorted or pushed outside of
consciousness; repression is considered to be the mother of all defences.
● Displacement: dictating that we can inhibit unwanted emotional reactions and transfer
them onto another target later on (fed up at one’s boss, not telling him and later being
unkind to one’s housemates).
● Projection: attributing some of one’s own unwanted emotions to someone else.
II. Behaviourism: is the antithesis to the aforementioned. The behaviourist movement leaned
heavily on a handful of assumptions that were around 1900 quite novel. Behaviourists limited
the scope of their research to measurable behaviour and they were inspired by the
methodology of science. This implies that hypotheses need to be tested in experiments, and
the experiments are published in peer-reviewed journals.
a. Behaviourists will want to explain behaviour by simple generally applicable predictive
rules, relying on as little assumptions as possible: the Ockham’s razor. This is in
short: human behaviour can be modelled by looking at the behaviour of rats and
pigeons (C. Darwin).
b. Crucial to the content of behaviouristic psychology, is that individuals are virtually
born equally. That is, given normal health, all humans have from birth, similar
developmental possibilities (clean sheet). All that humans have become when
reaching adulthood, all their individual differences, are caused by their specific
learning history (nurture view).
● Classical conditioning (Pavlov): dribbling in response to a sound is called a
conditioned response to a conditional stimulus (dogs, producing saliva,
exposure to food). These types of reflexes are very difficult to unlearn. Note
that the conditioned, unnatural response occurs without conscious
intervention is an automatic response [example of classical conditioning].
● Operant conditions/instrumental (Skinner): whereas classical conditioning
revolves around learning
an association between
,Minor Rechtspsychologie | Samenvatting | Jaar 3
2
two external stimuli, Skinner's operant or instrumental conditioning is about
learning associations between one’s own behaviour and external
consequences. Rules of operant conditioning dictate that while reinforcement
increases the occurrence of behaviour, punishment will reduce its occurrence
(Thorndike’s law of effect). In theory, the combination of stimulus valence and
positive versus negative contingency deliver four behaviouristic interventions.
III. Cognitivism: can be construed as a synthesis between psychodynamics (deepest
unconscious motives) and behaviourism (overt behaviour). Cognitive psychologists copied the
scientific approach advocated by behaviourists, but wanted to study what goes in our mind.
They were also interested in feelings, emotions and thoughts.
IV. Neuroscience: the mission of this approach is to link psychological functions to brain regions.
The other three approaches do not oppose to the idea that psychology is completed rooted in
the nervous system. Neuroscience is explicitly aimed at identifying nervous systems
processes that are responsible for psychological phenomena (Stroop test).
The relevance of operant conditioning for criminal law [weblecture 16]
It is important to differentiate between various penal objectives. Ultimately, the implicit basic reason to
have laws is to promote societal cohesion. Within this framework, several reasons to punish criminals
can be defined:
I. Retribution [retributie]: the infliction of harm to the perpetrator by the government to relieve
feelings of vengeance on the part of the victim.
II. Deterrence [afschrikking/preventie]: the perpetrator must understand that committing crimes
is not only forbidden, but also disadvantageous, because it results in punishment. In fact, the
perpetrator must unlearn committing crimes (notion rooted in behaviourism). This is called a
specific prevention. However, there is also general prevention, that has the goal to refrain
other individuals from committing crimes, because they witness the punishment.
III. Incapacitation/protection [onschadelijkmaking]: by sentencing a perpetrator to imprisonment,
he is incapacitated temporarily to commit further crimes. Thus, society is protected against
this criminal.
IV. Rehabilitation [rehabilitatie]: by undergoing punishment, the perpetrator can shake off his bad
reputation, and start fresh. After completing his sentence, the perpetrator is fit for return to
society, and society is ready to embrace him.
V. Restoration [herstel]: restores the relation between perpetrator and victim.
VI. Moral balance [morele balans]: even if the perpetrator commited a crime by which no-one is
victimised directly, punishment can restore moral balance. In this view, the crime has
disturbed a general, fictive societal moral balance that can be restored by undergoing
punishment.
Note: it remains to be seen to what extent the different punishment goals are fulfilled in practice.
There is reason to argue that the failure of criminal punishment to accomplish various goals is not due
to flawed theory, but to invalid application of conditioning principles. Fruitful execution of the law of
effect, requires many optimal circumstances. In some respects, the law of effect requires the test
subject to perceive a causal relation between behaviour and consequence. Einhorn and Hogarth
describe five circumstances that make such perception likely:
a. Covariation: refers to togetherness of cause and effect. If the cause is present, so must the
effect be, and vice versa.
b. Chronology: simply dictates that cause precedes effect.
c. Contiguity: means that effect must follow rapidly after the cause. If there is too long of a delay,
it will become more difficult to perceive a relation between cause and effect.
