Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.

7 references·16 citing·38 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1966Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences1,968 cited
1966Behavioral sciences and the law.1,075 cited
1971The American Jury551 cited
1983Inside the jury440 cited
1976Methods of research in social psychology382 cited
1991Federal Rules of Evidence272 cited
2013Rules for Reasoning137 cited

Cited by

2009Sexual Harassment at Work: A Decade (Plus) of Progress191 cited
2009The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear.102 cited
2011The Influence of fMRI Lie Detection Evidence on Juror Decision‐Making82 cited
2007The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.81 cited
2018Introduction and validation of the Juror Decision Scale (JDS): An empirical investigation of the Story Model75 cited
2003Handbook of psychology in legal contexts72 cited
2007Scientific jury selection.71 cited
2003Juror decision‐making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony69 cited

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

2009Reality check: A comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment66 cited

2004The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts62 cited

2004Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater.62 cited

2001Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases.60 cited

2008Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?57 cited

2008Juror Need for Cognition and Sensitivity to Methodological Flaws in Expert Evidence153 cited

2002Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases.46 cited

2001Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Exploring the Effects of Attractiveness on Perception of Harassment44 cited