Abstract
Background. Legal psychology, as a branch of scientific «knowledge», is represented by two most prevalent paradigms: anthropological and clinical, the formation and development of which took place within the influence of earlier psychological paradigmatic directions, such as behaviorism, cognitivism and clinicism. Therefore, the problem of the influence of cognitivism on the emergence, formation and development of the anthropological paradigm in legal psychology remains as a discussional research topic.
Objective. To identify the role and aspects of the cognitive influence on the anthropological paradigm in legal psychology, which involves the structuring of elements of legal-psychological cognitivism, the definition of common cognitive-anthropological elements and methods of their interparadigmatic implementation.
Methods. To achieve the objective of the research, systematic and structural-functional methods were applied in order to find the permanent elements of the cognitive trend in legal psychology, and to systematize its relationship with the anthropological paradigm. In addition, a bibliometric analysis of current scientific publications related to the development of anthropologism and cognitivism in legal psychology was used to form the theoretical basis of the research.
Results. Using the conceptual-categorical apparatus of Thomas Samuel Kuhn, it’s stated that paradigmality transfers «knowledge» from the pre-scientific state to «normal science», that is, to an ordered system that functions within the constant structures – paradigms. The article makes it possible to trace the epistemological interdisciplinary transition from logical-mathematical to social-behavioral sciences in the context of legal and psychological issues, mainly due to the application of cognitivist ideas, that leaned to formalization, by anthropological paradigm. The integration of separate and fragmented scientific and psychological directions into paradigms, in particular into cognitive or anthropological ones, involves the consolidation of the most valid methods, techniques and methodologies. Thus, in the context of the interdisciplinary approach, the implementation of «knowledge» from a purely socio-behavioral context into a legal-behavioral one is characterized.
Conclusions. The article uses a paradigmatic approach to the history of science, to determine the decisive role of cognitivists in the implementation of the «scientific revolution» in the psychological field, specifically in legal psychology and its social context. The article outlines an adaptation of the methodology, which was started back in the days of experimental psychology, and which was used by both cognitivists and clinicians and its implementation by anthropological paradigm. It has been proven that in the process of forming paradigms in legal psychology, the corresponding methodological adaptation took place on the basis of cognitivism.
Key words: legal psychology, anthropological paradigm, clinical paradigm, cognitivism, cognitive approach.
Received: 23 December 2025
Accepted for publication: 22 February 2026
Published: 28 February 2026
References
Alber, E., & Kölbl, C. (2025). Literacy and illiteracy, its relational other: A key topic for collaboration between psychology and anthropology. Ethos, 53(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.70015
Ash, M. G. (2024). Situating Cognitive Science after 1945. Human Arenas, 8(3), 713-724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-024-00421-6
Baskin-Sommers, A., Williams, A., Benson-Williams, C., Ruiz, S., Ricard, J. R., & Camacho, J. (2024). Shrinking the footprint of the criminal legal system through policies informed by psychology and neuroscience. Communications Psychology, 2(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00090-9
Batastini, A. B., Guyton, M. R., Bernhard, P. A., Folk, J. B., Knuth, S. B., Kohutis, E. A., Lugo, A., Stanfill, M. L., & Tussey, C. M. (2023). Recommendations for the use of telepsychology in psychology-law practice and research: A statement by American Psychology-Law Society (APA Division 41). Psychology Public Policy and Law, 29(3), 255-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000394
Becerra, D., & Cárdenas, F. (2025). The path towards a new paradigm: sustainability as the transformative axis in contemporary law. Novum Jus, 19(1), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.14718/novumjus.2025.19.1.10
Berry, J. W., Lonner, W. J., & Best, D. L. (2022). The ascent of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(7-8), 715-728. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221112327
Brownstein, M., Kelly, D., & Madva, A. (2022). Taking social psychology out of context. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e71. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x21000704
Chieffo, D. P. R. (2023). Un nuovo paradigma: impressioni sulla clinica contemporanea. Ricerche di psicologia, 4, 53-59. https://doi.org/10.3280/rip2022oa15715
Chin, T., Caputo, F., Lin, C., & Hu, F. (2022). Editorial: Understanding cognitive differences across cultures: Integrating neuroscience and cultural psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1041734. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1041734
Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic structures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 116 P. https://tallinzen.net/media/readings/chomsky_syntactic_structures.pdf
Clark, G. (2025). The central importance of evolutionary Anthropology for the future of analytical psychology. International Journal of Jungian Studies, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1163/19409060-bja10052
Coltheart, M. (2023). Psychology is - and should be – central to cognitive science. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals). https://doi.org/10.4453/rifp.2023.0004
Connors, M. H., & Halligan, P. W. (2022b). Revealing the cognitive neuroscience of belief. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 926742. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.926742
Currie, A., Killin, A., Lequin, M., Meneganzin, A., & Pain, R. (2024). Past materials, past minds: The philosophy of cognitive paleoanthropology. Philosophy Compass, 19(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.13001
De Azevedo, J. H. A. (2022). A origem da antropologia kantiana. Griot Revista De Filosofia, 22(3), 230-243. https://doi.org/10.31977/grirfi.v22i3.3006
De La Fuente, J., Kauffman, D. F., & Boruchovitch, E. (2023). Editorial: Past, present and future contributions from the social cognitive theory (Albert Bandura). Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1258249. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1258249
De Leo, G., Patrizi, P. (2002). Psicologia giuridica. Rome: Il Mulino. 296 p.
