Forensic and Correctional Psychology: Distinct Yet Related Subfields

Forensic Psychology and Correctional Psychology: Distinct but Related Subfields

Introduction to the Subfields

• Definition: Forensic psychology and correctional psychology are two separate but related subfields of psychological science and practice that apply across all major areas of psychology (e.g., clinical, counseling, developmental, social, cognitive, community).
• Relationship: These subfields are connected by:
  • Their historical roots.
  • Their involvement in the justice system.
  • The shared population of people they study and serve.
• Distinction: The practical and ethical contexts of these subfields are distinct from other areas of psychology, and notably, from one another.
  • This distinction has significant implications for ecologically valid research and ethically sound practice.
• Emergence: Both subfields emerged historically at roughly the same time, almost as early as psychology itself.
  • They developed into discrete subfields, particularly influenced by activities from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in the 1950s and 1960s.
• Early Scholarly Lumping: Early writings did not clearly differentiate them, often using broad descriptors like "psychologists in criminal justice settings" or "psychology and the legal system" (e.g., American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on the Role of Psychology in the Criminal Justice System, 1978; Brodsky, 1973; Monahan, 1980; Tapp, 1976).
  • For instance, key foundational works (Monahan et al., 1978; Monahan, 1980; Brodsky, 1973) discussed unique ethical issues for psychologists in forensic, correctional, and police settings, but Monahan's task force did not distinguish forensic from correctional psychology.
  • Brodsky's (1973) volume, while covering forensic and policing in 2 of 14 chapters, primarily focused on correctional psychology.
• Article's Purpose: This article aims to provide clear definitions, trace their shared and separate developmental histories, outline their important distinctions and implications, and establish a common understanding and shared language for psychologists in these contexts.
• Related Subfields Not Covered: Police and public safety psychology (e.g., Secret Service, policing contexts) is another discrete subfield under the broad "psychology-law" umbrella but is not the focus of this article. Military psychology may also have parallels but is outside the scope.

Core Definitions and Distinctions

General Approach to Definitions

• The definitions provided are intentionally broad to encompass both the scientific and practical activities of psychologists in these areas, reflecting the dual nature of psychology as a discipline.

What Is Forensic Psychology?

• Definition: Forensic psychology is a subfield where basic and applied psychological science or scientifically oriented professional practice is applied to the law to help resolve legal, contractual, or administrative matters (APA, 2013; Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991; Grisso, 1987; Otto & Heilbrun, 2002).
• Scope: Any type of psychologist (e.g., clinical, counseling, developmental, social, cognitive, community) can engage in forensic psychology by applying their scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge to the law.
• Etymology: The word "forensic" originates from the Latin word forum, meaning a place for public assembly and discussion, which was the precursor to "court."
• Purpose: It assists judicial, administrative, and educational systems in making decisions about individuals when psychological questions are intertwined with legal issues.
• Timing: Forensic psychology is typically involved during the adjudication process, meaning before the final formal judgment is rendered in a case.
  • Adjudication: Defined by Black's Law Dictionary (Black & Garner, 2014) as the legal process of resolving a dispute or deciding a case.
  • Judgment: The court's final determination of rights and obligations, including any appealable order.
  • Forensic psychology therefore addresses decisions made by judges, juries, or administrative decision-makers throughout the adjudication process, including disposition decisions like sentencing in criminal cases.
• Examples of Practice: Psychologists provide services (research presentation, assessment, treatment) explicitly to inform adjudication decisions, such as:
  • Evaluating a case for specific factors.
  • Providing a general summary of research data on false confessions during an ongoing case.
  • Performing a child custody evaluation to inform court decisions in a divorce decree.
  • Providing competency restoration treatment to allow a defendant to proceed with their legal case.

What Is Correctional Psychology?

