Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons?

16 references·3 citing·45 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2005International affective picture system (IAPS) : affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual5,307 cited
2000A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation4,175 cited
1992The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence1,842 cited
2010Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration1,682 cited
2007Exploring Intuition and its Role in Managerial Decision Making1,511 cited
2009Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward1,298 cited
2009Strengthening forensic science in the United States : a path forward957 cited
1992The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model925 cited
1992Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics865 cited
2000Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know829 cited
1985Accountability: A Social Check on the Fundamental Attribution Error777 cited
2009The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning735 cited
1985Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice.625 cited
2001The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists' decision making591 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

1983ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE PERSEVERANCE OF FIRST IMPRESSIONS515 cited

2005Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications482 cited

Cited by

2021The right contextual information determining the success of communication on translation23 cited
2022Is forensic science in crisis?10 cited
2016Determining the Proper Evidentiary Basis for an Expert Opinion10 cited