ANTHROPOLOGICAL PARADIGM IN LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published:
Aug 10, 2026
Abstract
The article reveals and systematises the main evolutionary developments of the anthropological paradigm in the context of the development of legal psychology, as distinctive scientific field. The author identifies the main patterns of the anthropological paradigm, particularly it’s role in the synthesis of legal and social problems in the context of determining the foundations of socio-legal behaviour (Fuller, 1994). This identification provides the background for a scientific framework that would help researcher to synthesize social, legal and institutional determinants of human behaviour in modern socio-legal systems from an anthropological paradigmal standpoint. It should be recognized that the anthropological paradigm focuses on scientific conduct, involving facts, data, and examples from a huge body of knowledge in the «psychology-law» system, which is amenable to processing by «anthropometric» methodological techniques. Anthropological paradigm serves an interdisciplinary integrative purpose in legal psychology.
How to Cite
Petrushenko, V. (2026). ANTHROPOLOGICAL PARADIGM IN LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY. Academia Polonica, 76(3), 472-476. https://doi.org/10.23856/7653
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
social anthropology, socio-legal conciseness, legal anthropology social psychology, legal decision-making, institution.
References
1. Anders, G. (2015). Law at its limits: interdisciplinarity between law and anthropology. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 47(3), 411-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329 113.2015.1110909
2. Berryessa, C. M., Allely, C. S., De Vel-Palumbo, M., & Granot, Y. (2022). Editorial: Social psychological process and effects on the law. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 990167. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.990167
3. Belgrano, M. (2021). «World» and «Paradigm» in Heidegger and Kuhn. Franciscanum, 63(175), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21500/01201468.4716
4. Caillé, A., Prades, P. (2015). Believing (in It). Back to «symbolic Efficiency». Revue du MAUSS, 46(2), 291-318. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.046.0291.
5. Danagher, L. (2025). Psychopathy, neuroscience, and critical issues: A legal primer. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 103, 102139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102139
6. Fuller, C. (1994). Legal Anthropology,: Legal Pluralism and Legal Thought. Anthropology Today, 10(3), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/2783478
7. González-Sala, F., Osca-Lluch, J., Gil, F. T., & Ortega, M. P. (2017). Caracterización de la Psicología Jurídica a través de las revistas de psicología incluidas en las categorias Criminology & Penology y Law de la Web of Science. Anales De Psicología, 33(2), 411. https://doi. org/10.6018/analesps.33.2.262591
8. Gulotta, G. (2002) (Ed.). Elementi di psicologia giuridica e di diritto psicologico. Milan: Giuffre. Pp. XVII-1428.
9. Kanca, E. (2025). Claude Levi-Strauss and Structuralism. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals). https://doi.org/10.13129/2240-7715/2025.1.65-73
10. Kuhn, T. S. (1961). The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research. A. C. Crombie (ed.). Scientific Change (Symposium on the History of Science, University of Oxford. pp. 347-369.
11. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Vol. 2, No. 2). University of Chicago Press. xvii+210 p. 12. Levi-Strauss, C. (1973). Anthropologie structurale deux. Paris: Plon. 459 p.
13. Levi-Strauss, C. (1955). The structural study of myth. The Journal of American Folklore, 68 (270), pp. 428-444. https://www.people.iup.edu/sherwood/Archived-Courses/ENGL- 752SuII-05/Docs/Structural_Study_of_Myth.pdf
14. Lombroso, C. (1876). L’uomo delinquente : studiato in rapporto alla antropologia, alla medicina legale ed alle discipline carcerarie. Milan: Hoepli, 273 p.
15. Mendoza, A. L. R. (2023). Legal psychology from social psychology. historical introduction of forensic psychology. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, 11(1), 5-7. https://doi.org/10.15406/frcij.2023.11.00361
16. Melnyk V.M. (2025). Paradyhma istoryzmu v sotsialnii psykholohii: sutnist spivprychetnosti ta pryvilei identychnosti. [The Paradigm of Historism in Social Psychology: The Essence of Connectedness and the Privilege of Identity]. Habitus: Sotsialna psykholohiia. Yurydychna psykholohiia, Vypusk 71. S. 299-306. https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-5 [In Ukrainian]
17. Ozerskyi, I. (2024). Identification of legal psychology as an independent branch of law. SSP Modern Law and Practice, 4(4), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.53933/sspmlp.v4i4.163
18. Scubla, L. (2011). Levi-Strauss, Lacan, And the Symbolic Order. Revue du MAUSS, 37(1), 253-269. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.037.0253
19. Silvia, M. (2021). Unveiling Human Behaviour: A comprehensive exploration of influential paradigms in psychology. Social Science Chronicle., 1(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.56106/ ssc.2021.005
20. Starynskyi, M., & Zavalna, Z. (2025). Paradigms in law: the reality of modern legal science. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 58-64. https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-601 8.2025.01.8
21. Tyurina, V. (2026). Yurydychna psykholohiia yak fundamentalnyi komponent formuvannia krytychnoho myslennia yak profesiino znachushchoi rysy osobystosti ofitsera systemy psykholohichnoho zabezpechennia politseiskykh v umovakh voiennoho stanu. [Legal psychology as a fundamental component of forming critical thinking as a professionally significant personality of an officer of the system of psychological support for police officers in conditions of martial law] Humanitarni studii: istoriia ta pedahohika, 1, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.35774/ gsip2026.01.349 [In Ukrainian]