De Vincenzo, C., Stocco, N., & Modugno, R. (2023). A critical sociocultural understanding of Evidence-Based Research and practice paradigm in contemporary Psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58(1), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09798-5
Dellantonio, S., & Pastore, L. (2023). What future for cognitive science(s)? Institutional Research Information System (Università Degli Studi Di Trento). https://doi.org/10.4453/rifp.2023.0001
Desjardins, S., Tang, R., Yip, S., Roy, M., & Otto, A. R. (2024). Context effects in cognitive effort evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 32(1), 407-416. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02547-8
Dobrew, M., Gerke, R., Giesen, S., & Röttger, J. (2025). Make-up strategies with incomplete markets and bounded rationality. European Economic Review, 104941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104941
Dong, X., Minford, P., Meenagh, D., & Yang, X. (2023). Bounded rational expectation: How it can affect the effectiveness of monetary rules in the open economy. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 101845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2023.101845
Doroudi, S. (2023). On the paradigms of learning analytics: Machine learning meets epistemology. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100192
Drayson, H. (2024). Sensorial Investigations: A history of the senses, in anthropology, psychology, and law. Leonardo, 581-582. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_r_02576
Dombrowski, S. C., & McGill, R. J. (2024). Clinical assessment in school psychology: impervious to scientific reform? Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 39(4), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735231224052
Facco, E. (2022). A neurophenomenological theory of the three worlds. Theory & Psychology, 32(5), 733-753. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543211068426
Goldberg, N. (2023). Kantian views of empirical truth. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philosophia, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphil.2023.1.02
Goodman, S. G. (2022). Just as long as it’s not an essay: the Unessay as a tool for engagement in a cognitive psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 51(4), 461-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283221110542
Glenney, B. (2023). David Howes, Sensorial Investigations: A History of the Senses in Anthropology, Psychology, and Law. Social History of Medicine, 38(1), 175-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkad103
Greenwood, J. D. (2020). On two foundational principles of the Berlin School of Gestalt Psychology. Review of General Psychology, 24(3), 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019893972
Herrera, G. R. (2025). On the Incommensurability of Paradigms: a Critical Vision; Sobre la inconmensurabilidad de paradigmas: una vision critica. Letras (Lima), 96(143), 50. https://doi.org/10.30920/letras.96.143.4
Hofman, E. (2025). Experimental Interrogations: tatbestandsdiagnostik, objectivity, and the impact of Experimental Psychology on Early-Twentieth-Century Criminal Justice. NTM Zeitschrift Für Geschichte Der Wissenschaften Technik Und Medizin, 33(4), 427-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-025-00431-7
Kaiser, B. N., & Weaver, L. J. (2022). Culture-bound syndromes, idioms of distress, and cultural concepts of distress: New directions for an old concept in psychological anthropology. Transcultural Psychiatry, 59(4), 395-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615221110665
Kargopoulos, P., V. (2023). What philosophy, if any, is needed for cognitive science? DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals). https://doi.org/10.4453/rifp.2023.0003
Krickel, B. (2024). The New Mechanistic Approach and Cognitive Ontology – Or: What Role do (Neural) Mechanisms Play in Cognitive Ontology? Minds and Machines, 34(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09679-9
Lee, K., Graves, S. L., & Bumpus, E. (2022). Competency standards in cognitive assessment course assignments: A national analysis of school psychology syllabi. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 17(2), 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000409
Levín, S. A. (2025). The crisis of scientific paradigm in modern psychiatry and a look to the future. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences Reports, 4(2), e70132. https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.70132
Lopes, J., & Phenomenology, R. S. F. (2024). Cognitive science, phenomenology, and the unity of science. Studia Phaenomenologica, 24, 81-102. https://doi.org/10.5840/studphaen2024245
Lowe, E., Bennardo, et al.. (2025). The Cambridge Handbook of Psychological Anthropology. In Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009026246
Millán, J. D., & Salas, G. (2024). ‘Wundt’s work is merely an incident in one of the challenging scholarly careers on recent history’: The media and academic reception of Völkerpsychologie , 1900-1920. History of the Human Sciences, 38(1), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951241287387
Miller, G. A. (1994). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343-352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343
Mülberger, A. (2022). Early Experimental Psychology: How did Replication Work Before P-Hacking? Review of General Psychology, 26(2), 131-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211066468
Mungan, E. (2023). Gestalt theory: A revolution put on pause? Prospects for a paradigm shift in the psychological sciences. New Ideas in Psychology, 71, 101036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2023.101036
O’Donohue, W., Ferguson, K. E., & Naugle, A. E. (2003). The structure of the cognitive revolution: An examination from the philosophy of science. The Behavior Analyst, 26(1), 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392069
