Legal Psychology: How Psychological Science Is Applied to Law
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Legal psychology is the scientific study of how people perceive, understand, create, experience, and participate in law, and how psychological knowledge can improve legal procedures, decisions, and institutions. It investigates eyewitness memory, interviewing, confession evidence, jurors and judges, legal competence, risk judgments, procedural fairness, and behavior within civil and criminal justice systems. It also examines how rules and legal institutions shape people's choices, trust, and sense of fairness. The field connects cognitive, social, developmental, clinical, and applied psychological research with concrete legal questions.
A useful starting distinction is that psychological findings describe what people tend to perceive, remember, decide, and do under studied conditions, whereas legal standards determine what courts and public authorities must decide. An empirical association is not a finding of guilt, a diagnosis is not a legal determination, and a psychological assessment cannot establish the meaning of a statute. The American Psychological Association's overview of law and psychology and its professional introduction to legal psychology illustrate the breadth of the field.
What Is Legal Psychology?
Legal psychology is an interdisciplinary area of psychology devoted to human behavior and mental processes in legal settings. It studies what happens before, during, and after legal decisions: how individuals interpret the legitimacy of law, how police collect human evidence, how attorneys and witnesses communicate, how juries reason about evidence, how courts respond to expert opinions, and how public policies affect people who encounter the justice system.
The central object of study is the interaction between psychological processes and legal institutions. Psychological mechanisms such as attention, memory, persuasion, motivation, emotion, judgment, suggestibility, and social influence are investigated under legal conditions. In turn, the constraints of law—rules of evidence, rights, procedural safeguards, judicial standards, institutional power, and remedies—shape which psychological questions matter and what uses of the research are legitimate.
Legal psychology can be a basic research enterprise, an applied science, or an area of professional practice. An experimental researcher might test how wording influences juror understanding. A researcher working with a court might evaluate a new witness-identification protocol. A qualified forensic psychologist might evaluate a person's legally relevant abilities. These activities draw on related science while answering different questions, requiring different training, and operating under different ethical and legal obligations.
The journal Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society, covers the interface of behavior and law across criminal, juvenile, civil, family, and immigration systems. Its research scope includes eyewitnesses, confessions, courts, risk assessment, professional evaluations, and correctional intervention.
Is Legal Psychology the Same as Forensic Psychology?
Terminology varies across institutions and professional contexts. The APA Dictionary-derived APA overview treats forensic psychology, also called legal psychology, as the application of psychological principles to civil and criminal legal systems. A 2025 APA education article uses legal psychology as a broad umbrella and describes forensic psychology, often centered on clinical assessments, as one of its applied areas. These uses overlap because scholars sometimes classify fields according to scientific subject matter and professional regulators classify activities according to their purpose.
For readers, the practical distinction lies in the primary question. Legal psychology often investigates general psychological processes in legal systems: witness accuracy, legal decision-making, perceived fairness, persuasion, procedural compliance, and the effect of legal procedures. Forensic psychological practice often asks a referral-specific question about an individual or legal dispute: competency, capacity, parenting-related abilities, mental state, or other matters requiring specialized evaluation and, sometimes, expert testimony. Both can intersect in one case.
Criminal psychology, meanwhile, focuses on psychological questions associated with criminal behavior, offending, and its context. It does not cover the full civil or legal-decision landscape. This article defines the larger legal-psychology field; detailed guides to forensic psychology, criminal psychology, and psychological assessments belong to their own distinct canonical articles in the English Hub.
Why Psychological Science Matters to Law
Law continuously depends on judgments about human behavior. A court asks what a witness perceived, whether evidence was collected reliably, what an individual understood, how testimony should be interpreted, or what information is relevant to a legal standard. Legislators and administrators must consider how rules operate when people experience stress, ambiguity, social pressure, incentives, or institutional barriers. Legal psychology turns those practical questions into testable research problems.
Its contributions can be understood through a cycle: identify a legal decision that depends on assumptions about behavior; specify the underlying psychological construct; gather appropriately designed evidence; assess whether the findings generalize to the target legal population; propose a safeguard or change in practice; and evaluate real-world consequences. Every stage can introduce error, especially when laboratory results are treated as if they established what happened in a unique case.
