These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21351132)

  • 1. Jury decision making research: are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?
    Nuñez N; McCrea SM; Culhane SE
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):439-51. PubMed ID: 21351132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity.
    Keller SR; Wiener RL
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):376-94. PubMed ID: 21766327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors' decisions, impressions, and memory.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Jun; 39(3):294-310. PubMed ID: 25495716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mock jury research: where do we go from here?
    Wiener RL; Krauss DA; Lieberman JD
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):467-79. PubMed ID: 21706517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial.
    Golding JM; Bradshaw GS; Dunlap EE; Hodell EC
    Child Maltreat; 2007 May; 12(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 17446571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The power of meaningful numbers: Attorney guidance and jury deliberation improve the reliability and gist validity of damage awards.
    Reed K; Hans VP; Rotenstein V; Helm RK; Rodriguez A; McKendall P; Reyna VF
    Law Hum Behav; 2024 Apr; 48(2):83-103. PubMed ID: 38602803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Oct; 41(5):478-493. PubMed ID: 28714733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Town vs. gown: a direct comparison of community residents and student mock jurors.
    Hosch HM; Culhane SE; Tubb VA; Granillo EA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):452-66. PubMed ID: 21351133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample.
    McCabe JG; Krauss DA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):331-57. PubMed ID: 21766326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Jurors' cognitive depletion and performance during jury deliberation as a function of jury diversity and defendant race.
    Peter-Hagene L
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Jun; 43(3):232-249. PubMed ID: 31120276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Preface to "when does sample matter in juror decision-making research? Differences between college student and representative samples of jurors".
    Lieberman JD; Krauss DA; Wiener RL
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):325-7. PubMed ID: 21766325
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of students' and jury panelists' decision-making in split recovery cases.
    Fox P; Wingrove T; Pfeifer C
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):358-75. PubMed ID: 21308751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. "Race salience" in juror decision-making: misconceptions, clarifications, and unanswered questions.
    Sommers SR; Ellsworth PC
    Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(4):599-609. PubMed ID: 19513991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.
    Parrott CT; Brodsky SL; Wilson JK
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():67-74. PubMed ID: 26346686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reality check: a comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment.
    McCabe JG; Krauss DA; Lieberman JD
    Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(6):730-50. PubMed ID: 19856483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis.
    Bornstein BH; Golding JM; Neuschatz J; Kimbrough C; Reed K; Magyarics C; Luecht K
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Feb; 41(1):13-28. PubMed ID: 27762572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors.
    Carlson KA; Russo JE
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2001 Jun; 7(2):91-103. PubMed ID: 11477983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Public good, personal privacy: a citizens' deliberation about using medical information for pharmacoepidemiological research.
    Parkin L; Paul C
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2011 Feb; 65(2):150-6. PubMed ID: 19948532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: emotional bias and juror nullification.
    Horowitz IA; Kerr NL; Park ES; Gockel C
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):163-81. PubMed ID: 16786405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Racial bias in jury selection hurts mock jurors, not just defendants: Testing one potential intervention.
    Abramowitz K; Douglass AB
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Feb; 47(1):153-168. PubMed ID: 36931855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.