Michael E. Fass
Miami Dade Community College

In this article, I present a forensic psychology role playing exercise
that may be used in several psychology courses. I developed this ex-
ercise to enhance student interest and stimulate classroom discus-
sion on the issue of the insanity defense and related psychological
topics. Evaluation data indicate that students enjoyed this exercise
and believed it improved their understanding of the insanity defense
and related issues.

Over the past few decades, voluminous articles, books, and
supportive studies as well as numerous educational confer-
ences promoted the use of active learning. Although defini-
tions of active learning vary, the term generally describes a
broad spectrum of learning situations in which students en-
gage in hands-on and minds-on experiences ( Benjamin, 1991;
Brothen, 1986; Frederick, 1987). Most educators currently
agree that students at all levels learn better when teachers in-
corporate components of active learning into the classroom
( Goldsmid & Wilson, 1980; McKeachie, 1994; Smith, 1992).

Of the many salient pedagogic tools listed under the um-
brella of active learning, one of the most common and suc-
cessful is role playing. Role playing activities are excellent
educational tools that engage students in the academic pro-
cess and act to stimulate class discussion and student interest
( Greenberg & Eskew, 1993 ). Role playing has been successful
in teaching person perception, leadership, attribution, small
group interaction, decision making theories, and numerous
other psychological themes ( Alexander & Scriven, 1977 ).
The use of role playing in the form of a mock trial led to im-
proved critical reasoning as well as heightened student in-
volvement in an undergraduate psychology and the law
course ( Perry, Huss, & McAuliff, 1996 ). The purpose of this
article is to present a forensic psychology role playing exercise
for use in introductory psychology classes, psychology and the
law classes, abnormal psychology classes, and other related
courses. This exercise provides students with an introduction
to the field of forensic psychology and allows students to ap-
ply psychological theories and concepts previously presented
in the course and to actively participate in a critical reasoning
exercise.

Forensic psychology receives succinct attention in the ma-
jority of texts used in introductory courses. Prior to this role
playing exercise, I introduce students to the multifaceted na-
ture of forensic psychology and give a historical overview of
some of the precedent setting cases. Among the numerous
precedent setting cases one may choose from, the following
cases raise several salient issues that lead to interesting class-
room discourse: (a) the M'Naghten Case ( 1843 ) that helped
to establish the precedent that if a defendant does not know
the difference between right and wrong, the defendant is not
culpable for his or her actions; (b) Durham v. United States
( 1954 ) in which the decision stated that the accused is not
criminally responsible for his or her action if this action was a
product of a mental disease or defect; (c) Parsons v. State
( 1866 ) in which the issue of irresistible impulse was intro-
duced; and (d) United States
v. Hinckley that led to the Insan-
ity Defense Reform Act of 1984. The instructor may also
choose to draw a distinction between competency issues and
insanity issues as well as discussing the differences between
"not guilty by reason of insanity" and "guilty but mentally ill"
( Bartol & Bartol, 1987 ). Discussion of contemporary and on-
going cases such as the recent Kaczynski case may stimulate
class discussion even further.

Following the introduction of modern forensic psychology,
five student volunteers each receive a randomly assigned role
(see Table 1). Volunteers for this exercise should be
quick-thinking, highly verbal, and confident students who
have already demonstrated these characteristics in class.
These students should also display an understanding of many
of the psychological theories already presented in class during
the semester. Each volunteer receives an index card with a
role playing profile the day before the exercise is used in class.
This preview allows the volunteers to become familiar with
the role, which makes their portrayal more realistic and less-
ens their nervousness as well. The volunteers know that
members of the class may ask them questions about their be-
havior or character after their presentation and that they
should make every effort to answer the question as if they
were the actual person they are profiling. The most common
questions are those dealing with issues of premeditation,
whether the person would be willing to see a therapist, or
what were you thinking when you threw the fan or pulled the
trigger. The volunteers have the option of simply choosing
not to answer the question by responding "I choose not to an-
swer this question at the present time." Although the ques-
tions directed at the role players are occasionally problematic
for the students, most of the time the students stay within
their roles and give logical and thoughtful responses.

The time allotted for this lesson should be approximately 1
to 11/2 hr depending on the amount of class discussion and how
in-depth one examines the suggested cases. This activity pro

duces the best results when all five roles are presented in the
same class session. Students have shown a tendency to lose
track of the meaningful parallels among the five roles when
some roles were presented in the subsequent class meeting.
Due to the fact that certain students tend to be quite vocal and
opinionated during the discussion phase of this activity, my
suggestion is to provide a diverse sampling of students with the
opportunity to express their views on the individual roles. At
the conclusion of the activity, students discuss their new per-
ceptions and opinions of the insanity defense including their
suggestions for potential reforms.

The five roles presented are intended to demonstrate that
although each profiled individual has murdered another per-
son, the extenuating circumstances including age, intelli-
gence, or mental illness makes the culpability decision a
difficult one for the majority of students. At the conclusion of
each role play, students give their opinions on whether there
should be punitive or nonpunitive action taken against the in-
dividual. The description of Role 5 mimics many of the same
characteristics of Role 4, which leads many students to reeval-
uate their opinions on the culpability of schizophrenics. Due to
concerns of classroom dynamics, I have always used normal
sentence structure and speech for Role 2.

Students in my introduction to psychology course (N =
31) evaluated this exercise during the next class session.
Based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree)
to 5 (strongly disagree), students rated whether the role play-
ing exercise provided them with a better understanding of
the issues related to the insanity defense. The mean scores for
the roles were Role 1 = 2.5, Role 2 = 2.0, Role 3 = 2.1, Role 4
= 2.2, and Role 5 = 2.0. Eighty-seven percent of the students
found the use of the roles to be very useful in providing a
better understanding of the issues related to the insanity de-
fense. Likewise, 87% of the students found this exercise to be
an enjoyable teaching technique. Finally, when asked to
evaluate the role that forced them to "think the most" about
the complexity of issues, the majority of students selected
Role 4 followed by Role 5.

In written comments, the majority of students discussed
how this exercise assisted them in recognizing the need for
the insanity defense in certain situations. Many students who
initially voiced opinions against the use of the insanity de-
fense displayed degrees of attitudinal shift in favor of the in-
sanity defense. Students who were already advocates of the
defense discussed how this role playing exercise reinforced
their previous beliefs.

Due to time constraints, this role playing exercise could be
abbreviated by using a subset of the five roles. Roles 1, 2, 4,
and 5 are related to the M'Naghten Case ( 1843 ) issue of dis-
tinguishing right from wrong. Role 4 should be discussed in
connection to Durham v. United States ( 1954 ) and Role 3 is
specifically related to the irresistible impulse standard. Due to
the salient parallels and crucial issues raised by the roles of
the Schizophrenic (Role 4) and the Party-Goer (Role 5), I

would recommend the inclusion of these roles in any short-
ened version. This exercise also acts as an excellent review
and application for many topics and issues discussed in varied
psychology courses. The use and validity of intelligence tests,
the etiology and symptoms of schizophrenia, and the differ-
ences between mental retardation and mental illness are but
a few of the topics addressed in conjunction to this exercise. I
have found this exercise fosters a scientific discourse that al-
lows both role players and nonrole players to gain a greater
understanding of forensic psychology. Finally, this active
learning exercise will most likely increase both overall course
interest and camaraderie among the students while facilitat-
ing a greater degree of critical thinking.

Alexander, C. N., Jr., & Scriven, G. D. ( 1977 ). "Role playing: An es-
sential component of experimentation". Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 3, 455-466.

Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. E. ( 1987 ). History of forensic psychology.
In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology
(pp. 3-22). New York: Wiley.

Benjamin, L. T., Jr. ( 1991 ). "Personalization and active learning in the
large introductory psychology class". Teaching of Psychology, 18,
68-74.

Brothen, T. F. ( 1986 ). Using active learning in large classes. In S. F. Schomberg
(Ed.), Strategies for active teaching and learning in univer-
sity classrooms (pp. 40-46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Teaching Center.

Durham v. United States, 214 F. 2d 862 ( D. C. Cir., 1954 ).

Frederick, P. J. ( 1987 ). "Student involvement: Active learning in
large classes". In M. G. Weiner (Ed.), Teaching large classes well (pp.
45-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goldsmid, C. A., & Wilson, E. K. ( 1980 ). Passing an sociology.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Greenberg J., & Eskew, D. E. ( 1993 ). "The role of role playing in orga-
nizational research". Journal of Management, 19, 221-241.

Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, §§
401-406 ( 1984 ).

McKeachie, W. J. ( 1994 ). Teaching tips (9th ed.). Lexington, MA:
Heath.

M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng. Rep 718 ( 1843 ).

Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854 ( 1866 ).

Perry, N. W., Huss, M. T., & McAuliff, B. D. ( 1996 ). "An ac-
tive-learning approach to teaching the undergraduate psychology
and law course". Teaching of Psychology, 23, 76-81.

Smith, D. H. ( 1992 ). "Encouraging students' participation in large
classes: A modest proposal". Teaching Sociology, 20, 337-339.