One example is eyewitness identification. A scientifically informed policy might specify standardized instructions, blinded administration, immediate recording of confidence, and documentation of the entire procedure. These recommendations arise from a structured review of the research, rather than an assumption that confident eyewitnesses are uniformly accurate or uniformly inaccurate. The National Research Council's consensus report articulates the evidence and its limits.
Another example is expert testimony. Psychological expertise may assist a judge or jury, but the applicable evidence law governs admissibility. In United States federal courts, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended in 2023, requires the proponent to show by a more-likely-than-not standard that expert evidence satisfies specified reliability and helpfulness requirements. That federal rule should never be mistaken for a universal rule governing every court, state, or country.
Main Areas of Legal Psychology
Eyewitness Memory and Identification
Human memory reconstructs information through attention, encoding, retention, and retrieval. Lighting, viewing distance, stress, event duration, prior knowledge, conversation, and later feedback can alter what a witness recalls and reports. Investigators therefore need to consider both conditions surrounding the original event and the procedures used to collect an identification.
The National Research Council recommends blind or blinded lineup administration, standardized instructions that the perpetrator may be absent, verbatim recording of initial confidence, and recording identification procedures. Research synthesized by Wixted and Wells further demonstrates why initial confidence can be informative in properly administered, uncontaminated identification conditions, while later confidence after suggestive feedback may mislead. These conclusions depend on how the memory test was administered and should not be applied indiscriminately to a specific eyewitness.
Legal psychology also studies child witnesses, suggestive questions, source confusion, repeated interviews, and the relationship between memory accuracy and subjective certainty. Those subjects require their own evidence reviews. A broad introduction to legal psychology cannot determine whether any particular witness in an actual case was truthful or accurate.
Police Interviewing, Interrogation, and Confessions
Interviewing is a process for obtaining an account. Interrogation practices differ by training, jurisdiction, legal protections, and the goals of questioning. Legal psychologists investigate how question format, duration, false-evidence presentations, threats, promises, social influence, fatigue, developmental vulnerability, and access to counsel affect both information quality and the possibility of false confessions.
A major 2025 scientific review by Kassin and colleagues synthesizes risk factors and reform recommendations associated with police-induced confessions. The APA's 2022 resolution recommends complete recording of custodial interviews and interrogations, caution about extended questioning and false-evidence tactics, and additional protections for vulnerable people. Such professional recommendations inform practice and policy; the admissibility of a statement remains a legal question governed by the relevant jurisdiction and case law.
A confession is behavioral evidence with context, not a psychological truth detector. Researchers distinguish an experimentally observed decision under controlled conditions from an actual suspect's statement, whose origin, corroboration, contamination, and legal status require separate examination. False confessions also illustrate why sincerity, apparent detail, and emotional presentation do not alone settle factual guilt.
Judges, Juries, and Courtroom Decisions
Legal psychology examines how judges, jurors, attorneys, and parties process testimony, statistical evidence, narratives, scientific claims, instructions, and uncertainty. Relevant research covers comprehension of jury instructions, pretrial information, decision-making under time pressure, group deliberation, credibility inferences, plea decisions, and potential cognitive biases. Studies may employ mock jurors, archival records, interviews, field observation, or natural experiments, each with different strengths.
A mock-jury experiment may isolate the effect of one kind of evidence under controlled conditions, yet a real trial includes numerous interactions, legal instructions, evidentiary rules, and case-specific facts. Results from simulated trials therefore inform hypotheses and institutional design; they do not provide an individualized probability that a named juror or judge will decide one way.
Judicial and jury decisions also involve legal rules that vary by jurisdiction. A psychological study may reveal that a certain presentation influences perceptions of credibility, while evidence law determines whether that presentation is permissible. The core research-to-law task is to make the behavioral inference explicit and demonstrate its practical relevance without substituting a psychological preference for the applicable legal standard.
