What is Forensic Psychology?

Forensic Psychology Definition

There is no consensual definition of forensic psychology. Perhaps it is surprising, given the relatively long history and growth of forensic psychology over the past 40 years, that there is no uniform or consensual definition for this specialty area, and most differences involve how narrowly or broadly the field is defined. Definitions range from expansive ones—that include any application of psychology to any legal matters—to those that are narrower and typically are limited to clinical and counseling psychologists’ involvement in legal matters as examiners, treatment providers, or consultants. Read more about Forensic Psychology Definition.

Tensions Between Psychology and Law

Regardless of the differences that exist concerning the definition of forensic psychology, it is uniformly agreed that forensic psychology involves the application of psychological knowledge and expertise to the legal system. To this end, forensic psychologists work at the interface of psychology and the law. As forensic psychologists work with legal actors, including attorneys, judges, and others in the justice system, a number of tensions exist. Although commentators have characterized these tensions differently (e.g., Brockman & Rose, 2011; Haney, 1980; Melton et al., 2007), a number of common themes emerge. Drawing on the framework provided by Haney (1980), we present eight differences between psychology and law that may contribute to tensions between the disciplines.

  1. The emphasis in law is stare decisis (i.e., legal precedent), whereas in psychology the emphasis is on creativity. In the law, past cases and matters such as constitutional interpretation rather than innovation or creativity are painstakingly relied on for the development of legal arguments. The model adopted in law is one of legal precedent. In contrast, in psychology, the model is one of innovation, and psychologists, in both research and applied work, are encouraged continually to explore new ideas and methods.
  2. Law is hierarchical whereas psychology is empirical. Decisions within the legal system are hierarchically based and authoritative, with lower courts bound by the decisions of higher courts. In psychology, however, it is the accumulation of a body of consistent and supporting data that confirms the validity of a particular position or claim, not its authoritative declaration.
  3. Law relies on the adversarial method, whereas psychology relies on the experimental method. The law seeks “justice,” which equates to procedural fairness. It is hoped that just procedures will assist in arriving at the truth; however, knowing that the truth is elusive, it is seen as more important to ensure that the principles of due process are followed. To arrive at the “truth” in law, conflicting points of view are presented within the strict parameters of a trial or appellate hearing, with each side putting its best case forward. Bias, self-interest, and advocacy are not only permitted but heralded as one of the strengths of the process. Indeed, what is of immediate concern and the driving force for the opposing lawyers is victory. Psychology, in contrast to law, attempts to arrive at “truth” (i.e., an understanding of some phenomenon) using a variety of diverse data-gathering methods. Common to all of these methods is the systematic collection of data, using procedures that attempt to “reduce bias, error and distortion in observation and inferences” (Haney, 1980, p. 162). Although this is not to say that bias does not enter into the research process, the goal of the psychologist is to attain an “objective” understanding of the phenomena rather than victory over a particular viewpoint.
  4. Law is prescriptive, whereas psychology is descriptive. The law is primarily prescriptive, telling “people how they should behave,” whereas psychology is “essentially a descriptive discipline, seeking to describe behavior as it actually occurs” (Haney, 1980, p. 163). This dimension captures a difference in the values espoused in the disciplines, with law outlining how one ought to behave and psychology adopting a more nonjudgmental orientation of how people do behave.
  5. Law is idiographic, whereas psychology is nomothetic. Law operates on a case-by-case basis, with each case decided on the basis of its specific facts. In contrast, psychology is interested in uncovering the general principles, relationships, and patterns that govern human behavior. The focus in psychology is not on a particular instance but rather on what transcends the particular instance.
  6. Decision making in law is based on the appearance of certainty, whereas decision making in psychology is based on probabilistic evidence. The decisions made in the law typically take on a dichotomous, all-or-nothing quality—the accused in a criminal trial is deemed either guilty or not guilty, the defendant in a civil case is found liable or not liable. Psychologists, in contrast, operate in terms of probabilities; for example, claims are asserted on the basis of evidence associated with a probability level (i.e., level of statistical significance). As a result, conclusions drawn by psychologists typically are qualified and not categorical by nature.
  7. Law is reactive, whereas psychology is proactive. The issues that arise in the law originate from outside the system, namely, cases are brought to the attention of lawyers. In contrast, psychologists, notwithstanding the presence of various external pressures (e.g., funding availability and the pressure to publish), have considerable control over the issues they study.
  8. Law is operational, whereas psychology is academic. Law is an applied discipline, and it is designed to deal with real-world problems. The players within the system (e.g., lawyers, parole officers, etc.) have clearly defined roles that prescribe the issues on which they will concentrate. In contrast, similar to the distinction noted previously, psychologists have considerable say over the issues they pursue. The driving force tends to be more of a quest for knowledge for its own sake (i.e., for academic reasons rather than for purely pragmatic reasons).

