Questions of Fact: The Use of Psychology in the Evaluation of Evidence
Astrid Holgerson*
ABSTRACT: The aim of this thesis is to elucidate the importance of
a systematic methodology when it comes to trying facts in individual
cases where oral statements are of conclusive significance. It
also aims at illuminating the relationship between law and psychology,
when it comes to applying general psychological knowledge in a
systematic way when deciding on facts in individual cases.
The outlined theoretical assumptions are three: (1) There exists a
body of psychological knowledge of relevance to law in the evaluation of
oral testimony. (2) There exists a systematic methodology that
enables investigators and triers of fact to apply general psychological
knowledge to the particular case under investigation in a controllable
way Formal Structure Analysis. (3) There are rules
and principles for the legal procedure that may have impact on the case
investigation procedure.
The empirical study comprises an investigation, using the Formal
Structure Analysis of one authentic criminal case under the prevalent
judicial conditions. The study starts during the pretrial phase
and continues through the court proceedings to the final Appeal Court
Judgment.
The results are finally submitted to analysis and discussion,
especially on the importance of the use of a systematic case
investigation method when evaluating oral testimony and on the relationship
between such a method and the rules of legal procedure.
The aim of this thesis is to elucidate the importance of the use of a
systematic method when evaluating oral evidence in individual criminal
cases. The body of psychological knowledge of relevance to the
criminal investigation procedure and to the evaluation of evidence in
court is steadily growing. But how can this generalized
psychological knowledge be applied in a safe and controllable way in
individual legal cases? My research is bringing this problem into
focus. Therefore, my study also aims at investigating if there is
any counteractive relationship between the legal rules and the
application of a systematic case investigation method in legal
trials. The issue is, necessarily, related to the particular rules
in the particular legal system. My discussion in this thesis is,
of course, related to Swedish procedural rules. It should be of
vital interest, though, to discuss this issue within all legal systems.
Scientifically, my work is to be placed within the hermeneutical
tradition of thought. Matters under investigation, consequently,
are studied in its context (as part of a whole) in order to be
adequately interpreted and understood (Ödman, 1985; Palmer,
1969). Thus, the question at issue in a particular case must be
considered in the light of the context of that particular case.
The use of statistically confirmed generalizations alone cannot help us
reveal the facts of individual cases. On the other hand, when
investigating individual cases, general psychological knowledge is of
vital importance. Therefore, it is of equally vital importance to
find ways of applying this knowledge to the particular case in a safe,
not arbitrary, way.
Figure 1 contains a graphical illustration of the design of my
thesis. My theoretical assumptions are three (the three upper
boxes in the figure):
1. |
There exists a body of general psychological knowledge of
relevance to law; |
2. |
There exists a methodology that enables investigators and
triers of fact to apply general psychological knowledge to the
particular case in a systematic and controllable way
Formal Structure Analysis; |
3. |
There are rules and principles for the legal procedure that
may have impact on the case investigation procedure.
|
Figure 1
Thesis Design
|
The empirical study comprises an investigation, using Formal Structure
Analysis, of one authentic criminal case under the prevalent judicial
conditions. The study starts during the pretrial phase and continues
through the court proceedings to the final Appeal Court Judgment.
The results are finally submitted to analysis and discussion,
especially on the importance of the use of a systematic case investigation
method and on the relationship between such a method and the rules of
legal procedure.
The arrows in the graphical representation indicate the process of
investigation from the incoming psychological knowledge that is the basis
of Trankell's model but also has influence on the conditions of the
judicial procedure; through the empirical study and discussion; ending
with feedback to the level of methodology and judicial procedure in
interrelationship.
Witness Psychology
First a few words on the concept of Witness Psychology.
The term has been used in Sweden for decades as a compiled concept for all
psychological work (research or applied) that has connection with judicial
investigations and proceedings. The term is not quite adequate,
though, as it puts too much focus on the "witness."
Irrespective of the psychologist's main interest being human qualities and
abilities in legal settings or the qualities and characteristics of
individual statements (see below), the persons of interest, and their
statements, are not only witnesses, but plaintiffs, defendants, parents,
social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists as well as lawyers.
In 1902 in Germany, William Stern had already introduced the concept of
Psychology of Testimony. This term has also been promoted by
the leading German scientist and practitioner in this field, professor Udo
Undeutsch (1982, p. 43) as an adequate denotation of the continental
European witness psychology, in which the psychology of statement is of
fundamental importance. As the Anglo-American sphere of witness
psychology is concerned, researchers often use the more specified concept
of Eyewitness Testimony. This is most relevant, considering
that their experimental research predominantly focuses on different
aspects of eyewitness performance. Another compiled concept used in
England for this branch of applied psychology is Forensic Psychology.
