Notes on Forensic and Correctional Psychology: Definitions, Histories, Ethics, and Education
Definitions
Forensic psychology: a subfield of psychology in which basic and applied psychological science or scientifically oriented professional practice is applied to the law to help resolve legal, contractual, or administrative matters. Any type of psychologist (e.g., clinical, counseling, developmental, social, cognitive, community) can engage in forensic psychology by applying the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law to assist in resolving a given matter. The word forensic comes from the Latin word forum, a place for public assembly and discussion—the precursor of “court.” Forensic psychology is typically involved during the adjudication process, before the final formal judgment is made in the case, providing services to inform adjudication decisions (e.g., evaluating competency, or summarizing research on false confessions).
Correctional psychology: a subfield of psychology in which 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. Any type of psychologist can engage in correctional psychology by applying psychology to reduce offender risk and improve public safety. The psychologist is typically involved postadjudication (e.g., conducting research on prison conditions, treating inmates, providing assessment to inform offender management). Some preadjudication work can occur, but it would not be correctional if it is not informing a legal decision (e.g., crisis intervention for a preadjudicated suicidal person should not be the same person hired to do a competency evaluation).
Scientifically oriented practice and its relation to law and justice settings: both forensic and correctional psychology blend science and practice, reflecting the dual nature of psychology as both a science and a profession.
Forensic vs. correctional as descriptions vs. labels: this article emphasizes a common understanding and language for scientists and practitioners applying psychology in forensic or correctional contexts, not simply labeling someone as one type of psychologist. The distinct ethical contexts and practical implications arise from where and why a psychology service is used.
Timing and purpose matter: a given assessment, treatment, or program may be forensic or correctional depending on the purpose and the setting (e.g., a violence risk assessment could be forensic if informing a pending legal decision, or correctional if informing postadjudication classification or release decisions).
Table 1 (illustrative examples of science and practice in forensic and correctional contexts):
Forensic science examples (practice in legal contexts):
Clinical: Experimental research on malingering used to inform competence evaluations; a psychologist evaluates a defendant and applies knowledge about malingering to inform a judge about competency to stand trial.
Social: Experimental research on how group composition affects decision making (e.g., juries) used to inform adjudication (amicus briefs).
Cognitive: Experimental research on memory under stress applied to eyewitness credibility assessments.
Developmental: Research on how stressors affect children's ability to distinguish fact from fantasy used in adjudications about abuse in divorce contexts.
Correctional science and practice examples:
Clinical: Research on how rehabilitative confinement conditions reduce recidivism, mediated by anxiety, trauma, or anger; used to inform housing or programming.
Social: Design of evidence-based administrative policies to reduce harm in prison settings.
Cognitive: Study of how isolation affects mental functioning; use to inform housing policies or restrictions.
Developmental: Effects of restrictive confinement on adolescent development and recidivism; used to inform policy on juvenile housing.
Note: many examples could fit in both forensic and correctional contexts; the same research can have forensic or correctional applications depending on how it is used.
Forensic and Correctional psychology as practices in legal and justice contexts: the definitions reflect practical and ethical implications for ecologically valid research and ethically sound practice across all major areas of psychology (clinical, counseling, developmental, social, cognitive, community).
The need to distinguish the two subfields: distinctions have important implications for education, workforce issues, and ethics in practice.
The Shared and Separate Histories of Forensic and Correctional Psychology
Historical emergence: forensic and correctional psychology emerged around the same time, roughly as early as psychology itself, and developed into discrete subfields during the 1950s and 1960s due to executive, legislative, and judicial activities.
Early writings often lumped forensic and correctional psychology together (e.g., APA Task Force on the Role of Psychology in the Criminal Justice System, 1978; Brodsky, 1973; Monahan, 1980; Tapp, 1976).
Definitions evolve: over decades, the fields evolved into unique subfields with distinct ethics, guidelines, and training traditions, though they remain related.
Key reference points in the literature include: Monahan et al. (1978) Task Force; Brodsky (1973); Bartol & Bartol (2014). Police and public safety psychology also evolved as a distinct subfield within psychology-law but is not the focus of this article.