With these eight tensions in mind, included in what follows is an expansive survey of what can be characterized as forensic psychology. At a macro level, forensic psychologists can assist the legal system in four ways:

  1. Assisting the legal system.
  2. Assisting legal actors.
  3. Assisting litigants.
  4. Researching psychological matters.


There is no uniform or consensual definition of forensic psychology, and it is clear that psychologists make contributions to the legal system in a multitude of ways. Hugo Munsterberg, the first and perhaps most ardent proponent of what psychology had to offer the legal system, recognized this more than a century ago. In his 1908 treatise, On the Witness Stand, Munsterberg discussed a variety of ways in which psychologists could contribute to legal proceedings, with chapters devoted to phenomena as varied as lie detection, eyewitness memory, false confessions, and crime prevention. Munsterberg’s early work was widely castigated, and he could not have fathomed the success and growth the field has seen over the past century (Ogloff, 2011).

In the century that has passed since Munsterberg’s book, psychologists have become involved with the legal process and provided assistance to the legal system a multitude of ways, providing assistance to the courts in decision making, researching matters of interest to the legal system, and offering services to persons involved with the legal system. As the information in this research paper shows, the roles that forensic psychologists play are broad and varied, with some areas being far more developed than others (e.g., the treatment of criminal offenders versus the treatment of victims of crime). The reason that forensic psychology, as a field, is broad and diverse is that it reflects the breadth and diversity of the law. As such, we can expect an expanding array of topics in law with which psychology can contribute on both the micro (i.e., individual) and macro (i.e., systemic) levels.

Read more about Forensic Psychology:


  1. Alison, L., & Rainbow, L. (Eds.). (2011). Professionalizing offender profiling: Forensic investigative psychology in practice. Oxon, England: Routledge.
  2. American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for the practice of parenting coor­dination. American Psychologist, 67(1), 63-71.
  3. American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19.
  4. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
  5. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2000). Model standards of practice for family and divorce mediation. Madison, WI: Author.
  6. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2005). Guidelines for parenting coordination. Madison, WI: Author.
  7. Bartol, C. (1996). Police psychology: Then, now and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 70-89.
  8. Beck, C., & Sales, B. D. (2001). Family mediation: Facts, myths and future prospects. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  9. Bottoms, B. L., Najdowksi, C. J., & Goodman, G. S. (2009). Children as victims, witnesses, and offenders: Psychological science and the law. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  10. Briere, J., & Jordan, C. E. (2004). Violence against women: Outcome complexity and implications for assessment and treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,1277-1282.
  11. Brigham, J. (1999). What is forensic psychology anyway? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 273-298.
  12. Brockman, J., & Rose, V. R. (2011). An introduction to Canadian criminal procedure and evidence (4th ed.). Toronto, Canada: Nelson Thomson Learning.
  13. Brodsky, S. L. (2009). Principles and practices of trial consulting. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  14. Brussel, J. A. (1968). Casebook of a crime psychiatrist. New York, NY: Bernard Geis Associates.
  15. Bussey, K., Lee, K., & Grimbeck, E. J. (1993). Lies and secrets: Implications for children’s reporting of sexual abuse. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 147-168). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  16. Canter, J., & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative psychology: Offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action. Chichester, England: Wiley.
  17. Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1999). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  18. Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. Louis, MO: Mosby.
  19. Coates, C. A., Deutsch, R., Starnes, H., Sullivan, M. J., & Sydlik, B. L. (2004). Parenting coordination for high-conflict families. Family Court Review, 42, 246-262.
  20. Corey, D. M., & Borum, R. (2013). Forensic assessment for high-risk occupations. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 246-270). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  21. Craig, R. J. (2005). Personality-guided forensic psychology. Washington, DC: American Psycho­logical Association.
  22. Cronch, L. E., Viljoen, J. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2006). Forensic interviewing in child sexual abuse cases: Current techniques and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 195-207.
  23. Cutajar, M., Mullen, P. E., Ogloff, J. R. P., Thomas, S. D., Wells, D. L., & Spataro, J. (2010). Psychopathology in a large cohort of sexually abused children followed up to 43 years. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34, 813-822.
  24. Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling and crime scene analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 4,401-421.
  25. Douglas, K. S., Otto, R. K., Desmarais, S. L., & Borum, R. (2012). Clinical forensic psychology. In J. A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (2nd ed.), pp. 213-244. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  26. Emery, R. E., Sbarra, D., & Grover, T. (2005). Divorce mediation: Research and reflections. Family Court Review, 43, 22-37.
  27. Federal Rules of Evidence. (2011). Washington, DC: Lexis-Nexis Group. Forensic Specialty Council. (2008). Petition for the recognition of a specialty in professional psychology: Forensic psychology (renewal). Washington, DC: Author.
  28. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34, 575-607.
  29. Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463-489.
  30. Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
  31. Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
  32. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1998). Assessing competence to consent to treatment. A guide for physicians and other health care professionals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  33. Haney, C. (1980). Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 371-398.
  34. Hare, R. (1998). Psychopaths and their nature: Implications for the mental health and criminal justice systems. In T., Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 188-212). New York: Guilford Press.
  35. Hicks, S. J., & Sales, B. D. (2006). Criminal profiling: Developing an effective science and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  36. Hiller, M. L., Belenko, S., Welsh, W., Zajac, G., & Peters, R. H. (2011). Screening and assessment: An evidence-based process for the management and care of adult drug-involved offenders. In C. G. Leukefeld, J. Gregrich, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook on evidence-based substance abuse treatment practice in criminal justice settings (pp. 45-62). New York, NY: Springer.
  37. Holloway, J. (2003, January). The perils of profiling. Monitor on Psychology, 34,1.
  38. Huss, M. (2009). Forensic psychology: Research, clinical practice and applications. West Sussex, England: Wiley Blackwell.
  39. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2010). Improving police response to persons with mental illness. Alexandria, VA: Author.
  40. Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevalence. Lancet, 359, 1423-1429.
  41. Johnston, J. R., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the name of the child: A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
  42. Karmen, A. (2010). Crime victims: An introduction to criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cenage Learning.
  43. Kesic, D., Thomas, S. D., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2013). Estimated rates of mental disorders in, and situational characteristics of, incidents of nonfatal use of force by police. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(2): 225-232.
  44. Kilpatrick, D. G., Resick, P. A., & Veronen, L. J. (1981). Effects of a rape experience: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 105-112.