I have chosen to keep the concept of Witness Psychology in my
writings as a general term for the psychological research that focuses on
matters of relevance to law. The term Witness Psychologist, though,
according to my definition is a psychologist with special training in the
methodology of Formal Structure Analysis. As a consequence, the term Witness
Psychological Investigation means an investigation where the
methodology of Formal Structure Analysis has been applied.
Two Streams in Witness Psychology
Two approaches are prevalent as regards the scientific research
in the field of Witness Psychology today. One is experimental,
studying real-life-like events and proceedings under controlled conditions
in order to find knowledge that can be generalized to a certain point of
probability. The other is non-experimental, based on a huge and
growing body of empirical material and focusing on methodological problems
when it comes to applying generalized knowledge to individual cases.
The experimental research is mainly focusing problems related to
perception, environmental influence and memory, i.e. phenomena of
significance to people's abilities and disabilities to perceive,
interpret, remember and finally report at an inquiry of some sort what
they have experienced. The results are overwhelmingly confirming
that human testimony is an extremely uncertain and unreliable source of
information (Undeutsch, 1967, 1982; Wells & Loftus, 1984).
The non-experimental research on Witness Psychology has developed
mainly in Germany and Sweden since the beginning of the 1950s (Undeutsch,
1967; Trankell, 1972). This research focuses on methodological
matters, i.e. how to apply generalized psychological knowledge in a
systematic controllable way to the particular case under investigation.
Statement Psychology and Statement Reality Analysis (Arntzen,
1983; Bender, Röder & Nack, 1981; Trankell, 1972; Undeutsch, 1967,
1982, 1989) are of fundamental importance in this new development that
puts statements into focus. Undeutsch (1967, p. 125) points out that
(authentic) statements can be considered as "facts" that could
be submitted to analysis.
Statement Reality Analysis is founded on the theory that statements
about self-experienced events show different characteristics from
statements about non-experienced events. By a systematic use of
specified Reality Criteria (e.g. concreteness, originality, unique
details, homogeneity, way of talking, signs of emotion, resistance to
suggestion, etc.) one can find out if the statements represent
self-experienced events and phenomena or not. The Reality Criteria,
though, must not be used in a static general way. The specific
conditions of the particular case are of fundamental importance. A
statement might, for instance, have the characteristics of uniqueness
coming from one person, but not being unique at all coming from another
person.
The process of witnessing and testifying and possible sources of
suggestion and misinterpretations that can occur at the time of perception
through the investigation procedure and at the court testimony is
illustrated in Figure 2 (cf. Loftus, 1979).
Figure 2
The Witnessing Process
|
Fundamental concepts in the Statement Psychology is the Origin of
Statement or the History of Statement. They include
"all conditions and circumstances which can be assumed to have had an
influence on the content and form of the statement" (Holgerson, 1989;
Trankell, 1972, p. 165; cf. Undeutsch, 1967, p. 109). Examples of
features that should be investigated in order to reveal the Origin and
History of Statement are:
The report should be presented, like any scientific research report, in
a way that makes it possible for a reader to control, i.e. check
the interpretations made. With "controllable documented"
arguments I mean, for instance, citing from an Interrogation a longer
continuous sequence of authentic statements, on which an argument is
based, and giving reference to the original where it can be found.
In some cases, it may be impossible to arrive at one confirmed single
interpretation of the real events that are the origin of the
statements. In those cases, the witness psychologist in the written
report should account for the alternative interpretation(s) that must be
left untested, and the reasons for that. Such an information will be
of importance to the triers of fact in their deliberations.
Trankell's model does not allow any quantitative measuring of
probability. The validity of the final result is a function of the
formal structure analysis procedure, which is grounded on the
unconditional claims of the two formal criteria and should be reported in
a controllable way.
Some Procedural Principles
There are some procedural principles in Swedish court procedures that
might diminish the possibilities of using a systematic method when
evaluating oral evidence. There exists by statute since 1948 an
overall principle of free presentation and free evaluation of evidence
which indicates that there should be no restrictions of the sources of
information that could be allowed in evidence or of the way of evaluating
them.
