Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The American Psychological Association’s Amicus Curiae Brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: The Values of Science Versus the Values of the Law

The American Psychological Association’s Amicus Curiae Brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: The... The use of amicus curiae briefs to inform the courts about the scientific literature requires merging scientific and legal perspectives. A brief submitted by the APA in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) demonstrates how the values of the legal system can predominate over the values of science. The brief differed from a scientific review in three ways: (1) selective use of theories only when they supported the brief’s position, (2) acceptance of Hopkins’s contention concerning disputed facts, and (3) incomplete representation of the empirical literature. This article examines four of the main arguments in the brief. Half of the 33 studies cited in the brief for these arguments offered no support for the brief’s position. In addition, the brief made no mention of a substantial body of research (78 studies) that directly contradicts these arguments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

The American Psychological Association’s Amicus Curiae Brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: The Values of Science Versus the Values of the Law

Law and Human Behavior , Volume 17 (2): 15 – Apr 1, 1993

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/the-american-psychological-association-s-amicus-curiae-brief-in-price-gKIsgVRaYj

References (94)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/BF01045939
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The use of amicus curiae briefs to inform the courts about the scientific literature requires merging scientific and legal perspectives. A brief submitted by the APA in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) demonstrates how the values of the legal system can predominate over the values of science. The brief differed from a scientific review in three ways: (1) selective use of theories only when they supported the brief’s position, (2) acceptance of Hopkins’s contention concerning disputed facts, and (3) incomplete representation of the empirical literature. This article examines four of the main arguments in the brief. Half of the 33 studies cited in the brief for these arguments offered no support for the brief’s position. In addition, the brief made no mention of a substantial body of research (78 studies) that directly contradicts these arguments.

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Apr 1, 1993

There are no references for this article.