  45. Kirkland, K., & Sullivan, M. (2008). Parenting coordination (PC) practice: A survey of experienced professionals. Family Court Review, 46, 622-636.
  46. Kovera, M. B. (2012). Voir dire and jury selection. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 630-647).
  47. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674.
  48. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586.
  49. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
  50. Kressel, N. J., & Kressel, D. F. (2004). Stack and sway: The new science of jury consulting. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  51. Kuehnle, K., & Connell, M. (2009). The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A comprehen­sive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  52. Kuehnle, K., & Connell, M. (2012). Child sexual abuse evaluations. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 579-614). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  53. Losel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing re-offending: Guidelines from research and practice, (pp. 70-111). Chichester, England: Wiley.
  54. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2007). Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don’t already know? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 849-870.
  55. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 385-408.
  56. McGuire, J. (2002). Criminal sanctions versus psychologically-based interventions with offenders: A comparative empirical analysis. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 8, 183-208.
  57. McLean, M. (1995). Quality investigation? Police interviewing of witnesses. Medicine, Science and Law, 35, 116-122.
  58. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Lyons, P., & Otto, R. K. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  59. Millon, T., Simonsen, E., Birket-Smith, M., & Davis, R. D. (Eds.). (1998). Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  60. Monahan, J. (2012). Violence risk assessment. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 541-555). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  61. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  62. Ogloff, J. R. P. (2011). A century of psychology and law: Successes, challenges, and future opportunities. In P. Martin et al. (Eds.), The IAAP handbook of applied psychology (pp. 362-385). London, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
  63. Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk-needs-responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 229-242.
  64. Ogloff, J. R. P., Thomas, S. D. M., Luebbers, S., Baksheev, G., Elliott, I., et al. (2013). Policing services with mentally ill people: Developing greater understanding and best practice. Australian Psychologist, 48, 57-68.
  65. Olczak, P. V., Kaplan, M. F., & Penrod, S. (1991). Attorneys’ lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 431 -452.
  66. Otto, R. K., & Douglas, K. S. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of violence risk assessment. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
  67. Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57, 5-18.
  68. Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of psychopathy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  69. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.
  70. Peters, R. H. (2011). Drug court treatment services: Applying research findings to practice—an issues commentary and resource brief. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
  71. Peters, R. H., & Belenko, S. (2011). Diversion programs. In M. Kleiman, J. Hawdon, & G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of drug policy (pp. 201-203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  72. Peters, R. H., Haas, A., & Hunt, M. (2002). Treatment “dosage” effects in drug court programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33, 63-72.
  73. Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reduc­ing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 72-96.
  74. Peters, R. H., & Young, S. (2011). Coerced drug treatment. In M. Kleiman, J. Hawdon, & G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of drug policy (pp. 142-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  75. Porter, B. (1983). Mind hunters. Psychology Today, 17, 44-52.
  76. Posey, A. J., & Dahl, L. M. (2002). Beyond pretrial publicity: Legal and ethical issues associated with change of venue surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 26,107-125.
  77. Posey, A. J., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2005). Trial consulting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  78. Poythress, N., Monahan, J., Bonnie, R., Otto, R. K., & Hoge, S. (2002). Adjudicative competence: The MacArthur studies. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
  79. Redlich, A. D., Steadman, H. D., Monahan, J., Robbins, P. C., & Petrila, J. (2005). Patterns of practice in mental health courts. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 347-362.
  80. Redlich, A. D., Steadman, H. J., Monahan, J., Petrila, J., & Griffin, P. A. (2005). The second generation of mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 527-538.
  81. Simourd, D., & Hoge, R. (2000). Criminal psychopathy: A risk-and-need perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 256 -272.
  82. Snook, B., Cullen, R. M., Bennell, C., Taylor, P., & Gendreau, P. (2008). The criminal profiling illusion: What’s behind the smoke and mirrors? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1257-1276.
  83. Stafford, K. P., & Sellbom, M. O. (2012). Assessment of competence to stand trial. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 412-439).
  84. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sullivan, M. (2008). Coparenting and the parenting coordination process. Journal of Child Custody, 5, 4-24.
  85. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965).
  86. Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1987). Social frameworks: A new use of social science in law. Virginia Law Review, 73, 559-792.
  87. Wells, G., & Loftus, E. (2012). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 617-629). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  88. Wilson, C., & Powell, M. (2001). A guide to interviewing children: Essential skills for counsellors, police, lawyers and social workers. Sydney, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.
  89. Zapf, P., & Roesch, R. (2010). Evaluation of competence to stand trial. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  90. Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Rogers Imports, 216 F. Supp 670 (Southern District of New York 1963).