This means, for one thing, that a witness psychologist can examine and
give expert testimony in court on the facts and circumstances of the
actual case. This may not be admitted in the Anglo-American
system. In the United States, psychological experts are allowed to
present general research findings that may have relevance for the
particular case. However, they may not be allowed to testify whether
a particular witness was in a position to perceive and remember what he is
claiming he perceived and remembered since this type of testimony invades
the province of the jury (Loftus, 1982, pp. 172-173).
In some respects, however, there are restrictions in the Swedish trial
procedure. There is, for instance, the principle of orality,
which requires that evidence should be given orally in court.
Another overall principle is the so-called principle of immediacy,
which means that the triers of fact should judge only on evidence
presented at the Main Court Proceeding. As illustrated in Figure 2
above, the oral testimony presented in court may not be a very reliable
evidence. Distortions and misinterpretations may have occurred in
different stages of the process of witnessing and testifying.
The Empirical Study
In order to elucidate the importance of a systematic methodology when
evaluating contradictory oral testimony in criminal cases where verbal
statements are of conclusive evidential importance, I investigated, by
applying the Formal Structure Analysis, one case where all
material was still available from the pretrial police investigation
through the district court proceedings to the final Appeal Court
Judgment. The case concerned a prosecution of alleged sexual abuse
of a 15-year-old daughter by her biological father. The father
denied the allegations and was supported by the mother. There was no
evidence other than the contradictory oral statements.
Ten months after the start of the police investigation, I was appointed
by Court to examine the reliability of the accusation. The
examination was done by use of the Formal Structure Analysis and presented
to the district court in a written report. As the Court's expert I
was also attending the court proceedings and, finally, giving oral expert
testimony in court.
The Statement Reality Analyses of the audiotaped
exploratory interviews with the girl and her father and mother as well as
of part of the audiotaped court hearings turned out to be of conclusive
importance in this case.1 It
could be assessed that the girl's statements about sexual abuse to a great
extent met with reality criteria like homogeneity, adequate emotions and
reflections that could not possibly be performed without a real
background. Her father's denial statements, on the other hand,
showed very obvious "signs of lie" like unrealistic and confused
explanations, contradictions, significant nervousness, a lot of talking
about "other things," etc. Thus, the only interpretation
that did not leave any essential information unexplained in this case, was
that the girl told about self-experienced events.
The district court found that the girl was credible and that the
expert's opinion was very strong evidence in support of the
prosecution. Despite that, the court's decision was freeing the
father, as, in the court's opinion, the girl's story was quite vague
in detail which could make it difficult for the father to defend himself.
1 As the aim of this thesis was to
illustrate the application of Formal Structure Analysis and elucidate the
importance of a systematic and controllable methodology when it comes to
evaluating contradictory statements in criminal cases, each step in the
hypotheses-trying process was explained and analyzed and is described in
detail in the complete thesis from which this summary is taken. The
Statement Reality Analyses of the audiotaped exploratory interviews with
the girl and her father and mother as well as of part of the audiotaped
court hearings are described in essential parts. [Back]
This decision was appealed. A few weeks before the Appeal Court
trial, the girl recanted her accusation. A new exploratory interview
was held by the witness psychologist and was submitted to Statement
Reality Analysis. The result of this examination was that no
criteria of reality was met by the girl's recantation statements. On
the contrary, her statements contained contradictory and unrealistic
explanations of why she had "invented" the story. In
addition, the Statement Reality Analysis revealed that the recantation
took place after heavy pressure from the mother and under great resistance
from the girl. Again, a written report of the examination was
presented to the Court of Appeal as well as oral expert's testimony.
The Appeal Court's decision, however, was freeing the father.
One fundamental reason explicitly given for this was that even though the
expert's opinion was considered very strong, its value of evidence was
diminished as it was partly based on information gathered outside the
court room. There we find a reference to the above mentioned principle
of immediacy, which seems to have influenced the decision. It
may not, however, be meaningful to discuss any further in this summary the
Swedish procedural principles and their impact on the evaluation of
evidence.
Results
Irrespective of the courts' decisions, my study has elucidated the
importance of a systematic method of interpretation and assessing the
reality behind contradictory oral evidence in criminal cases. The
three most important aspects are:
1. |
The Statement Reality Analysis a fundamental instrument
in the Formal Structure Analysis is a relevant methodology
for assessing the reliability or non-reliability of contradictory
statements. |
2. |
The demands of the Formal Criteria force the investigator/
interpreter to critically examine all the information and actively
search for alternative interpretations. |
3. |
The demands on controllable documentation of the
hypotheses-trying analyses ensure the possibility for others to
evaluate the grounds of the conclusions. |
The question if there exists some kind of counteraction between the
rules for legal procedure and the possibility to use a systematic method
of interpretation in court procedures, could not be definitely answered,
but there are strong implications in the material that point in this
direction. In the decision of the court of appeal it was argued that
the witness psychological investigation constituted a firm evidence that
sexual abuse had occurred, but owing to the fact that the expert opinion
was grounded on information obtained outside the court, the court lowered
its value.
