Scientometrics

, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 655–693 | Cite as

Four decades of the journal Law and Human Behavior: a content analysis

  • Lindsey E. Wylie
  • Katherine P. Hazen
  • Lori A. Hoetger
  • Joshua A. Haby
  • Eve M. Brank
Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

Although still relatively young, the journal Law and Human Behavior (LHB) has amassed a publication history of more than 1300 full-length articles over four decades. Yet, no systematic analysis of the journal has been done until now. The current research coded all full-length articles to examine trends over time, predictors of the number of Google Scholar citations, and predictors of whether an article was cited by a court case. The predictors of interest included article organization, research topics, areas of law, areas of psychology, first-author gender, first-author country of institutional affiliation, and samples employed. Results revealed a vast and varied field that has shown marked diversification over the years. First authors have consistently become more diversified in both gender and country of institutional affiliation. Overall, the most common research topics were jury/judicial decision-making and eyewitness/memory, the most common legal connections were to criminal law and mental health law, and the most common psychology connection was to social-cognitive psychology. Research in psychology and law has the potential to impact both academic researchers and the legal system. Articles published in LHB appear to accomplish both.

Keywords

Content analysis Law and Human Behavior Psychology and law history Research trends 

References

  1. Adair, J. G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58, 15–23.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APA (American Psychological Association). (2017). Law and Human Behavior. Retrieved February 28th, 2017, from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/lhb/.
  3. AP-LS. (2017). American Psychology-Law Society. http://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/index.aspx.
  4. Appelbaum, P. S., & Grisso, T. (1995). The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study. I: Mental illness and competence to consent to treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 19(2), 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, L. A., & Emery, R. E. (1993). When every relationship is above average: Perceptions and expectations of divorce at the time of marriage. Law and Human Behavior, 17(4), 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, C. E., Pryce, J., & Walsh, F. (2002). Trends in author characteristics and diversity issues in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy from 1990 to 2000. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 479–485.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2002.tb00372.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Borrego, Á. (2013). Scientific production in psychology: A gender analysis. Scientometrics, 95, 15–23.  https://doi.org/10.1077/s11192-012-0816-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23(1), 75–91.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022326807441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2008). Hugo who? G.F. Arnold’s alternative early approach to psychology and law. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 759–768.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornstein, B. H., Wiener, R. L., & Maeder, E. M. (2008). Pioneers in interdisciplinary legal education: A history of the UNL law-psychology program. In A. G. Gless (Ed.), The history of Nebraska law (pp. 174–194). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Christidis, P., Wicherski, M., Hamp, A., Stamm, K. & Nigrinis, A. (2014, October). How is the gender composition of faculty in graduate psychology departments changing? American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology, 45, 11. Retrieved February 28th, 2017, from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/datapoint.aspx.
  12. Cikara, M., Rudman, L., & Fiske, S. (2012). Dearth by a thousand cuts? Accounting for gender differences in top-ranked publication rates in social psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychology Measurement, 20, 37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutler, B. L. (2007). Editor’s note. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9085-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9008-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687–706.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delgado-Romero, E. A., Galván, N., Maschino, P., & Rowland, M. (2005). Race and ethnicity in empirical counseling and counseling psychology research: A 10-year review. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 419–448.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004268637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2000). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–727.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024831908377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dillon, J. Y. (1981). The emergence of the colon: An empirical correlate of scholarship. American Psychologist, 36, 879–884.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.36.8.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338–342.  https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferber, M. A. (1986). Citations: Are they an objective measure of scholarly merit? Signs, 11, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Godin, B. (2006). On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 68, 109–133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0086-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodman, G. S., & Reed, R. S. (1986). Age differences in eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10(4), 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjects were White and middle class”: Trends in published research on African Americans. American Psychologist, 47, 629–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2014). Wrightsman’s psychology and the legal system (8th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  28. Grisso, T. (1991). A developmental history of the american psychology—Law society. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 213–231.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01061710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1995). The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study. III: Abilities of Patients to consent to psychiatric and medical treatments. Law and Human Behavior, 19(2), 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., et al. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haney, C. (1980). Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 147–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01040317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haney, C. (1993). Psychology and legal change: The impact of a decade. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 371–398.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01044374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005482921333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1991). Psychopathy and violent recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76, 169–185.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1892-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2010). Predicting long-term citation impact of articles in social and personality psychology. Psychological Reports, 106, 891–900.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.106.3.891-900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hérubel, J. P. V., Diodato, V., & Sellen, M. K. (1999). Historical bibliometrics: Its purpose and significance to the history of disciplines. Libraries & Culture, 34, 380–388.Google Scholar