This article provides definitions, outlines their shared and separate histories, clarifies distinctions, and provides a common language for psychologists applying knowledge in forensic or correctional contexts.
Online supplemental materials: Table 2 documents important events in the shared and separate histories (referenced in the article).
Shared historical roots
Late 1800s: psychology and criminology emerged from criminal anthropology and philosophy.
Psychology as a basic science (1879) with early applied branches; applied psychology in forensic and correctional settings by the early 20th century (e.g., 1908–1909).
Courts and correctional institutions among the first applied settings (1920s–1940s): by 1940, APA survey identified 64 psychologists in prisons; early job descriptions included court psychologist and prison psychologist.
By the 1960s, forensic and correctional psychology matured into modern subfields with their own cultures, organizations, ethics, and training traditions.
The role of government and policy influence
Executive branch: The Johnson administration established the Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (mid-1960s); led to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968) and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to fund training, research, equipment, and infrastructure (LEAA funded correctional psychology initiatives like the Center for Correctional Psychology at the University of Alabama in 1971).
LEAA later absorbed into other agencies; modern funding for forensic and correctional psychology research comes from the Office of Justice Programs and the National Institute of Justice.
Shah’s influence: Saleem Shah (1966) became an influential advocate coordinating crime and delinquency research and training programs; he helped fund and organize early work in both subfields (e.g., prison classification system in 1971, the Lake Wales Conference, and early forensic assessment instruments).
Judicial branch: landmark cases in the 1950s–1970s catalyzed the involvement of psychologists in law and corrections (e.g., Durham v. United States, Jenkins v. United States, Wyatt v. Stickney; 1971). Judge Bazelon championed the promise of behavioral science for the law, then critiqued overreach by some psychologists.
Attacks and defense: Ziskin (forensic) and Martinson (correctional) sparked debates that pushed each field to build stronger scientific foundations; both subfields developed more robust empirical bases as a result.
Professional organizations:
Correctional psychology: Society of Correctional Psychologists (1953), evolved into the American Association for Correctional Psychology, then American Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology, now the International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology (IA CFP).
Forensic and correctional psychology: AP-LS (American Psychology-Law Society, Division 41 of the APA) founded in 1968; brought together forensic and correctional scientists and practitioners; a board for forensic psychology (American Board of Forensic Psychology) was established in 1977; Division 42 (Psychologists in Independent Practice) also offers forensic programming.
Ethical guidelines and standards:
Correctional ethics: first standards in 1980 by the American Association for Correctional Psychology; revised in 2010 by IA CFP.
Forensic ethics: first guidelines in 1991 by AP-LS; revised in 2013 by APA (Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology).
Other relevant standards: National Commission on Correctional Health Care (2015) for mental health services in correctional facilities; APA guidelines for child custody evaluations (1994); ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards (1989).
Training traditions:
Early training emerged in the 1960s; generalist graduate programs and internships formed the backbone of training in forensic and correctional psychology.
Specialty internships and postdoctoral opportunities emerged gradually in the 1960s–1990s; forensic postdocs became common, whereas correctional postdocs are less standardized and often occur on-the-job.
Boulder (1949) outlined the generalist training model—students pursue general psychology training first; subsequent specialization occurs via internships and on-the-job experiences.
By the 2000s, there were more explicit forensic postdoctoral pathways; correctional postdoctoral training remains less formalized, though opportunities exist.
Attitudinal and theoretical debates: ongoing discussions about the relative primacy of science vs. practice, the need for robust scientific foundations, and the distinct ethical landscapes of justice settings.
The evolution of definitions and the need for ongoing clarification
Forensic psychology has sometimes been used as an umbrella term for psychology-law areas, leading to definitional ambiguity; the current article clarifies a narrower, distinct definition focused on informing adjudication decisions.
Correctional psychology has not always been treated as a separate subfield, and much of the literature relevant to correctional psychology has not been explicitly labeled as such; the article argues for explicit recognition of correctional psychology as a distinct subfield with unique attributes.
The article highlights that correctional psychology is far more interdisciplinary than forensic psychology, spanning literature across criminology, criminal justice, sociology, medicine, and related fields.