Legal Attitudes, Legitimacy, and Procedural Justice
Legal systems function through perceptions of authority and fairness as well as formal enforcement. People evaluate whether officials treat them respectfully, explain decisions, allow participation, act consistently, and exercise power appropriately. These experiences can affect institutional trust, cooperation, and perceived legitimacy.
In an Annual Review of Psychology synthesis, Tom Tyler describes legitimacy as a psychological quality through which people regard authority as appropriate and feel an obligation to follow its rules. This is an account of perceived legitimacy, not a judicial determination that a law or institution is legally legitimate. Legal psychology studies these beliefs empirically, including how experiences with courts, police, and public authorities may shape them.
Research in this area can inform procedural design and communication, but results depend on institutions, communities, historical experiences, and study designs. A program that improves reported satisfaction in one setting may not automatically improve compliance, trust, or long-term outcomes elsewhere. Researchers should measure each claimed outcome directly.
Civil Law, Families, Disability, and Rights
Legal psychology extends beyond criminal trials. Civil and administrative settings raise questions about comprehension, decision-making, disability-related accommodations, workplace disputes, personal-injury claims, guardianship, capacity, child protection, and custody procedures. Psychological knowledge may help explain how people understand proceedings and may support evaluations conducted under an appropriately defined legal referral question.
Professional assessment roles are governed by standards for competence, impartiality, accurate methods, and communication of limitations. The APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology describe forensic work as applying psychological knowledge to legal, contractual, and administrative matters. Those guidelines are professional guidance, not a replacement for the laws that establish custody standards, competence thresholds, disability protections, or the authority of courts.
Civil forensic practice must differentiate a measured psychological capacity from a court's decision concerning legal capacity, which depends on the governing rule and evidence. Psychological testing can supply relevant information; scores cannot by themselves confer or remove legal rights.
Juvenile Justice, Development, and Correctional Settings
Developmental psychology informs questions about adolescents' understanding of rights, suggestibility, decision-making, and ability to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings. A person's age alone does not establish individual competence, and the legal significance of maturity depends on the question before the court. Research supports developmentally sensitive procedures while requiring attention to individual functioning and applicable law.
Correctional and reentry research evaluates institutional conditions, rehabilitation interventions, behavior change, and post-release outcomes. The systematic review and meta-analysis by Beaudry and colleagues studied randomized trials of psychological interventions in prisons and the outcome of recidivism. Such reviews are informative about studied programs and populations, yet the strength and generalizability of an intervention claim depend on the underlying studies, outcome definitions, follow-up period, and implementation quality.
Justice-involved people have heterogeneous needs, strengths, and pathways. Psychological intervention can address functioning, skills, mental health, and reintegration. Clinical care, institutional policy, punishment, and legal supervision remain distinct systems of decision-making.
How Legal Psychologists Study Their Questions
Experimental studies can manipulate a procedure—such as instructions or feedback—and measure its effect while holding other features constant. Experiments are valuable for causal inference within the study design, but artificial tasks, nonrepresentative samples, incentives, and simulated stakes may limit transfer to real legal settings. Replication across populations and realistic conditions is critical.
Field studies observe actual interviews, legal decisions, court records, or justice-system interventions. They bring ecological validity but frequently face confounding, incomplete records, selective samples, and difficulties defining true outcomes. Administrative datasets may reveal correlations at scale without establishing why a particular person acted in a particular way. Researchers must examine how cases entered the dataset and which groups are missing.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine findings under defined eligibility and appraisal methods. They can detect patterns and variation that isolated studies obscure, but they inherit the weaknesses of their included studies. A systematic review of forensic judgment bias, for example, assesses what studies show about expert decision-making; it does not imply that every expert judgment in a specific lawsuit is biased. See Neal and colleagues' 2022 review.
Legal psychologists also use psychometric research to assess reliability, validity, subgroup performance, and consequences of scores. Reliability concerns consistency; validity concerns the interpretation and use of results for an intended purpose. A measure validated for one population and decision should not be presumed valid in a different legal setting. When policy changes follow research, evaluators should test implementation and actual outcomes, not merely assume that adopting a recommended procedure guarantees accuracy.