• Definition: Correctional psychology is a subfield where basic and applied psychological science or scientifically oriented professional practice is applied to the justice system to inform the classification, treatment, and management of offenders to reduce risk and improve public safety (Ax et al., 2007; Magaletta, Butterfield, & Patry, 2016; Magaletta, Patry, Dietz, & Ax, 2007; Wormith et al., 2007).
• Scope: Any type of psychologist can engage in correctional psychology.
• Purpose: The primary goal is to reduce offender risk and enhance public safety.
• Timing: Correctional psychology is typically involved postadjudication (i.e., after a final judgment).
  • Examples include conducting research on the psychological effects of prison or probation conditions, treating prison inmates, or providing assessment services for offender management.
  • While some activities might occur preadjudication, they are not considered correctional if their purpose is to inform a legal decision.
• Ethical Considerations (Example): A psychologist providing crisis intervention for a preadjudicated suicidal person in jail (a correctional activity) should not also perform a competency evaluation on the same detainee (a forensic activity).
  • This is due to professional ethics strongly discouraging multiple relationships with a service recipient (APA, 2010; Greenberg & Shuman, 1997).
• Context-Dependent Science: The same psychological science can have both correctional and forensic applications depending on its use:
  • Correctional: Studies on how isolation affects mental functioning to inform prison housing policies.
  • Forensic: The same research used in a civil suit alleging unconstitutional punishment.

Timing and Purpose as Key Differentiators

• Neither the specific type of assessment, treatment, or research, nor the work setting, inherently defines an activity as forensic or correctional.
• The timing (preadjudication vs. postadjudication) and purpose (informing a legal decision vs. offender management/risk reduction) are the critical factors.
• Example: Violence Risk Assessment:
  • Forensic: If used to inform a pending legal decision.
  • Correctional: If used for postadjudication offender classification, case management, or release decision-making.
    • Note: Some services are inherently forensic (e.g., competency to stand trial assessment) or correctional (e.g., prison classification assessment). Postadjudication release decisions can become forensic again if informing legal decisions about civil commitment of sex offenders.
• Example: Research:
  • Forensic: Research conducted to answer adjudication-relevant questions.
  • Correctional: Research conducted to reduce offender risk and improve public safety.
• Legal Scope Distinction (Footnote 4):
  • Forensic Applications: Broad, spanning criminal, civil, and juvenile law.
  • Correctional Applications: Narrowly focused on criminal law.

Forensic and Correctional Psychology as Descriptions Versus Labels

• The article emphasizes providing a common understanding and shared language rather than asserting definitive labels for individuals (forensic psychologist vs. correctional psychologist).
• Psychologists can maintain their primary identities (e.g., clinical, social, developmental) even when their work heavily involves forensic or correctional contexts.
• This clarification aids in understanding the practical and legal implications for ecologically valid research and ethical practice.

Evolution and Historical Context

Distinctions Evolving Over Time

• The differences have evolved over the last half-century.
• While psychologists began working in legal and correctional settings over a century ago, these subfields truly began to emerge with their own unique character, foci, professional organizations, training traditions, and ethical guidelines and practice standards in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology, 2010; APA, 2013).
• Correctional Psychology as a Subdiscipline of Forensic?: Some scholars (e.g., Bartol & Bartol, 2014; Tapp, 1976; Toch, 1961; Watkins, 1992) asserted this, but the article argues it was never the case based on the delineated definitions. Correctional psychology scholars consistently view them as discrete and parallel subfields.
• Forensic Psychology's Definitional Evolution: This subfield has experienced more definitional struggles. The umbrella term "psychology-law" encompasses forensic psychology, correctional psychology, police psychology, and other related areas.
  • Forensic psychology was sometimes used as an overly broad umbrella term, almost synonymous with "psychology-law," for anything psychologically related to the law (e.g., Bartol & Bartol, 2014).
  • The current definition is narrower, specific to informing a legal decision, building on a history of debate (Brigham, 1999; Neal, 2016).
• Correctional Psychology's Definitional Stability: This subfield has not faced similar definitional struggles.
  • Most self-proclaimed correctional psychologists provide applied services (e.g., Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990; Ax et al., 2007; Magaletta, Patry, et al., 2007).
  • Much published scientific work fitting the correctional psychology definition has not been explicitly labeled as such (e.g., Aharoni et al., 2013; Haney, 2006; Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973; Kahn, Byrd, & Pardini, 2013; Skeem & Louden, 2006; Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007; Tangney, Stuewig, & Martinez, 2014; Wright, Pratt, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2012).
  • The article's definition explicitly includes both scientific and practitioner activities, aiming to prevent future definitional issues.
• Interdisciplinary Nature (Footnote 5): Correctional psychology is considered more interdisciplinary than forensic psychology, often struggling to find a distinct identity within broader correctional research across fields like criminology, criminal justice, sociology, and medicine.

