Contemporary inquiries in psychology and law increasingly cross disciplinary boundaries for inspiration. Our focus is on whether such research is substantive in both directions and whether interdisciplinary psychology-and-law author teams produce more meaningful interdisciplinary work, specifically in decision-making research conducted between 2004 and 2017. We found that interdisciplinary psychology-and-law author teams (a) produce publications that show more cross-disciplinary integration in methods than single-discipline teams, (b) produce publications with more conceptual integration in the introduction and discussion than only law author teams, and (c) elicit more citations than only law or only psychology author teams. When considering a collaborative team approach, we suggest that the disciplinary background of the collaborators is a meaningful indicator of the type of interdisciplinary research to be conducted. We also suggest that it would be beneficial for both psychology and law journals to be more open to publishing scholarship from mixed disciplinary teams.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||21|
|Journal||Annual review of psychology|
|State||Published - Jan 4 2020|
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2019 Association for Computing Machinery. All rights reserved.
- conceptual integration
- decision making and law
- psychology and law
PubMed: MeSH publication types
- Journal Article