The Psychology & Law Reading Group

University of Arkansas

The Psychology and law Lab is run by Dr. James Lampinen of the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. The Lab conducts research on missing children, protecting children from violence, false memories, eyewitness testimony and psychology and the law. The reading group meets on a weekly basis to discuss recent articles of interest to the lab. Members of the reading group include the graduate students, affiliated graduate students and thesis students in the lab as well as other interested parties.

Every semester we read on the order 16 articles and about another 12 during the summer. That's around 44 or so articles a year that we read as part of the reading group. Of course, graduate students and thesis students also need to do independent reading of articles related to their own projects, but reading 44 current articles a year should give everyone a pretty good grasp of current research related to the topics of interest to the lab.

Purposes of the Reading Group

To get the most out of reading group you need to consider the purposes it is meant to serve.  So below I've tried to spell out what we think you should be getting out of the reading group.

Discipline:  One purpose of reading group is to instill a sense of discipline.  By committing yourself to not just read and actively process at least one article a week, you gain the discipline that is necessary to stay on the cutting edge. Keeping on top of the literature can be challenging, especially in a rapidly growing research area like ours. It is easy to find reasons why you don't have the time to stay up to date on all the new research that's coming out.  But being busy isn't an excuse for not staying on top of the new research that's being published.  Reading group gives you a sense of discipline.  A sense that keeping up on the latest research is a priority that you will keep.  That sense of discipline is something I want you to get out of reading group and it requires not just reading the articles but having something intelligent to say about them. 

Knowledge:  Reading group is a mechanism to keep the lab as a whole up to date on all the latest research in our area.  Getting a Ph.D., or any advanced degree, requires that you become an expert in some area of study.  Experts know everything that's being done in their area. For our lab, that area includes topics related to protecting children from violence, false memories, eyewitness testimony, and other areas in psychology and the law.  Leaders in our lab should know everything that's coming out right now on these topics so that you look sharp when you present your research at conferences, in journal articles and at thesis defenses.  When you apply to graduate school, or law school, or for a job, people will be extremely impressed with how up to date your knowledge is on this topic, even if you end up pursuing a different topic as your area of specialization.  They will realize you have what it takes to succeed at whatever you end up doing.

Analytical Skill:  Reading group should be building the ability to carefully analyze research, and to express your opinions on that research in a friendly atmosphere. This requires looking at the research with a more critical eye than you may be used to.  You need to be aware of alternate interpretations for the outcomes of any study. However, critical reading isn't just about criticizing.  Just as there is almost always something you can critique about an article, there is also almost always something you can get out of an article. At this point you cannot expect to be spoon-fed knowledge.  Knowledge and insight don't come to you for free. They are something you have to be willing to work for.

Synthetic Skill: Reading group should be about more than simply understanding any single article.  It is meant to promote the ability to see connections between ideas.  Building skills at synthesis requires the ability to see contradictions as well.  Anyone can pick apart an article, or praise an article.  You should want to do more than that though.  You should be able to place what we're reading and discussing into a larger context.

Creativity:  Reading group should also be a mechanism for generating new research ideas. Look for the connection to your own research. Think about what additional questions the article raises and how you might address those questions empirically.  Occasionally you may not like an article.  That's okay. You can't like every article that you read.  But keep in mind that every article we read is the result of someone putting in months or even years of hard work and effort.  So by all means critique the articles that we read, that is an important part of the scientific process, but always do so respectfully.  And ask yourself, how you can advance the ball.  If you didn't like the way something was done in a study, how would you make it better?  How can you build on what other people have done?

Showing What You've Got:  On a more pragmatic level, for the undergraduates, reading group gives me a sense of your intellectual, analytical and presentation skills.  These are areas that I need to comment on in letters of recommendation.  I always mention performance in Reading Group in my letters of recommendation.  When it comes to the part of the letter where I need to comment on your ability for independent thought, your ability for making an independent intellectual contribution, your ability to analyze and make sense of research, keep in mind that I will be able to do a better job of selling you if you give me a chance to see those abilities.  Reading group is an opportunity to do just that.

Reading Group Format

The format for the group is this: Every week some poor sap will have to present the article. That should take no more than 10 minutes or so.  But keep in mind, the presentation is meant to be a springboard for discussion, so people can feel free to interrupt and ask questions or make comments or whatever.  This is meant to be a fairly casual exchange of ideas. After the presentation there will be a free for all discussion. Everyone is expected to contribute to that discussion. No social loafing.  In order to facilitate the conversation, everyone else needs to read the article and have at least two questions, comments, complaints, faint praise, etc. about that article. These need to be prepared ahead of time.  However, my strong preference is for you to have the self-confidence to jump into the fray without having to be coaxed.