The Distinct Ethical Contexts of Forensic and Correctional Psychology
The field presents unique ethical issues due to the interaction of psychology with law and the justice system.
Forensic psychology tends to serve the interests of law and society; its work may inform decisions that protect public safety but could adversely affect an individual defendant.
Correctional psychology must balance health and security missions, which may conflict (e.g., sharing offender communications for safety vs. safeguarding confidentiality).
The “do no harm” principle in psychology is insufficient in justice contexts; ethics evolve to address the competing demands of individual rights and societal safety.
Distinctions and Implications for Education and Practice
Key distinctions: forensic psychology primarily informs legal decisions across criminal, civil, and juvenile law; correctional psychology primarily informs offender classification, treatment, and management within the criminal justice system to reduce risk and improve public safety.
Legal scope differences: forensic applications span criminal, civil, and juvenile law; correctional applications are focused on criminal law contexts.
Rights and consent: preadjudication individuals retain constitutional rights (e.g., Fifth Amendment protections); postadjudication felons lose some rights; these differences affect informed consent, data disclosure, and testimony.
Interdisciplinarity: correctional psychology is highly interdisciplinary and often not treated as a standalone discipline within psychology; forensic psychology has a somewhat more cohesive identity within psychology-law circles.
Implications for research: ecologically valid research in forensic and correctional contexts must respect ethical constraints and contextual realities; research can have broader applicability beyond its initial intent (e.g., studies on isolation inform mental health policy beyond correctional housing).
Implications for public perception: differing ethical and practical contexts shape public understanding of psychology’s role in law and corrections.
Education, Training, and Workforce Issues
Internship opportunities and compensation (APPIC data, 2017):
At least internships with starting salaries of at least per year.
Of these, are at APA-accredited Federal BOP sites offering at least ; are military internships requiring a subsequent service commitment; 1 is a Canadian site not APA-accredited.
Starting salaries in clinical-correctional psychology (Federal BOP, 2016): per year (i.e., about ).
Postdoctoral salaries for forensic psychology careers (BLS 2016; 2008 salary shown in inflation-adjusted terms): per year after postdoctoral training.
Relative density of practitioners:
Correctional psychology: about 2 ext{%} of health service providers in psychology (estimated around 2,000 psychologists in prisons nationwide around 2000).
Forensic psychology: about 11 ext{%} of licensed psychologists reporting either a primary or secondary specialty in forensic psychology (Hamp, Stamm, Lin, & Christidis, 2016).
Distribution and visibility issues:
The APPIC internship directory lumps forensic and correctional opportunities together; correctional-specific training is less visible or consistently labeled as correctional (rather than forensic).
APA’s Division 41 (AP-LS) guides graduate training in forensic psychology; however, correctional psychology is not always clearly identified as a distinct path within available programs.
Implications for career planning:
For students seeking forensic psychology careers, postdoctoral training is often essential; for correctional psychology, on-the-job training and specialized rotations have historically been the norm, with fewer formal postdoctoral pathways.
There are dedicated resources (APPIC, AP-LS) to locate opportunities, but prospective students should be aware of labeling issues and seek correctional-specific opportunities when desired.
Distinctions Are Not Yet Widely Known
APPIC and many textbooks often conflate forensic and correctional psychology; correctional paths are less clearly delineated than forensic paths.
The APA’s official Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2013) and the 1980/2010 ethics for correctional psychology reflect distinct professional standards; however, practice settings and literature continue to blur the lines.
The article argues for clearer education and workforce information to help students, mentors, and the public understand the two subfields and how to pursue distinct career paths.
Ethical and Practical Implications in Practice
Forensic and correctional settings present ethical complexities beyond standard psychology ethics, due to the interaction with legal systems and the dual goals of societal protection and individual rights, respectively.
Forensic work may prioritize informing adjudication and public safety, potentially at odds with individual defender interests.
Correctional work must balance therapeutic aims with security constraints, including issues around confidentiality and disciplinary procedures.
Ethical guidelines in these subfields supplement general APA ethics with context-specific considerations (e.g., handling of sensitive communications in confinement settings, or the limits of expert testimony in court).