From Psychological Evidence to a Legal Question
The first question in any responsible legal application is what legal issue must be answered. Legal competence, credibility, criminal responsibility, damages, parental capacity, risk management, and eyewitness reliability are distinct referral questions. Each may require different data and different expertise, and their legal definitions may differ among jurisdictions.
Next comes an operational psychological question: what construct is being measured or investigated, and by what observations or instruments? A behavioral observation describes what someone did; a clinical diagnosis classifies symptoms under a diagnostic framework; a screening result flags a possibility; a psychometric score summarizes performance on a measure. None of these automatically establishes a legal conclusion.
A forensic opinion is a professional interpretation made within a defined assignment, using methods appropriate to the issue and communicating uncertainty. A legal finding is made by an authorized legal decision-maker under the relevant law and evidentiary rules. Criminal responsibility is a legal question with jurisdiction-dependent tests. Competency to stand trial concerns the person's present functional abilities to participate in proceedings under an applicable legal standard and should not be confused with mental state at the time of an alleged offense.
Prediction of future behavior introduces further complexity. A risk factor is a variable associated with an outcome in studied populations, not proof that an individual will act violently. A protective factor may be associated with lower risk under specific conditions. A risk estimate, if appropriate, must be interpreted with the population, outcome window, base rate, calibration, sensitivity, specificity, and consequences of false positive and false negative classifications in view.
A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of violence-risk instruments in forensic psychiatric populations reported mixed predictive performance and major limitations in the supporting studies, including widespread risk of bias. These findings underscore a principle of legal psychology: group-level discrimination is different from a calibrated estimate for a person, and neither is evidence of guilt.
Validity, False Positives, Cultural Fairness, and Scientific Uncertainty
A well-designed psychological study clarifies the population sampled, the target construct, the procedure, the reference outcome, and the degree of uncertainty. In legal decisions, misclassification matters because consequences can be severe. If an assessment labels someone high risk who does not later produce the assessed outcome, that is a false positive relative to the defined outcome period. Missing a future outcome is a false negative. The number and distribution of both types of error depend on prevalence, thresholds, sampling, and follow-up.
Discrimination, often represented by the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve, describes how well a score orders cases with and without an observed outcome. Calibration addresses the correspondence between stated risk probabilities and observed event rates. These properties are not interchangeable. When reporting a risk tool's performance, researchers should also disclose population restrictions, uncertainty intervals, subgroup validity, temporal horizon, and intended decision use.
Cultural and linguistic fairness requires more than translating a questionnaire. Construct meaning, item interpretation, disability accommodations, population selection, differential measurement functioning, institutional disparities, and access to competent evaluation may affect scores and outcomes. The consequences of a model or instrument can differ even when its overall predictive statistic appears acceptable. Legal decision-makers should ask whether fairness was studied for the particular use and population.
Scientific claims are also exposed to confirmation bias and context effects. Neal and colleagues' systematic review documents the relevance of cognitive bias in forensic mental health judgment. Safeguards may include explicit alternative hypotheses, attention to disconfirming evidence, appropriate blinding, transparent methods, independent review, and separating irrelevant case details from decisions that do not require them. These are design approaches, not guarantees of an error-free opinion.
What Legal Psychology Does Not Establish
Legal psychology cannot determine criminal guilt from body language, a personality label, a brain image, an isolated confession, or a risk score. Nonverbal behavior is contextual and culturally variable. The popular notion that a single gesture reliably reveals lying is not a defensible basis for deciding whether an allegation is true. Investigative behavioral inference should be evaluated as a testable claim with known accuracy, limitations, and an appropriate comparison standard.
A psychiatric diagnosis does not establish criminality or dangerousness. Clinical symptoms, substance-related impairment, past behavior, social context, exposure to violence, structural opportunities, and legal circumstances are distinct variables requiring careful interpretation. When a study finds group differences, it remains inappropriate to infer that any named person with a diagnosis committed an offense or is likely to do so. For clinical background on this distinction, see the English Hub's Schizophrenia and Violence: What Research Really Shows.