Shared Historical Roots

• Foundations: In the late 1800s, psychology and criminology emerged from shared roots in criminal anthropology and philosophy (Brodsky, 1973; Haney, 2006).
• Early Application: Psychology originated as a basic science in 1879. An applied branch quickly developed, leading psychologists to apply the new field in forensic settings by 1908 and correctional settings by 1909.
• Early Workforce: Courts and correctional institutions were among the first applied settings for psychologists (Magaletta et al., 2016).
  • An APA survey in 1940 identified 64 psychologists working in prisons (Watkins, 1992).
  • A 1946 American Psychologist article describing 28 psychology occupations included 5 referencing forensic activities (e.g., "court psychologist") and 1 clearly correctional ("prison psychologist").

Evolution into Discrete Professional Subfields (1960s)

• Government Influence: Both subfields matured into their modern versions in the 1960s, significantly influenced by interest and support from all three branches of the U.S. federal government.

The Role of the Executive Branch

• President's Commission: In the mid-1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice to study crime and criminal justice (Johnson, 1965).
  • Its task force reports called for increased education, better police training, and more crime research.
  • These reports laid the groundwork for the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.

The Role of the Legislative Branch

• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968): Congress passed this act, a major component of which was the creation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) (Feely & Sarat, 1980).
  • LEAA Funding: Provided grants for training, research, equipment, and infrastructure.
    • It funded early correctional psychology research and training, such as the Center for Correctional Psychology at the University of Alabama in 1971, including a doctoral program for correctional psychologists (Fowler & Brodsky, 1978).
  • Successors: The LEAA was abolished in 1982, but some functions were absorbed by agencies like the Office of Justice Programs and the National Institute of Justice, which continue to fund forensic and correctional psychology research today.

Saleem Shah's Crucial Advocacy

• Key Figure: Saleem Shah, a clinical psychologist, emerged as a leader fostering the development of both fields.
  • In 1966, he consulted with the President's Crime Commission and joined the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).
  • He was responsible for coordinating programs funding crime and delinquency research and training.
  • In 1968, he became chief of NIMH's Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency, established in 1967.
  • Shah secured a dedicated budget and review panel for the Center from Congress via NIMH (Voit, 1995).
• Impact: Shah was a major force in developing both forensic and correctional psychology (Brodsky, 1995; Voit, 1995).
  • Funded the first modern prison classification system in 1971 (Jesness, 1988).
  • Partially funded and supported Brodsky's Lake Wales Conference and subsequent edited volume (Psychologists in the Criminal Justice System, 1973), credited with ushering in modern correctional psychology.
  • Funded the development of the first forensic assessment instrument, a trial competency screening instrument (1973).
  • Funded Monahan's early research on the problems of clinicians' predictions of violence in legal settings (Monahan, 1981).

The Role of the Judicial Branch

• Legal Cases: The judicial branch increasingly welcomed behavioral scientists, with several landmark legal cases from the 1950s to 1970s stimulating the growth of both subfields (e.g., Bowring v. Godwin, 1977; Durham v. United States, 1954; Jenkins v. United States, 1962; Wyatt v. Stickney, 1971).
  • These cases allowed psychologists to address psycho-legal questions in pending legal cases.
  • They also established constitutional guarantees for mental health treatment rights for individuals detained in both civil and criminal settings.
• Judge David Bazelon: A powerful voice, initially enthusiastic about behavioral science's potential for law, he authored several landmark decisions.
  • He later became disillusioned, criticizing psychologists for overstating their expertise beyond their scientific capabilities (e.g., United States v. Brawner, 1972, overturning his Durham decision; Bazelon, 1973). He was particularly critical of the emerging "guild" of professional forensic and correctional psychologists.

Similar Developmental Experiences: Attacks and Responses

• Both subfields faced severe attacks by critics, which highlighted the crucial need for a strong scientific foundation.
  • These critiques energized efforts to develop more robust scientific underpinnings for both fields.
• Attack on Forensic Psychology: Jay Ziskin, co-founder of AP-LS, published Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony (1970).
  • Like Judge Bazelon, Ziskin saw promise in forensic psychology but was concerned about unscientific practices. His book aimed to prompt the subfield to establish a strong scientific foundation (Grisso, 1991).
• Attack on Correctional Psychology: Martinson's (1974) article, "What works? Questions and answers about prison reform," famously suggested that "nothing works" in correctional rehabilitation programs.
  • This sparked an antirehabilitation campaign but also galvanized correctional psychology to critically examine and strengthen its scientific bases (e.g., Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990).

