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 *

97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21766325)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: a comparison of students and jurors.
    Reichert J; Miller MK; Bornstein BH; Shelton HD
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):395-418. PubMed ID: 21308752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. "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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Estimating juror accuracy, juror ability, and the relationship between them.
    Park K
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Aug; 35(4):288-305. PubMed ID: 20658261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Stranger at the gate: the effect of the plaintiff's use of an interpreter on juror decision-making.
    Shuman DW; Stokes L; Martinez G
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(4):499-512. PubMed ID: 21618274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making.
    Crocker CB; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Jun; 34(3):212-26. PubMed ID: 19644740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions.
    Higgins PL; Heath WP; Grannemann BD
    J Soc Psychol; 2007 Aug; 147(4):371-92. PubMed ID: 17955749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Understanding pretrial publicity: predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors.
    Hope L; Memon A; McGeorge P
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2004 Jun; 10(2):111-9. PubMed ID: 15222805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: a meta-analytic review of defendant treatment.
    Mitchell TL; Haw RM; Pfeifer JE; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Dec; 29(6):621-37. PubMed ID: 16382353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The influence of FMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making.
    McCabe DP; Castel AD; Rhodes MG
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(4):566-77. PubMed ID: 21751243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.
    Krauss DA; Lieberman JD; Olson J
    Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(6):801-22. PubMed ID: 15568199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Faith in thy threshold.
    Curley LJ; Murray J; MacLean R; Laybourn P; Brown D
    Med Sci Law; 2018 Oct; 58(4):239-250. PubMed ID: 30060713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Are consistent juror decisions related to fast and frugal decision making? Investigating the relationship between juror consistency, decision speed and cue utilisation.
    Curley LJ; Murray J; MacLean R; Laybourn P
    Med Sci Law; 2017 Oct; 57(4):211-219. PubMed ID: 28992745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.