22. Weimar, R. (1996). Psychologische Strukturen richterlicher Entscheidung. Bern: Stämpfli, 1996. 226 p.
2. Berryessa, C. M., Allely, C. S., De Vel-Palumbo, M., & Granot, Y. (2022). Editorial: Social psychological process and effects on the law. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 990167. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.990167
3. Belgrano, M. (2021). «World» and «Paradigm» in Heidegger and Kuhn. Franciscanum, 63(175), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21500/01201468.4716
4. Caillé, A., Prades, P. (2015). Believing (in It). Back to «symbolic Efficiency». Revue du MAUSS, 46(2), 291-318. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.046.0291.
5. Danagher, L. (2025). Psychopathy, neuroscience, and critical issues: A legal primer. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 103, 102139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102139
6. Fuller, C. (1994). Legal Anthropology,: Legal Pluralism and Legal Thought. Anthropology Today, 10(3), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/2783478
7. González-Sala, F., Osca-Lluch, J., Gil, F. T., & Ortega, M. P. (2017). Caracterización de la Psicología Jurídica a través de las revistas de psicología incluidas en las categorias Criminology & Penology y Law de la Web of Science. Anales De Psicología, 33(2), 411. https://doi. org/10.6018/analesps.33.2.262591
8. Gulotta, G. (2002) (Ed.). Elementi di psicologia giuridica e di diritto psicologico. Milan: Giuffre. Pp. XVII-1428.
9. Kanca, E. (2025). Claude Levi-Strauss and Structuralism. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals). https://doi.org/10.13129/2240-7715/2025.1.65-73
10. Kuhn, T. S. (1961). The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research. A. C. Crombie (ed.). Scientific Change (Symposium on the History of Science, University of Oxford. pp. 347-369.
11. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Vol. 2, No. 2). University of Chicago Press. xvii+210 p. 12. Levi-Strauss, C. (1973). Anthropologie structurale deux. Paris: Plon. 459 p.
13. Levi-Strauss, C. (1955). The structural study of myth. The Journal of American Folklore, 68 (270), pp. 428-444. https://www.people.iup.edu/sherwood/Archived-Courses/ENGL- 752SuII-05/Docs/Structural_Study_of_Myth.pdf
14. Lombroso, C. (1876). L’uomo delinquente : studiato in rapporto alla antropologia, alla medicina legale ed alle discipline carcerarie. Milan: Hoepli, 273 p.
15. Mendoza, A. L. R. (2023). Legal psychology from social psychology. historical introduction of forensic psychology. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, 11(1), 5-7. https://doi.org/10.15406/frcij.2023.11.00361
16. Melnyk V.M. (2025). Paradyhma istoryzmu v sotsialnii psykholohii: sutnist spivprychetnosti ta pryvilei identychnosti. [The Paradigm of Historism in Social Psychology: The Essence of Connectedness and the Privilege of Identity]. Habitus: Sotsialna psykholohiia. Yurydychna psykholohiia, Vypusk 71. S. 299-306. https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-5 [In Ukrainian]
17. Ozerskyi, I. (2024). Identification of legal psychology as an independent branch of law. SSP Modern Law and Practice, 4(4), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.53933/sspmlp.v4i4.163
18. Scubla, L. (2011). Levi-Strauss, Lacan, And the Symbolic Order. Revue du MAUSS, 37(1), 253-269. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.037.0253
19. Silvia, M. (2021). Unveiling Human Behaviour: A comprehensive exploration of influential paradigms in psychology. Social Science Chronicle., 1(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.56106/ ssc.2021.005
20. Starynskyi, M., & Zavalna, Z. (2025). Paradigms in law: the reality of modern legal science. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 58-64. https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-601 8.2025.01.8
21. Tyurina, V. (2026). Yurydychna psykholohiia yak fundamentalnyi komponent formuvannia krytychnoho myslennia yak profesiino znachushchoi rysy osobystosti ofitsera systemy psykholohichnoho zabezpechennia politseiskykh v umovakh voiennoho stanu. [Legal psychology as a fundamental component of forming critical thinking as a professionally significant personality of an officer of the system of psychological support for police officers in conditions of martial law] Humanitarni studii: istoriia ta pedahohika, 1, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.35774/ gsip2026.01.349 [In Ukrainian]
22. Weimar, R. (1996). Psychologische Strukturen richterlicher Entscheidung. Bern: Stämpfli, 1996. 226 p.
Issue