Professional Organizations and Ethical Standards

Professional Organizations

• Correctional Psychology Organizations:
  • Society of Correctional Psychologists: Founded in 1953, it evolved into the International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology. Despite its name, its mission and activities have consistently focused on correctional psychology (International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology, 2016).
    • This organization began publishing the journal Criminal Justice and Behavior in 1974, founded by Stanley Brodsky. It was initially subtitled An International Journal of Correctional Psychology and is now a high-impact, interdisciplinary journal.
  • Criminal Justice Section (APA Division 18): Established in 1975 within Psychologists in Public Service. This section collaborates with the Canadian Psychological Association's Criminal Justice Section to host the North American Correctional and Criminal Justice Psychology Conference.
• Shared/Forensic Psychology Organizations:
  • American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) / APA Division 41: Founded in 1968 by early leaders in both subfields. While it remains a professional home for both forensic and correctional scientists and practitioners, annual conferences increasingly feature more forensic than correctional activities.
    • A corrections committee was established within AP-LS to re-engage correctional psychology (J. Skeem, personal communication, June 10, 2016).
  • American Board of Forensic Psychology: Created in 1977 by forensic practitioner members of AP-LS, later affiliating with the American Board of Professional Psychology.
  • APA Division 42 (Psychologists in Independent Practice): Offers programming dedicated to forensic psychology practice.

Ethical Standards and Guidelines

• Evolution: Distinct sets of ethical standards have evolved for each subfield, augmenting general national, state, and professional psychological association standards.
  • The APA Task Force on the Role of Psychology in the Criminal Justice System (1978) recommended developing specific ethical guidelines for justice settings.
• Correctional Psychology Ethics:
  • The first ethical standards were developed in 1980 by the American Association for Correctional Psychology (Levinson, 1980).
  • These standards have been revised twice, with the most recent edition published in 2010 by the International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology.
• Forensic Psychology Ethics:
  • The first ethical guidelines were developed in 1991 by AP-LS (Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991). Though initially presented for both, they were specifically conceived for forensic psychology.
  • These guidelines were revised, vetted through the APA, and published in American Psychologist in 2013 (APA, 2013).
• Other Applicable Standards: Various other applied ethics standards apply.
  • Differentiated: Correctional Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities (National Commission on Correctional Health Care, 2015); Forensic Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings (APA, 1994).
  • Undifferentiated: American Bar Association's (1989) Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards, which guide psychologists working with those "charged with or convicted of a crime" (Standard 7–1.1, Part d).

Education, Workforce, and Training

Need for Clarification in Education and Workforce Issues

• The distinctions are crucial for informing the evolution of ethics, public awareness, and guiding students and trainees.
• Both forensic and correctional settings present unique practical and ethical contexts that challenge psychology's general ethical standards.
  • Competing Ethical Foundations: Legal system ethics (e.g., societal rights) often differ from psychology's (e.g., individual rights), requiring careful consideration (Candilis & Neal, 2014).
  • Forensic Ethics: Largely serves the interests of law and society, potentially at the expense of an individual defendant (e.g., providing information to protect society).
  • Correctional Ethics: Must balance health and security missions, which may not always be compatible (e.g., sharing sensitive communications for institutional safety, or diagnostic assessments for solitary confinement placement).
    • The "do no harm" ethic is too simplistic for these complex ethical obligations.
• Legal Implications for Individuals:
  • Preadjudicated Individuals (Forensic Context): Retain significant legal rights, including the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This profoundly impacts informed consent and information disclosure by forensic psychologists.
  • Postadjudicated Convicted Felons (Correctional Context): Lose many individual legal rights, placing them in a particularly vulnerable position. This necessitates distinct ethical considerations for correctional psychologists.

