Forensic psychology: a case of multiple identities

This introductory essay explores the span of forensic psychology and examines the roles of forensic psychology practitioners. We adopt a broad definition for forensic psychology as witnessed by the topics included in the handbook. However, we argue that the term forensic psychologist is unhelpful and potentially misleading as no one individual can hope to have the breadth and depth of knowledge included within this volume. Rather we think that there are a family of settings within which forensic psychology is applied and that context is critical to limiting claims of expertise. When considering the development of methods, theories and practice of an emergent forensic psychology most authorities locate its modern origins in Europe during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Gudjonsson and Haward 1998;Wrightsman and Fulero 2005;Weiner and Hess 2006). The Leipzig experimental laboratory of William Wundt is usually considered the starting point. Students influenced by this approach included Cattell, who conducted early experiments on witness testimony in the USA, as did Binet in France, Stern in Germany (Bartol and Bartol 1987) and Santamaria in Spain (Prieto et al. 2000). Munsterberg, a student of Wundt, was invited by William James to establish a laboratory at Harvard in 1892. Interestingly, Munsterberg attempted to apply experimental principles to many areas including work, education and the arts, as well as law. Theoretical ideas were also being expounded by Freud, who offered models to explain psychopathological thinking as causes of criminality, and Goddard (1915), who suggested that causes of crime lay in ‘mental deficiency’, which was associated with intellectual and emotional incapacity. European psychologists applied this knowledge by appearing in court to present details of experimental observations on suggestibility and errors in