As mentioned earlier, the differing legal systems and rules may make
some of my reasoning irrelevant outside the national legal system of
Sweden. But, on the other hand, the criminal cases under
investigation contain about the same material all over the world, and very
often contradictory human statements are of conclusive importance
when it comes to decide what has really happened, the facts.
Therefore, awareness of the existence of a systematic methodology for
investigating the reality behind people's statements should be of interest
in all legal systems that are aiming at finding out the true course of
events.
Finally, a few words on the generality of the use of Formal Structure
Analysis. The case studied in this thesis was the only one (out of
about 400) that met with the necessary criterion of access to all
authentic material, like the police investigation, the psychologist's
investigation, the audiotaped court hearings, and the psychologist's
presence at the court proceedings. It happened to be an incest
investigation, which does not mean that the Formal Structure Analysis
should be restricted only to investigations of incest cases.
The methodology as illustrated above is applicable to any type of
criminal investigation where contradictory oral statements are of
conclusive importance. The technique of the Statement Reality
Analysis and its theoretical background is, of course, the same in any
type of case. The difference would be that various kinds of
knowledge, specific to the problem at issue in the particular case, should
be used when formulating and trying hypotheses.
We have an extensive knowledge of the unreliability of oral testimony
and the sources of errors that cause this. The use of a systematic
methodology of interpreting oral information could help reveal the
reliability as well as the unreliability of statements in the individual
case.
Future Research
Issues have arisen through this study that need further research
issues that could be of interest both to law and to psychology.
Do different courts interpret procedural law and principles
differently? If so, how does that influence the court
decisions? Can expert testimony be used at all, if it is not allowed
to be founded on external information? How do courts
methodologically exercise their evaluation of evidence, especially the
evaluation of contradictory verbal testimony?
Systematic studies of samples of written court decisions as well as of
samples of courts' private deliberations (audiotaped) may give answers to
some of these questions. And so may also interview investigations
with samples of judges, on how they reason and what information they
consider in their reasoning in order to reach a final decision. An
investigation of that kind was presented by Jeanette Lawrence (1984) from
Murdoch university, Australia. Interestingly enough, the result of her
study emerged into a model (op. cit., p. 323) that has great
resemblance to the Formal Structure Analysis. This could be an
indication that the reasoning of the Formal Structure Analysis is in
accordance with the reasoning of practicing judges. But what are the
possibilities in court practice to use a systematic methodology?
A problem that might be difficult to solve in any legal system when it
comes to evaluating contradictory verbal statements is: how do courts find
out the origin of statements which is often necessary if a safe
conclusion should be reached?
Hopefully, this thesis could give rise to constructive discussions and
future research in the border land between law and psychology.
References2
Altavilla, E. (1954). Rättspsykologi. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Arntzen, F. (1983). Psychologie der Zeugenaussage. München: Verlag C.
H. Beck.
Bender, R., Röder, S., & Nack, A. (1981). Tatsachenfeststellung
vor Gericht. Band I., München: Verlag C.
H. Beck.
Bodegard, G. (in press). Sexuella övergrepp och infantil sexualitet.
Läkartidningen.
Bolding, P. O. (1989). Går det aa bevisa? Perspektiv på
domstolsprocessen. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Brooks, N. (1984). Police guidelines: Pretrial eyewitness
identification procedures. Law Reform Commission of Canada.
Båge, C. (1972). Utstötning Familjebehandling. Ett spel om
syndabockar. Stockholm: Aldus.
Ceci, S. J., Toglia, M. P., & Ross, D. F. (Eds.). (1987). Children's
Eyewitness Testimony (). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Corwin, D. L., Berliner, L, Goodman, G., Goodwin, J., & White, S.
(1987). Child sexual abuse and custody disputes: No easy answers.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 91-105.
Cullberg, J. (1985). Dynamisk psykiatri. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Davies, G. M. (1982). Composite systems for recalling faces
helping the police with their enquiries. In A. Trankell (Ed),
Reconstructing the Past: The Role of Psychologists in Criminal Trials ()
(pp.299-313). Norstedt: Stockholm.
Devlin, Rt. Hon. Lord (1976). Report to the Secretary of state for the
home department of the departmental committee on evidence of
identification in criminal cases. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Edfeldt, Å. W. (1988). Funktionsspecifik läsning. Stockholm: Leijon
& Lüning Förlags A. B.
Edfeldt, Å. W. (1989). Pedagogik i Stockholm 1953-1988. I Lars Nystedt
(Red): Till andlig och kroppslig hälsa. Den Enerothska professuren i
pedagogik och psykologi 50 år. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Ekelöf, P.O. (1982). Rättegång IV. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Ekman, P. (1985). Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace,
Politics, and Marriage (). New York:
W. W.
Norton & Co.
Ellis, H. D. (1982). The performance of witnesses on identity parades.
In A. Trankell (Ed.),
Reconstructing the Past: The Role of Psychologists in Criminal Trials ()
(pp. 227-251). Norstedt: Stockholm.
Ellis, H. D. (1984). Practical aspects of face memory. In G. L. Wells
& E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological
Perspectives (). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Emans, R. (1988). Psychology's responsibility in false accusations of
child abuse. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 44, 1000-1004.
Green. A. H. (1986). True and false allegations of sexual abuse in
child custody disputes. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry,
25, 449-456.
Guettler, K. (1990). KIinikern som incestutredare. Artikelmanus om
metodfrågor i incestutredningar. Opubl.
Gustavsson, A. (1985). Samhällsideal och föräldraansvar. Stockholms
universitet: Pedagogiska institutionen.
Hall, D. F., Loftus, E. F., & Tousignant, J. P. (1985). Postevent
information and changes in recollection for a natural event. In G. L.
Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological
Perspectives (). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Haward, L. (1981). Forensic Psychology ()(). London:
Batsford.
Heuman, L. (1986). Processrättsliga uppsatser. Stockholms universitet:
Stiftelsen Juristförlager.
Holgerson. A. (1984). Rättssäkerheten naggas av förment kostnadsjakt.
Brännpunkt, Sv.D. 29(3): Stockholm.
Holgerson, A. (1985). Föreläsning. Andra Nordiska Seminariet om Barn
som far iIla. Noritäje.
Holgerson, A. (1989). Formal structure analysis A method of
applying general psychological knowledge to individual cases. Paper
presented at The European Seminar on Protection of Refugee Children,
Åland. Swedish Refugee Council, Stockholm.
Jacobsson, U. (1984). Processformer i Norden: Muntliga eller skriftliga?
Nordiska juristmöten, sid 213-224.
Jacobsson, U. (1984). Processrätt. Regler för maktutövning. Lund:
Juridiska Föreningen.
Jacobsson, U. (1989). Uppdragsutbildning. University of
Lund: Straffbevisrätt.
Johansson, K. A. (1974). När doktorn gjort sitt. Stockholm:
Pan/Norstedts.
Johansson, K. A. (1971). Inledning till tolkningsläran. (Förord till en
översättning av Paul Ricoeurs "The Model of the Text." Social
Research, 3.
Jones, D. P. H., & McGraw, J. M. (1987). Reliable and fictitious
accounts of sexual abuse to children.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
2(1), 2745.
Jönsson, L. (1988). PoIsförhöret som kommunikationssituation. Sic 23,
Universitetet i Linköping: Tema Kommunikation.
Klami, H. T., Marklund, M., Rahikainen, M., & Sorvettula. J. (1988).
Ett rationellt beviskrav. Svensk
Juristtidning, sid 589-605, Stockholm.
Lawrence, J. A. (1984). Magisterial decision-making: Cognitive
perspectives and processes used in courtroom information processing. In D.
J. Muller. D. E. Blackman, & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Psychology and
Law ().
Chichester: John Wiley
and Sons.
Lindblad, F. (1989). Sexuella övergrepp mot barn. Karakteristika och
utredningsmetodik. Stockholm: Karolinska institutet.
Lindell, B. (1987). Sakfrågor och rättsfrågor. Uppsala:
Iustus förlag.
Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1987). Reality monitoring and
suggestibility: Children's ability to discriminate among memories from
different sources. In S. J. Ceci, M P. Toglia, & D. F. Ross, (Eds.), Children's
Eyewitness Memory
(). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony (). Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Loftus, E. F. (1982). Panel discussion. In A. Trankell, Reconstructing
the Past: The Role of Psychologists in Criminal Trials ()
(171-185).
Stockholm: Norstedts.
Loftus, E. F. (1982). Memory changes in eyewitness accounts. In A.