Education and Workforce Implications

• Salaries:
  • BOP Clinical-Correctional Psychology: Offers some of the highest predoctoral internship and starting salaries for psychologists.
    • Of 23 highest-salary internships ( \ge \$50,000) on the APPIC database in 2017, 12 were APA-accredited Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) sites.
    • Starting salary for a newly graduated clinical-correctional psychologist with the BOP (no postdoc required) is approximately \$80,000 (Federal BOP, 2016).
    • Only industrial-organizational psychologists in business reported higher starting salaries (e.g., \$80,000 in 2008 dollars, equivalent to \$90,000 in 2016 dollars) (Wicherski, Michalski, & Kohut, 2009; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).
  • Clinical-Forensic Psychology: Requires postdoctoral training, with an estimated starting salary of \$67,000 after completing postdoc (based on 2008 APA Doctorate Employment Survey of \$60,000, adjusted for 2016 inflation) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; Wicherski et al., 2009).
• Workforce Numbers:
  • Correctional Psychology: Boothby and Clements (2000) estimated roughly 2,000 psychologists worked in state and federal prisons. This represents at least 2\% of the approximately 100,000 licensed psychologists in the U.S. (Hamp, Stamm, Lin, & Christidis, 2016).
  • Forensic Psychology: Hamp et al. (2016) reported 11\% of licensed psychologists in the U.S. identified a primary or secondary specialty in forensic psychology.

Training Traditions

• Generalist Model: Training for both subfields follows the generalist model established at the Boulder Conference in 1949. Students first train as general psychologists, then specialize through subsequent training and on-the-job experiences (Forensic Specialty Council, 2007; Magaletta et al., 2013; Packer, 2008).
• Specialized Programs: Specialty graduate programs and predoctoral internship rotations emerged in the 1960s for both:
  • Correctional Psychology Doctoral Programs: Examples include those noted by Fowler & Brodsky (1978), Magaletta et al. (2013), and Speilberger, Megargee, & Ingram (1973).
  • Forensic Psychology Doctoral Programs: Examples include those noted by DeMatteo et al. (2009), Otto, Heilbrun, & Grisso (1990), and Ruchensky & Huss (2014).
  • Students in these programs often minor in / complete theses and dissertations in their specialty while meeting APA generalist accreditation requirements.
• Internship Training: Distinct internship opportunities developed to cultivate unique forensic and correctional psychology competencies (e.g., Ax & Morgan, 2002; Bersoff et al., 1997; Magaletta, Patry, & Norcross, 2012; Otto et al., 1990).
• Postdoctoral Training Disparity:
  • Clinical-Forensic Psychology: Has evolved to require postdoctoral education, with numerous resources listing opportunities (e.g., APPIC, AP-LS website).
  • Clinical-Correctional Psychology: Has not evolved to require formal postdoctoral training. APPIC and AP-LS often combine correctional opportunities under forensic or lack specific listings for correctional postdoc programs.
    • Most correctional postdoctoral training occurs "on-the-job" after employment (Magaletta, Morgan, Reitzel, & Innes, 2007; Magaletta et al., 2013).

Table 1: Examples of Psychological Science and Practice

• Note: The examples illustrate a spectrum. The results of correctional psychological science, for instance, can often be used in forensic contexts (e.g., legislation, policy, testimony) regardless of the scientist's initial intent. This includes both basic and applied science like systematic program evaluation, scientific trial consulting, and evidence-to-practice implementation studies.

Current Status and Future Directions

Persisting Misconceptions

• Despite the clear distinctions, misconceptions about forensic and correctional psychology and their relationship persist due to insufficient explicit information.
• This lack of clarity hinders psychology's ability to shape ethical conduct, improve public awareness, and effectively mentor students and trainees.

Distinct Challenges and Stages of Development

• Practical and legal distinctions between these contexts are vital for ethical practice and ecologically valid research.
• While both subfields have existed for a similar duration and share developmental experiences, they appear to be at different stages of formal professional development.
• Forensic Psychology's Advanced Evolution:
  • Has successfully petitioned for APA recognition as a specialty (APA, 2013, 2017).
  • Underwent the APA process to establish approved applied ethical guidelines (APA, 2013).
  • Affiliated its board certification process with the American Board of Professional Psychology.
• Correctional Psychology's Lagging Formalization:
  • Has not yet undertaken these formal steps for specialty recognition or independent ethical guideline development.
  • Correctional psychologists are often conceptualized as generalists, primarily receiving on-the-job training rather than formal specialty postdoctoral training (Magaletta et al., 2013).
  • However, unique competencies are required for correctional psychologists, such as confrontation avoidance, working in segregation units, and interdisciplinary communication (Magaletta, Patry, et al., 2007).

Conclusion

• The histories, current status, and future trajectories of forensic psychology and correctional psychology are distinct but fundamentally related.
• There is continued strong interest in both subfields, particularly their potential to inform practical issues and questions in legal and justice settings.
• Understanding these distinctions is crucial for psychologists and students to contribute to their further evolution.