Here are some things to think about for each article we read:

  • What substantively did you like about the article? How did it contribute to your knowledge of the topic at hand? What interesting insights and factual knowledge did you gain?
  • What the methodology used in the article appropriate? Were the empirical techniques adequate?  Was the research strong in terms of internal validity, external validity, and construct validity?  Were the statistical techniques appropriate?
  • What did you not like about the article? What could have been done better? What could have been improved? Did you buy their conclusions?
  • What do you think of the article’s theoretical claims?  Did you buy them? How did the research conducted buttress or call into question those claims?
  • What are the applied implications of the research?
  • Does the research give you any ideas for follow up research?  Are there untested ideas that the research gives you? Remember, we’re active researchers, so one big purpose of reading group is for us to come up with new research ideas.

The person presenting should put together a summary of the main points of the article and we'll post these summaries on the web. They'll be like notes that we all share in case we ever need to reference these articles in the future. A couple things about the summary. First keep in mind that we intend to use these summaries as notes we can use when putting together articles of our own. Please include enough detail to make that possible. I may ask you to revise your summary before its posted if I think there are other points that need to be included.  Don't take offense if I do so, part of what you should be learning is how to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.  If you're not sure how much detail to include look at one of my summaries for guidance. Second, this is a summary of the article and it should be written in your own words.  Third, the first line of the summary should be the citation of the article in APA style. After you present you should email the summary as an attachment to the reading group webmaster.

Summaries of reading group articles are posted on the web both for our own benefit and to share them with the larger community. For our friends in cyberspace please feel free to take advantage of the article summaries to find interesting sources but keep in mind that a summary can never replace reading the primary source. If you feel like we have made an error in any of the summaries or if you find any dead links please feel free to contact us and let us know about it so that we can make corrections. 

Fall 2008

Odegard, T.N., Holliday, R.E., Brainerd, C.J., & Reyna, V.F. (2008). Attention to global gist processing eliminates age effects in false memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 96-113. (link)

Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. (2008). The reappearance hypothesis revisited: Recurrent involuntary memories after traumatic events and in everyday life. Memory & Cognition, 36, 449-460. (link)

Geraerts, E., McNally, R., Jelicic, M., Merckelbach, H., & Raymaekers, L. (2008). Linking thought suppression and recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Memory, 16, 22-28. (link)

French, L., Garry, M., & Mori, K. (2008). You say tomato? Collaborative remembering leads to more false memories for intimate couples than for strangers. Memory, 16, 262-273. 

Brainerd, C., Reyna, V., & Ceci, S. (2008). Developmental reversals in false memory: A review of data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 343-382.

Hall, N., & Berntsen, D. (2008). The effect of emotional stress on involuntary and voluntary conscious memories. Memory, 16, 48-57.

Murrie, D., Boccaccini, M., Johnson, J., & Janke, C. (2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on Psychopathy Checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations?. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 352-362.

Saucier, D.A., Hockett, J.M. & Wallenberg, A.S. (2008). The Impact of Racial Slurs and Racism on the Perceptions and Punishment of Violent Crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 685-701.

Peace, K., Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2008). Are memories for sexually traumatic events 'special'? A within-subjects investigation of trauma and memory in a clinical sample. Memory, 16, 10-21.

Walker, P.M. & Hewstone, M. (2008). The influence of social factors and implicit racial bias on a generalized own-race effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 441-453.

Skagerberg, E., & Wright, D. (2008). The co-witness misinformation effect: Memory blends or memory compliance?. Memory, 16, 436-442.

Vrieze, S.I. and Grove, W.M. (2008). Predicting Sex Offender Recidivism. I. Correcting for Item Overselection and Accuracy Overestimation in Scale Development. II. Sampling Error-Induced Attenuation of Predictive Validity Over Base Rate Information. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 266-278.

Richler, J.J., Gauthier, I., Wenger, M.J. & Palmeri, T.J.(2008). Holistic processing of faces: Perceptual and decisional components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 34, 328-342.

London, K., Bruck, M., Wright, D., & Ceci, S. (2008). Review of the contemporary literature on how children report sexual abuse to others: Findings, methodological issues, and implications for forensic interviewers. Memory, 16, 29-47.

Mitchell, K.J., Wolak, J. & Finkelhor, D. (2008). Are blogs putting youth at risk for online sexual solicitation or harassment? Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 277-294.

Trowbridge, B., & Adams, J. (2008). Sexually violent predator assessment issues. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 26, 29-62.

Shackel, R.L. (2008). The beliefs commonly held by adults about children's behavioral responses to sexual victimization. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 485-495.