Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to learn more

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lilienfeld, S. O.
Right arrow Articles by Landfield, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Science and Pseudoscience in Law Enforcement

A User-Friendly Primer

Scott O. Lilienfeld

Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, slilien{at}emory.edu

Kristin Landfield

Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

Pseudoscience and questionable science are largely neglected problems in police and other law enforcement work. In this primer, the authors delineate the key differences between science and pseudoscience, presenting 10 probabilistic indicators or warning signs, such as lack of falsifiability, absence of safeguards against confirmation bias, and lack of self-correction, that can help consumers of the police literature to distinguish scientific from pseudoscientific claims. Each of these warning signs is illustrated with an example from law enforcement. By attending to the differences between scientific and pseudoscientific assertions, police officers and other law enforcement officials can minimize their risk of errors and make better real-world decisions.

Key Words: pseudoscience • police • law enforcement • falsifiability • peer review • confirmation bias

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 10, 1215-1230 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854808321526
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
L. King and B. Snook
Peering Inside a Canadian Interrogation Room: An Examination of the Reid Model of Interrogation, Influence Tactics, and Coercive Strategies
Criminal Justice and Behavior, July 1, 2009; 36(7): 674 - 694.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
J. Turtle and S. C. Want
Logic and Research Versus Intuition and Past Practice as Guides to Gathering and Evaluating Eyewitness Evidence
Criminal Justice and Behavior, October 1, 2008; 35(10): 1241 - 1256.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
K. M. Newbold, J. M. Lohr, and R. Gist
Apprehended Without Warrant: Issues of Evidentiary Warrant for Critical Incident Services and Related Trauma Interventions in a Federal Law Enforcement Agency
Criminal Justice and Behavior, October 1, 2008; 35(10): 1337 - 1353.
[Abstract] [PDF]