  39. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hudson, J. (2007). Be known by the company you keep: Citations—Quality or chance? Scientometrics, 71, 231–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1617-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (2015). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Bloomington, IN. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.
  42. Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kilpatrick, D. G. (2000). Definitions of public policy and the law. Retrieved from the National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center Web site https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/policy/definition.shtml.
  44. Kim, J. N., Park, S. C., Yoo, S. W., & Shen, H. (2010). Mapping health communication scholarship: Breadth, depth, and agenda of published research in Health Communication. Health Communication, 25, 487–503.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.507160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kliegl, R., & Bates, D. (2010). International collaboration in psychology is on the rise. Scientometrics, 87, 149–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0299-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kovera, M. B. (2013a). Law and human behavior update. American Psychology Law Society: Summer 2013 News. Retrieved April 24, 2016, from http://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/publications/newsletters/news/2013/07/issue.pdf.
  47. Kovera, M. B. (2013b). Law and human behavior update. American Psychology Law Society: Winter 2013 News. Retrieved April 24, 2016, from http://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/publications/newsletters/news/2013/01-issue.pdf.
  48. Kovera, M. B. (2015, July). Law and human behavior: Journal update. AP-LS News. Retrieved April 13, 2016, from http://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/publications/newsletters/news/2015/07/journal-update.aspx.
  49. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 28–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leistico, A. M. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J., & Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32(1), 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Levesque, R. J. R. (2007). The ethnicity of adolescent research. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lewison, G., & Hartley, J. (2005). What’s in a title? Numbers of words and the presence of colons. Scientometrics, 63, 341–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0216-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus”. Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qualitative Social Research, 1. Retrieved 16 Feb 2018 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-e.htm.
  56. McCann, L. I., Ebert, A. R., Timmins, R. R., & Thompson, A. E. (2017). Changes in author, editor, and reviewer genders over 42 years in teaching of psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 24–245.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317712748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3–35.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). The psychology of law. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441–475.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.002301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moore, L. R., & Finn, P. E. (1986). Forensic psychology: An empirical review of experimental research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 675–679.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. New York: Doubleday, Page, & Co.Google Scholar
  61. Ogloff, J. R. P. (2000). Two steps forward and one step backward: The law and psychology movement(s) in the 20th century. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 457–483.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005596414203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Porter, C. L., Christian, L., & Poling, A. (2003). Participation of women as authors and editors in journals concerned with mental retardation and related topics. Mental Retardation, 41, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1997). Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21(2), 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Cormier, C. A. (1992). An evaluation of a maximum security therapeutic community for psychopaths and other mentally disordered offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 16(4), 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roesch, R. (1990). From the editor. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01055785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Saks, M. J. (1986). The law does not live by eyewitness testimony alone. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 279–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01047341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent development and the measurement of juvenile psychopathy. Law and Human Behavior, 26(2), 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Small, M. A. (1993). Legal psychology and therapeutic jurisprudence. St. Louis University Law Journal, 37, 675–698.Google Scholar
  71. Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413–424.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02352267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20(3), 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sternberg, R. J., & Gordeeva, T. (1996). The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential? Psychological Science, 7, 69–75.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00332.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stewart, J. (1983). Achievement and ascriptive processes in the recognition of scientific articles. Social Forces, 62, 166–189.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2578354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., Penrod, S. D., Pathak-Sharma, M. K., Groscup, J. L., & Devenport, J. L. (2002). Studying pretrial publicity effects: New methods for improving ecological validity and testing external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 19–41.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013877108082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tapp, J. L. (1976). Psychology and the law: An overture. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 359–404.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.27.020176.002043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
  78. Vaccaro, T. P., & Hogan, J. D. (2004). The origins of forensic psychology in America: Hugo Munsterberg on the witness stand. New York State Psychologist, 16, 14–17.Google Scholar
  79. Walia, P. K., & Kaur, M. (2012). Content Analysis of Journal Literature published from UK and USA. Library Philosophy & Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/833/.
  80. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025750605807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. West, M. S., & Curtis, J. W. (2006). AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006 (p. 85). Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nebraska, OmahaOmahaUSA
  2. 2.University of Nebraska, LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations