Abstract

Interest in interdisciplinary research combining the law with psychology is growing. Yet, methodological concerns remain as to the normative signficance of the underlying psychological work. This article considers the extent to which psychological evidence can help us to answer questions of a normative nature. It demonstrates that, despite the so-called ‘is-ought’ gap, empirical facts are essential to a normative inquiry. It subsequently argues that, given their particular nature, psychological fact statements can play an especially important role in answering normative questions. It follows that interdisciplinary research combining the law with psychology has the capacity to make valuable contributions to normative legal debates. By illuminating the limits and capabilities of psychological evidence – and fact statements more generally – to a normative inquiry, the framework developed here aims to go some way to facilitating such contributions.