Key Concepts, Terms, and References (Glossary)
Adjudication: the legal process of resolving a dispute or deciding a case. Forensic psychology typically contributes during adjudication, up to the final judgment.
Preadjudication vs postadjudication: preadjudication refers to statuses before formal guilt/conviction; postadjudication refers to statuses after conviction.
Malingering: deliberate faking or exaggeration of symptoms; a topic in forensic evaluation relevant to competency and other court decisions.
Competence to stand trial: a legal standard assessing whether a defendant can participate in their defense; a key forensic assessment area.
Juvenile/wrongful development contexts: developmental considerations and the veracity of abuse allegations in family law and custody disputes.
Classification, rehabilitation, housing policies: core correctional psychology domains focused on risk management, treatment, and living conditions within facilities.
Standards and guidelines (highlights):
APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010 update).
Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA, 2013).
Standards for psychology services in jails, prisons, correctional facilities (IA CFP, 3rd ed., 2010).
Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce (APA, 1994).
Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards (ABA, 1989).
Notable figures and works:
Saleem Shah and his leadership in funding and shaping early correctional and forensic psychology programs (1960s–1970s).
Judge David Bazelon’s influential but critical stance on overreach in applying behavioral science to law (1970s).
Jay Ziskin’s critique and the push for scientific foundations in forensic psychology (1970).
R. K. Otto and K. Heilbrun, and Grisso’s contributions to forensic psychology training and practice (1990s–2000s).
Key organizations and milestones:
AP-LS (Division 41, APA): home for forensic psychology and, to a degree, correctional psychology.
American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP): established in 1977.
International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology (IA CFP): consolidation of correctional and forensic psychology identities.
Lake Wales Conference and related publications (Brodsky, 1973): helped catalyze modern correctional psychology.
Supplemental and References
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000227.supp
Core works and references cited in the article (selected):
American Psychological Association (APA). (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings.
American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology.
International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology. (2010). Standards for psychology services in jails, prisons, correctional facilities, and agencies.
Johnson, L. B. (1965). Special message to the Congress on law enforcement and the administration of justice.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform.
Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior.
Ziskin, J. (1970). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony.
Wyatt v. Stickney (1971).
Summary Takeaways
Forensic and correctional psychology are distinct but related subfields with overlapping histories and shared goals of applying psychology to law and justice.
The timing and purpose of an activity determine whether it is considered forensic or correctional, not the setting or the professional’s primary identity alone.
Forensic psychology tends to be more focused on informing adjudication and public safety in legal contexts; correctional psychology emphasizes offender classification, treatment, and risk management within the justice system.
Ethical practice in both subfields requires attention to the unique contextual demands and the balance between individual rights and societal safety, beyond standard psychology ethics.
Education and workforce data show different pathways and opportunities: forensic psychology often emphasizes postdoctoral training; correctional psychology has strong on-the-job training and interdisciplinary engagement, with notable salary and placement patterns in federal and military settings.
The article calls for clearer, more accessible information about correctional psychology as a discrete field to support education, mentoring, and public understanding.
Important Dates, Figures, and Facts (selected)
Emergence of modern subfields: –.
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act: .
LEAA funded early correctional and forensic initiatives: –.
Shah’s leadership and funding activities: –.
Lake Wales conference and early correctional psychology volumes: early .
Forensic psychology: key legal and ethical developments through the 1990s–2010s (e.g., AP-LS guidelines, 1991; 2013 revision; 2010 ethics standards for correctional psychology).
Internship and salary data (APPIC, 2017): at least internships with ; at federal BOP; military; 1 Canadian site.
Starting salary for clinical-correctional psychologist in the BOP: per year.
Forensic psychology starting postdoc salary: per year.
Proportions in workforce (Hamp et al., 2016): correctional psychologists ~2 ext{%} of licensed psychologists; forensic psychology ~11 ext{%} reporting a primary/secondary specialty.
Major cases shaping practice: Durham v. United States (1954); Jenkins v. United States (1962); Barefoot v. Estelle (1983); Wyatt v. Stickney (1971).