Trankell, Reconstructing
the Past: The Role of Psychologists in Criminal Trials (). Stockholm:
Norstedts.
Loftus, E. F., & Christianson, S. A. (1989). Malleability of memory
for emotional events. In T. Archer, & L. G. Nilsson (Eds.), Aversion,
Avoidance and Anxiety: Perspectives on Aversively Motivated Behavior ().
Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Nordin, G. (1990). Barnklinikerns och vittnespsykologens roll i samband
med utredningar av sexuella övergrepp mot barn. Ett fårslag till former
for samarbete. Rapport. Omsorgsnämnden. Stockholms lÄns
landsting.
Palmer, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in
Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer (). Evanston:
Northwestern
University Press.
Sjöström, U. (1985). Lana varandras glasögon. Stockholms universitet:
Pedagogiska institutionen.
Smith, E. (1986). Vidnebeviset. En vurdering af affhøringsmetoder og
vidneforklaringer. Köpenhamn: GAD.
S O U (1982) 25, 26. Översyn av rättegångsbalken. Processen I
tingsrätt. Del A och B. Delbetänkande av rättegångsutredningen.
Stening, A. (1975). Bevisvärde. Liber Tryck AB: Stockholm.
Strömholm, S. (1984). Ailmän rättslära. En första introduktion.
Stockholm: Norstedts.
Trankell, A. (1956). Trovärdighetsutredningarnas metodik. Svensk
Juristtidning, sid 81-101, Stockholm.
Trankell, A. (1957). Zur Methodik der Glaubwürdigkeitsuntersuchungen.
Psychologie und Praxis. Verlag für angewandte Psychologie. 1. Jahrgang,
Heft 6, 1957, sid 292-311. München.
Trankell, A. (1958). Was Lars sexually assaulted? A study in the reliability
of witnesses and experts. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
56,
385-395.
Trankell, A. (1959). Psykologisk bedömning av vittnesutsagor. Svensk
Juristtidning, 641-672, Stockholm.
Trankell, A. (1963, 1971). Vittnespsykologins arbetsmetoder. Stockholm:
Liber.
Trankell, A. (1971). Der Realitätsgehalt von Zeugenaussagen, Methodik
der Aussagepsychologie. Göttringen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Trankell, A. (1972). Reliability of Evidence: Methods for Analyzing and
Assessing Statements. Stockholm: Beckmans.
Trankell, A. (1973). Kvarteret Flisan. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Trankell, A. (1980). Något om rättssäkerheten vid psykologers
sackunnigbedömning av vittnesbevisningen i Svensk brottmålsprocess. Svensk
Juristtidning, 161-174, Stockholm.
Trankell, A. (red., 1982). Reconstructing the Past: The Role of
Psychologists in Criminal Trials (). Stockholm:
Norstedts.
Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der Glaubhaftigkeit von
Zeugenaussagen. In C. J. Hogrefe, Handbuch der Psychologie.
Gottingen.
Undeutsch, U. (1982). Statement reality analysis. In A. Trankell (Ed.),
Reconstructing the Past: The Role of Psychologists in Criminal Trials
().
Stockholm: Norstedts.
Undeutsch, U. (1989). The development of statement reality analysis. In
J. C. Yuille, Credibility Assessment (). Holland:
Kluwer.
Wachtmeister, A. (1933). Vad är sanning? Vittnespsykologins
grunddrag.
Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Wachtmeister, A. (1943). For ung att tala sanning. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Wells, G. L., & Loftus, E. F. (Eds.). (1985). Eyewitness
Testimony:
Psychological Perspectives (). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1985). Eyewitness confidence. In G.
L. Wells, & E. F. Loftus (Eds.). Eyewitness Testimony:
Psychological Perspectives (). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Wiklund, N. (1986). Psykologen som sakkunnig i domstol. Psykolog-Tidningen, 18. Stockholm.
Yarmey, A. D. (1979). The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony (). New York:
The Free Press.
Zaragoza, M. S. (1987). Memory, suggestibility, and eyewitness
testimony in children and adults. In S. J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, & D. F.
Ross (Eds.), Children's Eyewitness Memory
(). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Ödman, P. J. (1979): Tolkning, förstålse, vetande. Hermeneutik i teori
och praktik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
Förlag AB.
Ödman, P. J. (1985) Hermeneutics. In T. Husén, & T. N.
Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Ödman, P. J. (1989) Interpreting the past. On hermeneutical research
in the history of education. Stockholms universitet: Stencil, Pedagogiska
institutionen.