PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW: ARTICLE ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

1. Provide full bibliographic information for the article you read (Authors, title, journal, date, issue, pages.

For example:

Kasain, M., Spanos, N. A., Terrance, C. A., & Peebles, S. (1993). Battered women who kill: Jury simulation and legal defenses. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 289-312.

2. Before reading the article, list two or three of your own thoughts about the issue that is the topic of the article. Indicate the reasons you hold your views.

For example:

Before reading the article on battered woman syndrome defenses, indicate what you think the impact of the battered woman syndrome defense will be on jury decision making.

3. After reading the introductory section of the article summarize the major objectives of the study and list any hypotheses that the author(s) list.

4a. Summarize the methods (subjects, materials, procedures, measures of behavior, etc.) used by the authors to test the hypotheses.

a. Do you think that the methods used provide a good picture of the topic under investigation. For example, is the subject sample representative of the target population, were the measures adequate or realistic?

b. Think of reasons why the methods used will not produce results that will generalize to the target population.

4b. If the article you are analyzing is a review paper and not a research study, summarize the main areas reviewed. If your paper is a meta-analysis, summarize how the analysis was done.

5a. What evidence (results or findings) is presented to support or refute the hypotheses of the study? How convincing is the evidence to you?

5b. If you are analyzing a review paper or meta-analysis, give a summary of the conclusions drawn from the research reviewed in the article. Are those conclusions justified based on what you read? Can you think of any other issues that were left out?

6. Think of some alternative explanations for the results/conclusions provided and explain each.

7. In the discussion/conclusions section of the article, the author may explain or speculate about the meaning and importance of his/her findings.

a. What explanations does the author provide for his/her results or conclusions? Do you agree with them (why or why not)?

b. Do the author's speculations stray too far from the findings of the study (or the research reviewed)? If so, how?

c. List two or three new questions that you feel need to be answered on this topic.

8. Reevaluate your initial views on the topic of the article and answer the following:

a. Has your view on this topic changed at all?

b. List and evaluate the specific findings in the article that led you to change. In other words, why did you change?

c. If you did not change your view, why did this article fail to convince you?

9. Overall, what are your views on the topic of the article? In this section you are free to speculate, give your opinions, etc. on the topic. When you make a point you should back it up somehow.

10. Using a periodical index (e. g., PsycLit) find another article on this topic or a topic that closely relates to it (for example, for the child as eyewitness example, you could find an article on children's memory) and provide a full bibliographic citation.

NOTE. The article you list must NOT appear in the reference list of the article you read.