Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

How Well Do Jurors Reason? Competence Dimensions of Individual Variation in a Juror Reasoning Task

12 references·16 citing·38 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1990The case for motivated reasoning.9,014 cited
1991The Skills of Argument2,094 cited
2006Thinking and Deciding1,422 cited
1981Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated?1,224 cited
1999Everyday Cognition: Development in Social Context1,215 cited
1989Children and adults as intuitive scientists.774 cited
1986Practical intelligence : nature and origins of competence in the everyday world708 cited
2012Informal Reasoning and Education702 cited
1985Rationality and Intelligence510 cited
1987Rationality and Intelligence370 cited
1993The story model for juror decision making313 cited
1991Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts.189 cited

Cited by

2022Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility248 cited
2008Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?215 cited
2007Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking195 cited
2004Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change

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

177 cited

1999Differential Use of Person Information in Decisions about Guilt Versus Innocence: The Role of Implicit Theories152 cited

2001Science on the Web: Student Evaluations of Scientific Arguments138 cited

2002The everyday production of knowledge: individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror‐reasoning skill85 cited

1995The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory.84 cited

1995Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help.83 cited

2003Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments83 cited

2006Identification of informal reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level, grade level, and cognitive ability.80 cited

2006Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing: Integrating Domain Specificity and Domain Generality: A Response to Muis, Bendixen, and Haerle (2006)78 cited

2008Do students need to be taught how to reason?78 cited

1997Commonsense rape judgments: An empathy-complexity theory of rape juror story making.75 cited

2012Reasoning as a Social Competence71 cited

2011Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?69 cited