The American Psychological Association's amicus curiae brief inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins

The use of amicus curiae briefs to inform the courts about the scientific literature requires merging scientific and legal perspectives. A brief submitted by the APA inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) demonstrates how the values of the legal system can predominate over the values of science. The brief differed from a scientific review in three ways: (1) selective use of theories only when they supported the brief's position, (2) acceptance of Hopkins's contention concerning disputed facts, and (3) incomplete representation of the empirical literature. This article examines four of the main arguments in the brief. Half of the 33 studies cited in the brief for these arguments offered no support for the brief's position. In addition, the brief made no mention of a substantial body of research (78 studies) that directly contradicts these arguments.The authors would like to thank Ralph Alexander, Terri Baumgardner, Dennis Doverspike, Rick DeShon, Jan Dorsett, Lynn Kahney, Paul Levy, Robert Lord, Karen Maher, Marty Murphy, Jackie Szmania, and Linda Subich for their comments.