Omrani-Shishavan, A., Zeynali-Tazehkandi, M., & Aminpoor, H. (2025). Impact of Perfectionism, Cognitive Style and Emotional Schema on Popular Psychology: a Regression Analysis. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 25(1-2), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340198
Patrizi, P. (2007). In ricordo del professor Gaetano De Leo. Psicologia Sociale, 1, 3-4. https://doi.org/10.1482/24329
Petrovich, E., & Viola, M. (2022). The «cognitive neuroscience revolution» is not a (Kuhnian) revolution. Evidence from scientometrics. Rivista Internazionale Di Filosofia E Psicologia. https://doi.org/10.4453/rifp.2022.0013
Pietrzyk, M. (2025). In search of a «Happy ending» in Legal interpretation: Cognitive Dissonance in Judicial Decision-Making. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale De Sémiotique Juridique, 38(5), 1619-1638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-025-10247-2
Potters, J. (2022). Conceptualizing paradigms: on reading Kuhn’s history of the quantum. Annals of Science, 79(3), 386-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2022.2063945
Preston, J. (2024). Kuhn’s paradigms and their early critics. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2877(1), 012072. URL: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2877/1/012072
Proctor, R. W., & Warren, A. D. (2024). Mechanism and contextualism in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 34(3), 328-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543241234654
Ren, Y., & Han, D. (2022). On equivalent classes of minimal Abelian codes. Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, 189, 105616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcta.2022.105616
Robertson, P., Walsh, V., & Mills, C. (2025). Integrating the cognitive science of religion with the dynamic framework of thought. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000337
Rodax, N., Mihalits, D. S., & Valsiner, J. (2023). Wundt’s logic: Old resource for new ideas. Theory & Psychology, 33(5), 642-660. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543231176542
Sarris, V. (2019). Kommentar zu Max Wertheimer: „Produktives Denken“. In Klassische Texte der Wissenschaft (pp. 1-24). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59821-4_1
Schwartz, A. I., & Sunderman, G. (2024). Forging links between cognitive psychology, applied linguistics, and educational psychology. The American Journal of Psychology, 137(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.5406/19398298.137.2.07
Sefotho, M. M., & Letseka, M. (2024). Botho/Ubuntu paradigm as cognitive justice in psychology. School Psychology International, 45(3), 233-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343241244748
Sergiou, A. S. E., & Gabora, L. (2025). The cognitive and evolutionary science of behavioural modernity goes beyond material chronology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 48, e16. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x24000943
Sheehan, C. (2021). Psychological anthropology and medical anthropology: a brief history of ideas and concepts. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 39(2), 115-120. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipm.2021.34
Silva, F. M. F. (2022). «Here (. . .) Practical Anthropology becomes pure art»: Kant on the distinction between Empirical Psychology and Pragmatic Anthropology. Filosofia Unisinos, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4013/fsu.2022.231.09
Sinha, C. (2023). Making Sense of Law: Critical reflection on neuroscience, socialization, and self. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58(1), 247-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09762-3
Siregar, R., & Simbolon, I. Y. (2025). Challenging psychology and human reconstruction: a review of ‘Innovations in Psychological Anthropology.’ Qualitative Research in Psychology, 23(2), 494-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2025.2504288
Skorinko, J. L. M., Schweitzer, K., & Kehn, A. (2025). Editorial: Applying cognitive and social psychology to the legal system: what we know today and what is next. Frontiers in Cognition, 4, 1695413. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2025.1695413
Tomičić, A. (2022). Rascjepi i presjeci antropologije i socijalne psihologije – interdisciplinarnost kroz teoriju socijalnih reprezentacija kao strategija u kulturnim studijima. Studia Ethnologica Croatica, 34, 277-307. https://doi.org/10.17234/sec.34.12
Viale, R., Gallagher, S., & Gallese, V. (2023). Bounded rationality, enactive problem solving, and the neuroscience of social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1152866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1152866
Ulrich, R., & Kaup, B. (2024). Wilhelm Wundt: His bumpy start in science at the University of Tübingen. History of Psychology, 27(1), 90-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000251
Vinck, D. (2025). Paul Bouffartigue, Caroline Lanciano-Morandat, Claude Paraponaris, Jean-Pierre Poitou. De la psychologie expérimentale à l’anthropologie des connaissances. La Nouvelle Revue Du Travail, 26. https://doi.org/10.4000/13uoc
Westheimer, G. (2023). Gestalt theory in 20th-century history. Journal of Vision, 23(8), 14. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.8.14
Wertheimer, M. (1912). Experimentelle Studien über das Sehen von Bewegung. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 61 (1), 161-265. https://www.gestalttheory.net/download/Wertheimer1912_Sehen_von_Bewegung.pdf
Yueyu, S., & Shenchun, G. (2022). A critique of the philosophical presuppositions of cognitive psychology. Social Sciences in China, 43(4), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2022.2166294
Zagaria, A., & Lombardi, L. (2024). A new perspective on trends in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 74, 101078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101078
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Viktoriia Petrushenko