,Minor Rechtspsychologie | Samenvatting | Jaar 3
3
d. Similarity: refers to equality of cause and effect.
e. Absence of alternative causes: through research it was discovered that people can choose to
take some punishment, if the pertinent behaviour also has benefits. Note that in real life,
prison sentences virtually take away all alternatives to make a living in a non-criminal manner.
However, it is also important to keep in mind that some people may be more prone to seek a
reward, whereas others are more concerned with avoiding punishment.
* The principle of proportionality is also relevant and must be applied!
Hallmarks of science [weblecture 17]
Science is all about the optimal procedure of gathering knowledge. It aims at observing empirical facts
in a way that is free from bias. Hence, science is not a synonym of truth, but a sound procedure to try
to uncover truth. But the problem might occur that we are biassed in our observations. Popper speaks
of a problem of induction: scientific theories and hypotheses cannot be proven by searching for
confirmation of the theory or hypothesis. Particularly, confirming evidence can sometimes be found,
even though a hypothesis is incorrect, thus resulting in a false positive conclusion. Note further that
just one disconfirming observation suffices to falsify the hypothesis.
Based on this starting point, Popper proposed that scientists should not seek confirmation but
falsification of their hypotheses [which reduces the number of false positive conclusions]. This should
also evade the problem of induction, because theories are no longer confirmed by summing
confirming observations. What should scientists do instead?
● Confirmation does not count as evidence, unless it is the result of a (failed) attempt to falsify
and it concerns a wild, risky prediction.
● A theory should be falsifiable, and should thus include many (risky) predictions that imply
prohibitions.
● If a hypothesis is falsified, scientists should accept this outcome, and refrain from conjuring up
reasons for the falsification other than that the hypothesis is incorrect.
• Falsification: it is not so that if a scientist formulates a hypothesis, he will consequently, actively
search for falsification. What happens instead is that the scientist seeks to formulate an alternative
hypothesis that is contrary to the original one. He then designs an experiment in which the two
hypotheses are tested against each other. The competing hypotheses are represented in the
experimental and the control group.
→ In sum: falsification is a crucial feature of science, if only it is approached by formulating competing
hypotheses, and includes relevant control conditions in experiments.
Scientific cracks and flaws
Wetenschap is nog steeds feilbaar. Zo kan het alsnog gebeuren dat er vals-positieve uitkomsten zijn.
Een ander probleem is dat onderzoekers liever positieve resultaten publiceren dan de uitkomsten die
negatief zijn, dit gaat tegen de wetenschappelijke principes in wat als uitgangspunt de
falsifieerbaarheid heeft. Het is voor wetenschappers wel lastig om hun gevoelens buiten hun oordeel
te laten, maar er is een bepaalde hiërarchie in de wetenschap waarbij de gevoelens lager worden
geplaatst dan de feiten.
Het is lastig om wetenschap en pseudowetenschap van elkaar te onderscheiden, daarom zijn er een
aantal cruciale karaktertrekken van pseudowetenschappen:
a. Het ontbreken van peer review. Dit is juist bij de wetenschap wel zo.
b. Steun op persoonlijke ervaring, anekdotes en getuigenissen. Bij de wetenschap steunt men
juist op experimenten.
, Minor Rechtspsychologie | Samenvatting | Jaar 3
4
c. Het gebruik van ad hoc manoeuvres om vervalsing te voorkomen. Bij de wetenschap moet je
accepteren dat een bepaalde hypothese niet slaagt, terwijl hier men te allen tijde probeert om
de originele hypothese aan te houden.
d. Ontwijking van risicovolle tests. Wetenschap staat er juist om bekend om zo risicovol en
kritisch mogelijk te onderzoeken. Pseudowetenschap zal dit vermijden uit angst voor
falsifieerbaarheid van de hypothese.
e. De mantra van holisme. Bij de wetenschap wordt er vaak onderzocht in een lab, dit wordt juist
vermeden bij pseudowetenschap.
f. Tolerantie van afwijkingen. Bij de wetenschap wordt hier rekening mee gehouden, maar bij
pseudowetenschap worden ze zo veel mogelijk vermeden.
g. Een beroep doen op autoriteit. Bij de wetenschap maakt het niet uit waarvoor, bij
pseudowetenschap maakt dit wel uit aangezien er goeroe-achtige gedrag van de relevante
groep kan zijn.
h. Buitensporige beweringen. Bij wetenschap zijn de meeste beweringen niet heel spannend, dit
is bij pseudowetenschap wel zo.
i. Stagnatie. Bij pseudowetenschappen verandert er in de tijd steeds een beetje, bij de
wetenschap gebeurt dit vaker en groter.
j. Omkering van de bewijslast. Bij de wetenschap moet het bewijs komen van degene die de
bewering doet, bij pseudowetenschappen moet degene met kritiek op de bewering bewijs
leveren.
k. Obscure taal. Wetenschappelijke discussies moeten zo transparant mogelijk zijn, dit is bij
pseudowetenschappen niet zo.
l. Gebrek aan connectiviteit. Groepen van pseudowetenschap hebben