Psychology also cannot decide which policy is just solely by measuring attitudes or behavioral outcomes. Questions about rights, liberty, equality, punishment, and due process require legal and normative judgment. Psychological evidence contributes to decisions when its limitations and normative assumptions are visible.
The field should not be treated as a branch of criminal profiling. Profiling and deception claims are specific investigative applications with contested or context-dependent evidence. Legal psychology also includes civil proceedings, institutional legitimacy, testimony, public policy, juvenile rights, and extensive basic research on memory and decision-making.
Professional Roles, Careers, and Training
Legal psychologists may work as university researchers, forensic clinicians, court researchers, behavioral scientists in public agencies, program evaluators, research methodologists, policy advisers, or qualified expert witnesses. Actual job titles vary. Many positions involve research and statistical skills rather than clinical treatment or individual assessments.
Training routes depend on the role. Legal-psychology research often follows graduate training in cognitive, social, developmental, or psychology-and-law research methods. Independent clinical forensic assessments ordinarily require applicable professional licensing, supervised experience, and specialized competence. Studying legal psychology at the undergraduate level does not by itself qualify someone to offer forensic clinical opinions or testify as an expert.
Professional practice demands role clarity. An evaluator working for a court has a different obligation and confidentiality structure from a treating clinician. The person being evaluated should receive appropriate information about the evaluator's role, the nature and limits of confidentiality, and how findings may be used. The APA Specialty Guidelines emphasize impartiality, competence, fairness, avoiding conflicts of interest, and careful communication. Ethical guidance and local law must be considered together.
Career opportunities encompass both criminal and civil systems. The APA's 2025 overview of legal-psychology careers describes research, courts, government, law enforcement, and corrections as possible settings. Employment qualifications, licensing restrictions, and titles differ by jurisdiction and employer.
Ethical and Legal Boundaries
There is a substantial difference between informing a legal decision and making that decision. Legal psychologists should describe their methods and the inferential steps connecting observations to conclusions. Relevant alternatives, missing information, instrument limitations, and limits to cultural generalization belong in the analysis. An opinion must remain proportionate to the evidence.
In United States federal litigation, Rule 702 concerns the admission of expert evidence; other jurisdictions use their own procedural and substantive rules. Experts may have scientific disagreement over validity even where an opinion is legally admissible, and admissibility itself does not demonstrate that an opinion is correct in a particular matter.
Research participants, witnesses, accused people, children, individuals with disabilities, and justice-involved populations can face important power imbalances. Ethical research and practice require attention to informed participation, privacy, accessible communication, procedural fairness, and the foreseeable consequences of interpretation. A psychologically informed legal system should evaluate whether a proposed measure improves valid evidence collection or fair participation and whether burdens fall unevenly on affected groups.
How to Evaluate a Legal-Psychology Claim
A reliable claim begins with a clearly stated question. Ask whether the statement concerns a psychological mechanism, diagnosis, observation, legal capacity, expert interpretation, or legal outcome. Then examine the study design, sample, comparison condition, accuracy measure, and whether the asserted result was replicated in situations resembling the legal context.
For eyewitness studies, ask about blinded administration, witness instructions, contamination, and initial confidence. For confession research, examine the methods of interrogation, the vulnerabilities of participants, and corroboration. For risk research, demand not just a headline AUC but calibration, base rates, false positives and negatives, and validation in the population where the instrument will be used.
For courtroom research, distinguish simulated decisions from cases involving real rules and incentives. For professional guidelines, distinguish research findings from recommendations. For legal statements, identify the exact jurisdiction and date. These distinctions make psychology useful to law precisely because they keep each type of evidence within its rightful scope.
Common Myths About Legal Psychology
Myth: Legal psychology is only about serial killers.
Criminal behavior is one specialized subject. The larger field investigates legal institutions, eyewitnesses, courts, family disputes, civil rights, legal compliance, expert testimony, and public policy. Everyday legal processes generate a great deal of legal-psychology research.
Myth: A psychologist can tell whether someone is lying by reading body language.
No isolated behavioral cue establishes deception. Research on interviewing and confessions evaluates specific procedures and their error risks. Popular certainty about gestures, eye movements, or demeanor is a poor substitute for corroborated evidence and validated methods.
