Drawing the Line between Science and Policy

The issue of psychological maturity of adolescents has long been a murky area for legal
professionals and policy makers. Despite extensive research done on the topic, psychologists
still cannot agree on the different aspects of development and what makes an adolescent
emotionally and mentally capable of making independent decisions. Cognitive and emotional
development is too ambiguous and complex to be accurately represented by broad general
psychological research; thus lawmakers cannot use such findings as a basis for public policy.
Development is a lifelong process which peaks and regresses in different stages of life.
Kurt Fisher of Harvard Graduate School of Education states in his paper that there are multiple
pathways in development each of which are active in different situations and emotional states
(Fisher, 595). Adolescence is an especially tumultuous period as exemplified by the example of
Sally, a seventeen year old girl who is cognitively and socially capable at school and in public
yet emotionally unstable, selfish, and erratic at home with her mother. This demonstrates how
cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal skills can be very complex with distinct variations
(Fisher 595) and a dichotomy between cognitive and psychosocial maturity. Both Fisher and
Steinberg et al. acknowledge this difference but Steinberg still used the two as factors of
comparison for his research.
Capabilities are not static but instead vary dynamically from person to person and
situation to situation. For teenagers especially, their capabilities are linked to the situation and
emotional states. Thus to accurately assess their maturity in situations making a decision about
abortion or criminal activity, factors relating to cognitive and psychosocial abilities in these
specific situations should be examined. In his study, Steinberg concluded that adolescents
general cognitive abilities are essentially indistinguishable from those of adults
butpsychosocial functioningis significantly less mature. (Steinberg 592) However, the
research was based on tests of memory and verbal fluency, basic intellectual functioning, which
lack relevance to abortion and criminal activity.
In addition, the tests Steinberg used for psychosocial capabilities covered only a small
portion of the broad range of social and emotional skills and also had high subject bias as they
are self-reporting. By organizing the results and analyzing based on age group, Steinberg
assumed that once a capability is displayed in a certain context, it manifests itself the same way
in all situations (Steinberg 598). However this is not valid since capabilities are formed in
childhood and continue to develop through adulthood; this is an ever-changing process.
However, it is difficult to pinpoint the precise moment of adulthood, as Fisher has argued that
there are capabilities which are fully developed by the time we exit adolescence while others
continue to develop through the rest of our lives. In addition, the measures used lack a realistic
connection to the lived behaviors of adolescents andecological validity. (Fisher 599) The
measures may reflect situations in a testing room or the laboratory but once again hold no
relevance. Results from such invalid test measures neither reflect the situation nor the full range
of cognitive and psychosocial capabilities.
The differences in results and analysis between Fisher and Steinberg highlight the
complexities of development. Neither group could convincingly pinpoint a specific pattern for
the cognitive and psychosocial maturity of adolescents. It is clear that Steinberg et al.s results
are questionable along with other studies they cite, yet this research becomes the basis for our
legal decisions and public policy. Steinberg himself states, legal professionals typically want
simple answers to complicated onesoften forced to cast things in black and white. In order
for a judge to make a ruling or a lawmaker to write a law which may affect the mass public, it is
necessary for them to make generalizations about the population, a practice which especially in
the case of development cannot be used. As stated previously, development is too complex and
too dynamic to be simplified, yet this is exactly what the APA did in the 1990 and 2005 Supreme
Court cases and Steinberg et al. did in their Macarthur Juvenile Capacity Study. This sacrifice of
scientific integrity and mis-generalization show the need to draw a line between psychological
research and public policy.
Psychologists, while advising policymakers, will often simplify information to neat
packages of statistics, generalizations, and anecdotes to support their stance (Fisher 599) This
practice is harmful for the public who gets laws which do not accurately reflect real-life
situations. Psychologists stray from their purpose and become informants who boil down [the]
complexity into accessible, data-informed messages (Steinberg 604). They alter results and
analyses to fit with what the policy makers want, losing sight of the need for detailed assessment
of the individual and his or her motives. Fisher put it best when he says, Psychologists cannot
draw simple lines in the sand, after which a developing person can be confidently assigned a full
cognitive or psychosocial capability. Development is more complex and variable than that.
(Fisher 599)
Psychological research if used in public policy and amicus curiae brief for trials should
focus on the person and unraveling the individual story. Psychologists and legal professionals
should make a per-case basis assessment based on all factors in a persons life, including
childhood, education, relationships, cultural background, and current circumstances (Steinberg
602) This method does take more time but in such cases, the complete picture must be analyzed
instead of jumping to quick conclusions. Science must not be sacrificed just because legal
policymakers and practitioners want answers that get right to the point. (Steinberg 603)
Development is too complex and multi-dimensional for us to ignore.
In both the 1990 and 2005 cases, the Supreme Court relied on the APA to advise them on
the cognitive and psychosocial maturity of adolescents. The APA took two different positions in
each case which reflects the complicated nature of developmental science. This field is nearly
impossible to categorize since each individuals development takes a different pathway and no
clear line can be drawn between the immature adolescent and the mature adult. Yet despite
this, social scientists and psychologists still attempt to simplify the issue into marketable policy
for the so call general public. Psychological research should not be used to set public policy
at the cost of sacrifice of scientific truth to compensate for the laws need for clear cut lines of
black and white.