Myth: A diagnosis or psychopathy score proves that someone is dangerous or guilty.
Diagnosis, personality measures, observed behavior, and criminal responsibility answer different questions. Risk tools concern outcome probabilities in populations and circumstances; they are not tests of whether a person committed a crime.
Myth: Eyewitness confidence is always meaningless or always reliable.
The evidence is conditional. Immediate, uncontaminated confidence following a properly administered identification can carry information, while later confidence influenced by feedback or suggestive procedures may be seriously misleading. See Wixted and Wells.
Myth: An expert's scientific opinion automatically becomes a legal finding.
Expert testimony is evidence subject to legal standards, evaluation, and challenge. Judges and juries decide authorized legal questions. Methods that are relevant to a research question still need an adequate evidentiary basis for the specific legal application.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is legal psychology in simple terms?
Legal psychology studies how human perception, memory, thinking, emotions, social influence, and behavior interact with laws and legal institutions. It uses research to improve evidence collection, decision-making, procedures, and policy.
What is the difference between legal psychology and forensic psychology?
The terms overlap. In a broad academic usage, legal psychology includes research on psychology and law, while forensic psychology often identifies specialized practice directed at legal referral questions. Some professional and dictionary sources use the names interchangeably; always check the context of the source.
Does legal psychology include criminal psychology?
Yes, as a related area when criminal behavior or offending is the question. Legal psychology also addresses civil law, justice institutions, witness memory, judges, juries, procedures, and attitudes toward the law.
Can legal psychologists work in court?
Qualified professionals may conduct research for courts, evaluate policies, explain scientifically relevant findings, or offer expert opinions when appropriately trained and legally permitted. Clinical forensic evaluations and expert testimony require specialized competence and may require licensing or court qualification.
Is legal psychology a type of therapy?
Legal psychology is a field of scientific inquiry and application, and therapeutic services are only one possible intersection. Forensic treatment, corrections, public policy, laboratory research, and legal decision studies involve different professional roles.
Can legal psychology predict whether someone will commit a crime?
Research can identify group-level risk associations and evaluate some prediction tools within defined populations. Such evidence does not establish an individual person's future conduct or guilt. Performance must be evaluated for calibration, discrimination, base rates, time horizon, subgroup fairness, and the harms of errors.
What are examples of legal psychology in everyday life?
Examples include improving identification instructions, making a court notice more understandable, designing fairer hearings, evaluating how people perceive the legitimacy of an agency, examining how jurors interpret probabilities, and developing developmentally appropriate procedures for young witnesses.
What degree do you need to become a legal psychologist?
That depends on the job. Research roles generally require advanced research training; independent clinical forensic evaluation typically requires a relevant professional degree, supervised clinical training, licensure where applicable, and forensic specialization. A course or undergraduate concentration alone does not establish authority to provide expert clinical opinions.
Why is legal psychology important?
Many legal systems rely on assumptions about what people understand, remember, intend, and decide. Testing those assumptions helps institutions identify avoidable errors, improve procedures, communicate uncertainty, and evaluate the consequences of rules.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19. Official professional guideline.
American Psychological Association. (2022). Resolution on interrogations of criminal suspects. APA policy.
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Forensics, law, and public safety. APA subject overview.
Beaudry, G., Yu, R., Perry, A. E., & Fazel, S. (2021). Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet Psychiatry, 8, 759–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00170-X.
Cantone, J. A. (2025). Bringing legal psychology into your classroom. American Psychological Association. Official APA article.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702. (2023 amendment). Testimony by expert witnesses. Rule text and committee notes.
Kassin, S. M., Cleary, H. M. D., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., & Scherr, K. C. (2025). Police-induced confessions, 2.0: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 49, 7–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000593.
National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18891.
Neal, T. M. S., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022). A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 46, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000482.
Ogonah, M. G. T., Seyedsalehi, A., Whiting, D., & Fazel, S. (2023). Violence risk assessment instruments in forensic psychiatric populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 10, 780–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00256-0.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038.
Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18, 10–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616686966.