This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allen, M., Mabry, E., & McKelton, D. (1998). Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 715–731.
Amar, A. R. (1995), Reinventing juries: Ten suggested reforms. U. C. Davis Law Review, 28, 1169–1194.
American Bar Association (1990). Jury comprehension in complex cases. Washington, D.C.
Anderson, M.C., & MacCoun, R.J. (1999). Goal conflict in juror assessments of compensatory and punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 313–330.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
Azar, B. (2000a). A Web of research. Monitor on Psychology 31(4), 42–45.
Azar, B. (2000b). Resources for creating Web-based experiments. Monitor on Psychology, 31(4), 43.
Azar, B. (2000c). A Web experiment sampler. Monitor on Psychology, 1(4), 46–47.
Azar, B. (2000d). Online experiments: Ethically fair or foul? Monitor on Psychology, 31(4), 48–52.
Bailis, D. S., & MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide: A content analysis of media coverage of tort litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 419–429.
Baldwin, J., & McConville, M. (1979). Trial by jury: Some empirical evidence on contested criminal cases in England. Law and Society Review, 13, 861–890.
Baron, J. (1994). Thinking and deciding (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Beans, B. E. (2000). Free of charge, open all hours. Monitor on Psychology, 31(4), 48–49.
Becker, T. L., Hildum, D. C., & Bateman, K. (1965). The influence of jurors’ values on their verdicts: A courts and politics experiment. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 45, 130–140.
Bennett, R. B., Leibman, J. H., & Fetter, R. E. (1999). Seeing is believing; or is it? An empirical study of computer simulations as evidence. Wake Forest Law Review, 34, 257–294.
Bennett, W. L. & Feldman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgement in American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Berk, R. A., Hennessy, M., & Swan, J. (1977). The vagaries and vulgarities of scientific jury selection: A methodological evaluation. Evaluation Quarterly, 1, 143–158.
Berkoff, A. T. (1994). Computer simulations in litigation: Are television generation jurors being misled?. Marquette Law Review, 77, 829–855.
Bermant, G., & Coppock, R. (1972–1973). Outcomes of six-and twelve-member jury trials: An analysis of 128 civil cases in the state of Washington. Washington Law Review, 48, 593–596.
Bermant, G., McGuire, M., McKinley, W., & Salo, C. (1974). The logic of simulation in jury research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1, 224–233.
Bevan, W., Albert, R. S., Loiseaux, P. R., Mayfield, P. N., & Wright, G. (1958). Jury behavior as a function of the prestige of the foreman and the nature of his leadership. Journal of Public Law, 7, 419–449.
Blauner, R. (1975). The sociology of jury selection. In A. F. Ginger (Ed.), Jury selection in criminal trials. Tiburon, CA: Law Press.
Blum, A. (1996, January 22). Jury system undergoes patchwork remodeling. The National Law Journal, p. A I.
Blunt, L. W., & Stock, H. V. (1985). Guilty but mentally ill: An alternative verdict. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 3, 49–67.
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559 (1996).
Boehm, V. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 734–750.
Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.
Bornstein, B. H., & Rajki, M. (1994). Extra-legal factors and product liability: The influence of mock jurors’ demographic characteristics and intuitions about the cause of an injury. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 127–147.
Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children’ s credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702–732.
Bourgeois, M.J., Horowitz, I.A., & ForsterLee, L. (1993). Effects of technicality and access to trial transcripts on verdicts and information processing in a civil trial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 220–227.
Bray, R. M., & Kerr N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107–119.
Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372–386.
Brigham, J. C, & Wasserman, A. W. (1999). The impact of race, racial attitude, and gender on reactions to the criminal trial of O. J. Simpson. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1333–1370.
Brody, A. (1957). Selecting a jury—Art or blind-man’ s buff? Criminal Law Review, 4, 67–78.
Broeder, D. W. (1958). The University of Chicago Jury Project. Nebraska Law Review, 38, 744–761.
Bronson, E. J. (1970). On the conviction proneness and representativeness of the death-qualified jury: An empirical study of Colorado veniremen. University of Colorado Law Review, 42, 1–32.
Buchanan, R. W., Pryor, B., Taylor, K. P., & Strawn, D. V. (1978). Legal communication: An investigation of juror comprehension of pattern jury instructions. Communication Quarterly, 26, 31–35.
Buckhout, R., Weg, S., Reilly, V., & Frohboese, R. (1977). Jury verdicts: Comparison of 6-vs. 12-person juries and unanimous vs. majority decision rule in a murder trial. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 10, 175–178.
Buckhout, R. (1977). Jury verdicts: Comparison of six vs. twelve person juries and unanimous vs. majority decision rule in a murder trial (CR-12). Brooklyn, New York: Center for Responsive Psychology.
Carbine, J. E., & McLain, L. (1999). Proposed model rules governing the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 15, 1–72.
Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291–310.
Gate, F. H., & Minnow, N. N. (1993). Communicating with juries. Indiana Law Journal, 68, 1101–1118.
Cather, C., Greene, E., & Durham, R. (1996). Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 189–205.
Chappelear, S. E. (1999). Jury trials in the heartland. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32, 241–277.
Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306–1374.
Christie, R. (1977). Probability v. precedence: The social psychology of jury selection. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books (D. C. Heath & Co.), 265–281.
Communications Decency Act, 47 U. S. C. S. § 223 (1996).
Communities virtual and real: Social and political dynamics of law in cyberspace. (1999). Harvard Law Review, 112, 1586–1609.
Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors’ predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53–79.
Cox, M., & Tanford, S. (1989). Effects of evidence and instructions in civil trials: An experimental investigation of rules of admissibility. Social Behaviour, 4, 31–55.
Criminal Code. R. S. C. 1985, c. C-46.
Cripe, K. L. (1999). Empowering the audience: Television’s role in the diminishing respect for the American judicial system. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 6, 235–282.
Curcio, A. A. (1998). Breaking the silence: Using a notification penalty and other notification measures in punitive damages cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 343–385.
Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225.
Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197–1207.
Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165–182.
Cutler, B. L. & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–322.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55.
Dabbs, M. O. (1992). Jury traumatization in high profile criminal trials: A case for crisis debriefing? Law and Psychology Review, 16, 201–216.
Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcast Corp., 3 S. C. R. 835 (1994).
Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt: A systematic examination of selected quantification approaches. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141–158.
Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (1995). Civil juries and the politics of reform. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Dann, B. M. (1993) “Learning lessons” and “speaking rights”: Creating educated and democratic juries. Indiana Law Journal, 68, 1229–1279.
Dann, B. M., & Logan, G., III. (1996). Jury reform: The Arizona experience. Judicature, 79, 280–286.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
Davis, J. H. (1980). Group decision and procedural justice. In M. L. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (vol. 1, pp. 157–229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. (1977). The empirical study of decision processes in juries: A critical review. In J. L. Tapp, & F. J. Levine (Eds.) Law, justice, and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Davis, J. H., Kameda, T., Parks, C., Stasson, M., & Zimmerman, S. (1989). Some social mechanics of group decision making: The distribution of opinion, polling sequence, and implications of consensus, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1000–1012.
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Can we infer anything about their relationship? Law and Human Behavior, 4, 243–260.
Diamond, S. S. (1993). Instructing on death: Psychologists, juries, and judges. American Psychologist, 48, 423–434.
Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.
Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law and Society Review, 26, 513–563.
Diamond, S. S., & Zeisel, H. (1974). A courtroom experiment on juror selection and decisionmaking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 276–277.
Dixon, R. (1999). With nowhere to hide: Workers are scrambling for privacy in the digital age. Journal of Technology Law and Policy, 4, 1–60.
Eakin, B. A. (1975). An empirical study of the effect of leadership influence on decision outcomes in different sized jury panels. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11, 109–126.
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991).
Ellsworth, P. C. (1991). To tell what we know or wait for Godot? Law and Human Behavior, 15, 77–90.
Ellsworth, P. C. (1999). Jury reform at the end of the century: Real agreement, real changes. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32, 213–225.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Mauro, R. (1998). Psychology and law. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey. The handbook of social psychology (pp. 684–732). New York: Aronson.
Elwork, A., Alfini, J. J., & Sales, B. D. (1982). Towards understandable jury instructions. Judicature, 65, 432–443.
Elwork, A., & Sales, B. D. (1985). Jury instructions. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 280–297). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163–189.
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
Erlanger, J. (1977). Jury research in America: Its past and future. Law and Society Review, 4, 345–370.
Faigman, D. L. (1989). To have and have not: Assessing the value of social science to the law as science and policy. Emory Law Journal, 38, 1005–1095.
Faigman, D. L., & Baglioni, A. J. (1988). Bayes’ theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 1–17.
Federal Rules of Evidence. (1984). St. Paul, MN: West.
Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Effect of blameworthiness and outcome severity on attributions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 597–617.
Feldmann, T. B., & Bell, R. A. (1991). Crisis debriefing of a jury after a murder trial. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 42, 79–81.
Feser, J.M., Jr. (1999). The California civil grand jury: From watchdogs to watched dogs. McGeorge Law Review, 30, 748–758.
Finkel, N. J. (1997). Commonsense justice, psychology and the law: Prototypes that are common, senseful, and not. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 461–489.
Finkel, N. J., Shaw, R., Bercaw, S., & Koch, J. (1985). Insanity defenses: From the jurors’ perspective. Law and Psychology Review, 9, 77–92.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill
Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). Due process vs. crime control. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 31–51.
Forsterlee, L., & Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Enhancing juror competence in a complex trial. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 305–319.
ForsterLee, L, Horowitz, I. A., Bourgeois, M. J. (1993). Juror competence in civil trials: Effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 14–21.
Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215–228.
Garvey, S. P., Johnson, S. L., & Marcus, P. (2000). Correcting deadly confusion: Responding to jury inquiries in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 85, 627–655.
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992).
Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323–345.
Ghiardi, J., & Kircher, J. (1995). Punitive damages law and practice. Deerfield, IL: Clark, Boardman, and Callaghan.
Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Orcutt, H. K., Thomas, S., Shapiro, C., & Sachsenmaier, T. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children’s eyewitness testimony and jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 165–201.
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Greene, E., & Hsiao, W. (1998). Construing motive in videotaped killings: The role of jurors’ attitudes toward the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 257–271.
Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276.
Greene, E., Coon, D., & Bornstein, B. (2000). The effects of limiting punitive damage awards. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado.
Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67–78.
Greene, E., & Johns, M. (in press). Jurors’ use of instructions on negligence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Greene, E., Johns, M., & Smith, A. (in press). The effects of defendant conduct on jury damage awards. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Greene, E., Woody, W.D., & Winter, R. (2000). Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: Is bifurcation necessary? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 187–205.
Gross, S. R., & Syverud, K.D. (1996). Don’t try: Civil jury verdicts in a system geared to settlement. UCLA Law Review, 44, 1 + (Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis database on the World Wide Web).
Hafemeister, T. L., & Ventis, W. L. (1994). Juror stress: Sources and implications. Trial, 30(10), 68–71.
Hafetz, F. P. (1999). Time to reform the grand jury. Champion, 23, 12–16, 63–65.
Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121–132.
Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California’s capital penalty instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 411–436.
Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 575–595.
Hannaford, P.J., Hans, V. P., & Munsterman, G.T. (2000). Permitting jury discussions during trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 359–382.
Hans, V.P. (1996). The contested role of the civil jury in business litigation. Judicature, 79, 242–248.
Hans, V.P., Hannaford, P.L., & Munsterman, G.T. (1999). The Arizona jury reform permitting civil jury trial discussions: The views of trial participants, judges, and jurors. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32, 349–377.
Hans, V., & Ermann, M.D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151–166.
Harris, R.J., (1978). The effect of jury size and judge’s instructions on memory for pragmatic implications fromcourtroom testimony. Bulletin for Psychonomic Society, 11, 129–132.
Hartwick, J., Sheppard, B.H., & Davis, J.H. (1982) Group remembering: Research and implications. In R. Guzzo (Ed.), Improving group decision making in organizations: Working from theory (pp. 41–72). New York: Academic Press.
Hastie, R. (1993a) (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hastie, R. (1993b) Introduction. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 3–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juro. (pp. 192–221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hastie, R., Penrod, S.D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hastie, R., Schkade, D.A., & Payne, J.W. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Hindsight effects on judgments of liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 597–614.
Hawkins, C. (1961). Interaction and coalition realignments in consensus-seeking groups: a study of experimental jury deliberations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Increasing jurors’ participation in trials: A field experiment with jury notetaking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231–261.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–430.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121–150.
Hinkle, A. L. (1979). The effect of expert witness and jury size on jury verdicts: A simulation study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University.
Hoffman, M. B. (1997). Peremptory challenges should be abolished: A trial judge’s perspective. University of Chicago law Review, 64, 809–871.
Holstein, J. A. (1985). Jurors’ interpretations and jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 83–100.
Horowitz, I. A. (1980). Juror selection: A comparison of two methods in several criminal cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 86–99.
Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (1990). An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 269–285.
Horowitz, I. A., Forster Lee, L., & Brolly, I. (1996). Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 757–768.
Horowitz, I. A. & Willging, T. E. (1984). The psychology of law: Integrations and applications. Boston: Little, Brown.
J.E.B. v. Alabama, ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994).
James, R. (1958). Jurors’ reactions to alternative definitions of legal insanity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
James, R. (1959). Status and competence of jurors. American Journal of Sociology, 64, 563–570.
Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972).
Johnson, C, & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487–506.
Jurow, G. (1971). New data on the effect of a death qualified jury on the guilt determination process. Harvard Law Review, 84, 567–611.
Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standard of proof injury instructions. Psychological Science, 1, 194–200.
Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159–178.
Kairys, D., Schulman, J., & Harring, S. (1975) (Eds.). The jury system: New methods for reducing prejudice. Philadelphia: National Jury Project and National Lawyers Guild.
Kalven, H. Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
Kaplan, M. F. (1983). A model of information integration injury deliberation. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 5, 91–96.
Kaplan, R. D. (1998). Cyber-smut: Regulating obscenity on the Internet: This new “internet” community, without any true geographic boundaries, does not fit within the current framework for analysis of community standards and regulation of interstate “distribution” of obscenity. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 9, 189–200.
Kaplan, S. M., & Winget, C. (1992). Occupational hazards of jury duty. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 20, 325–332.
Kelley, J. E. (1994). Addressing juror stress: A trial judge’s perspective. Drake Law Review, 43, 97–125.
Kelso, J. C. (1996). Final report of the blue ribbon commission on jury system improvement. Hastings Law Journal, 47, 1433–1518.
Kerr, N. L. (1993). Stochastic models of juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror, (pp. 116–135). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Kerr, N. L., & MacCoun, R. J. (1985). The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 349–363.
Kerr, N., MacCoun, R., & Kramer, G. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.
Kessler, J. B. (1973). An empirical study of six-and twelve-member jury decisionmaking processes. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 6, 712–734.
King, N. J. (1999). The American criminal jury. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 41–67.
Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision-making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178–191.
Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653–674.
Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff. B. D. (in press). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology.
Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362–375.
Kovera, M. B., Park, R. C, & Penrod, S. (1992). Jurors’ perceptions of eyewitness and hearsay evidence. Minnesota Law Review, 76, 703–722.
Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–437.
LaFave, W. R., & Isreal, J. H. (1985). Criminal procedure (Hombook Series, student ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. F. (1991). A research essay: A preliminary empirical enquiry concerning the prohibition of hearsay evidence in American courts. Law and Psychology Review, 15, 65–85.
Landy, D., & Aronson, E. (1969). The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decision of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 141–152.
Law Reform Commission of Canada. (1979). Studies on the jury. Ottawa, ON: Author.
Lederer, F. I. (1997). The courtroom as a stop on the information superhighway [Online]. Available: http://www.courtroom21.net/AUSTLREF.HTML
Lederer, F. I. (1999a). The new courtroom: The intersection of evidence and technology: Some thoughts on the evidentiary aspects of technologically presented or produced evidence. Southwestern University Law Review, 28, 389–403.
Lederer, F. I. (1999b). Trial advocacy: The road to the virtual courtroom? A consideration of today’s-and tomorrow’s-high-technology courtrooms. South Carolina Law Review, 50, 799–844.
Lempert, R. (1993). Civil juries and complex cases: Taking stock after twelve years. In R. Litan, (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the civil jury. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Lerner, M.J. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 205–229). Orlando, FL: Academic Press
Lewis, P. E. (1999). A brief comment on the application of the “contemporary community standard” to the Internet. Campbell Law Review, 22, 143–166.
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).
Loh, W. D. (1984). tSocial research in the judicial process: Cases, readings, and text. New York: Sage.
Luginbuhl, J., & Middendorf, K. (1988). Death penalty beliefs and jurors’ responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 263–281.
MacCoun, R. J. (1984). Modeling the impact of extralegal bias and defined standards of proof on the decisions of mock jurors and juries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
MacCoun, R. (1993). Getting inside the black box: What empirical research tells us about civil jury behavior. In R. Litan (Ed.) Verdict: Assessing the civil jury. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
MacCoun, R. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the “deep pockets” hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121–161.
MacCoun, R.J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33.
Marder, N. S. (1997). Deliberations and disclosures: A study of post-verdict interviews of jurors. Iowa Law Review, 82, 465–546.
Marder, N. S. (1999). The interplay of race and false claims of jury nullification. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32, 285–321.
McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (1999a, August). Can jurors detect methodological flaws in scientific evidence? Paper presented at the 107th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (1999b, July). Juror sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Association for Psychology and Law, Dublin, Ireland.
McMahon, C, & Kornblau, D. L. (1995). Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye’s program of jury selection reform in New York. St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary, 10, 263–289.
Middendorf, K., & Luginbuhl, J. (1995). The value of a nondirective voir dire style in jury selection. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 129–151.
Miene, P., Park, R. C., & Borgida, E. (1992). Juror decision making and the evaluation of hearsay evidence. Minnesota Law Review, 76, 51–94.
Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973).
Mills, L. R. (1973). Six-and twelve-member juries: An empirical study of trial results. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 6, 671–711.
Mitchell, H. E., & Byrne, D. (1973). The defendant’s dilemma: Effects of jurors’ attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 123–129.
Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1982). Scientific juror selection: Sex as moderator of demographic and personality predictors of impaneled felony juror behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1052–1063.
Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1986). Neither “tentative” nor “fragmentary”: Verdict preference of impaneled felony jurors as a function of attitude toward capital punishment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 146–155.
Moran, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345–367.
Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & DeLisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309–328.
Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire. Forensic Reports, 3, 331–348.
Morgan, C. (1999). Employer monitoring of employee electronic mail and Internet use. McGill Law Journal, 44, 449–902.
Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 729–734.
Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors’ perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34–42.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Inc. (1998). Grand jury reform: High time for a bill of rights for the grand jury. Champion, 22, 5, 12, 34.
National Center for State Courts (1998). Through the eyes of the juror: A manual for addressing juror stress. (NCSC Publication No. R-209). Williamsburg, VA: Author.
Neises, M. L., & Dillehay, R. C. (1987). Death qualification and conviction proneness: Witt and Witherspoon compared. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 479–494.
Nemeth, C. (1977). Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 38–56.
Nemeth, C. (1981). Jury trials: Psychology and the law. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 309–367.
Nemeth, C., & Sosis, R. H. (1973). A simulated jury study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 90, 221–229.
Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1986). Psychological consultation in the courtroom. New York: Pergamon Press.
Nietzel, M. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Kern, M. J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23–52). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Nua, Ltd. (1999) How many online? [On-line] Available: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_ online/world.html.
Nua, Ltd. (2000) How many online? [On-line] Available: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_ online/index.html.
O’Neil, K. (2000). A guide to running surveys and experiments on the World-Wide Web. [On-line]. Available: http://psych.unl.edu/psychlaw/guide/guide.asp.
Ogloff, J. R. P. (1998). Judicial instructions and the jury: A comparison of alternative strategies. Paper prepared for the British Columbia Law Foundation.
Ogloff, J. R. P., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors: A study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sexual abuse case. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 507–525.
Olczak, P. V, Kaplan, M. F., & Penrod, S. (1991). Attorneys’ lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 431–452.
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. D. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453–470.
Padawer-Singer, A. M., & Barton, A. H. (1975). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors’ verdicts. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America: A critical overview. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Padawer-Singer, A. M., Singer, A. N., & Singer, R. L. (1977). An experimental study of twelve vs. six member juries under unanimous vs. nonunanimous decisions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the legal process. New York: Spectrum.
Paglia, A., & Schuller, R. A. (1998). Jurors’ use of hearsay evidence: The effects of type and timing of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 501–518.
Park, R. (1987). A subject approach to hearsay reform. Michigan Law Review, 86, 51–94.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246–287.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521–533.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 49, 123–163.
Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1979). Models of jury decision-making: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 462–492.
Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1980). A computer simulation of jury decision making. Psychological Review, 87, 133–159.
Penrod, S. D., & Heuer, L. (1997). Tweaking commonsense: Assessing aids to jury decision-making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 259–284.
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991).
Pyszczynski, T. A., Greenberg, J., Mack, D., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Opening statements in a jury trial: The effect of promising more than the evidence can show. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 434–444.
Quinlan, P, (1993). Secrecy of jury deliberations-Is the cost too high? Criminal Reports, 22, 127–165.
R. v. Levogiannis, 4 Can. S. C. R. 475 (1993).
Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors’ decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 385–395.
Rakos, R. E, & Landsman, S. (1992). Researching the hearsay rule: Emerging findings, general issues, and future directions. Minnesota Law Review, 76, 655–681.
Redmount, R. S. (1957). Psychological tests for selecting jurors. Kansas Law Review, 5, 391–403.
Reed, J. P. (1965). Jury deliberations, voting and verdict trends. Southwest Social Science Quarterly, 45, 361–370.
Reed, J. P., & Reed, R. S. (1977). Liberalism-conservatism as an indicator of jury product and process. Law and Human Behavior, 1, 81–86.
Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M, & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539–554.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844 (1997).
Robbennolt, J. K. (in press). Outcome severity and judgments of responsibility: A meta analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Robbennolt, J. K., & Sobus, M. S. (1997). An integration of hindsight bias and counterfactual thinking: Decision-making and drug courier profiles. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 539–560.
Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353–373.
Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1998, March). A method of assessing the comprehensibility of jury instructions. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA.
Ross, D. R, Hopkins, S., Hanson, E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hazen, K., & Eslinger, T. (1994). The impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on conviction rates in a simulated trial of child sexual abuse. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 553–566.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
Saks, M. J. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books (D.C. Heath).
Saks, M. J. (1992). Do we really know anything about the behavior of the tort litigation system-and why not? University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1147–1287.
Saks, M. J., Hollinger, L. A., Wissler, R. L., Evans, D. L., & Hart, A. J. (1997). Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 243–256.
Saks, M. J. & Marti, M. W. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 451–467.
Sales, B. D., Elwork, A., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Improving comprehension for jury instructions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), The criminal justice system (pp. 23–90). New York: Plenum.
Sandys, M., & Dillehay, R. C. (1995). First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 175–195.
Schuller, R. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 597–620.
Schuller, R. A. (1995). Expert evidence and hearsay: The influence of “secondhand” information on jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 345–362
Schuller, R. A., & Cripps, J. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 17–31.
Schuller, R. A., & Hastings, P. A. (1996). Trials of battered women who kill: The impact of alternative forms of expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 167–187.
Schuller, R. A., & Paglia, A. (1999). An empirical study: Juror sensitivity to variations in hearsay conveyed via expert evidence. Law and Psychology Review, 23, 131–152.
Schulman, J., Shaver, P., Colman, R., Emrich, B., & Christie, R. (1973, May). Recipe for a jury. Psychology Today, pp. 37–83.
Schum, D. A., & Martin, A. W. (1993). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. In R. Hastie (Ed.) Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sealy, A. P., & Cornish, W. R. (1973b, April). Juries and the rules of evidence. Criminal Law Review, pp. 208–223.
Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 17, 153–197.
Shapiro, F. R. (2000). The most-cited legal books published since 1978. The Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 397–407.
Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 149–150.
Simon, R. J. (1967). The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston: Little, Brown.
Simon, R. J. (1968). The effects of newspapers on the verdicts of potential jurors. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The sociology of law. San Francisco: Chandler.
Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857–872.
Smith, V. L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors to use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507–536.
Smith, V. L., & Kassin, S. (1993). Effects of the dynamite charge on the deliberations of deadlocked mock juries. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 625–643.
Sorensen, R. (1954). The role of public sentiment and personal prejudice in jury trials of criminal cases. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In N. L. Kerr & R. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York: Academic Press.
Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–235.
Steele, W. W., & Thornburg, E. G. (1988–89). Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review, 67, 77–119.
Strawn, D. J., & Buchanan, R. W. (1976). Jury confusion: A threat to justice. Judicature, 59, 478–483.
Strier, F. (1997). The road to reform: Judges on juries and attorneys. Loyola of Las Angeles Law Review, 30, 1249–1275.
Strodtbeck, F., James, R., & Hawkins, C. (1957). Social status injury deliberations. American Sociological Review, 22, 713–718.
Strodtbeck, F., & Mann, R. (1956). Sex role differentiation injury deliberations. Sociometry, 19, 3–11.
Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and commonsense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 428–460.
Suggs, D., & Sales, B. D. (1978). Using communication cues to evaluate prospective jurors in the voir dire. Arizona Law Review, 20, 629–642.
Tanford, J. A. (1991). Law reform by courts, legislatures, and commissions following empirical research on jury instructions. Law & Society Review, 25, 155–175.
Tanford, J. A. (1992). The law and psychology of jury instructions. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Law and psychology: The broadening of the discipline (pp. 305–329). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1983). Computer modeling of influence in the jury: The role of the consistent juror. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 200–212.
Thomas, E. A., & Hogue, A. (1976). Apparent weight of evidence, decision criteria, and confidence ratings in juror decision making. Psychological Review, 83, 442–465.
Thompson, W. C. (1989). Death qualification after Wainwright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 185–215.
Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., Ellsworth, P. C., & Harrington, J. C. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 95–113.
Tobey, A. E., Goodman, G. S., Batterman-Faunce, J. M, Orcutt, H. K., & Sachsenmaier, T. (1995). Balancing the rights of children and defendants: Effects of closed circuit television on children’s accuracy and jurors perceptions. In M. S. Zaragoza et al. (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp.214–239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993).
Uebelein, C. (1999). Jury innovations in the 21st century. Hawaii Bar Journal, 3, 6.
Valenti, A., & Downing, L. (1974–1975). Six versus twelve member juries: An experimental test of the Supreme Court assumption of functional equivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 273–275.
Vidmar, N. (1979). The other issues injury simulation research: A commentary with particular reference to defendant character studies. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.
Vidmar, N. (1995). Medical malpractice and the American jury: Confronting the myths about jury incompetence, deep pockets, and outrageous damage awards. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Vidmar, N. (1998). The performance of the American civil jury: An empirical perspective. Arizona Law Review, 40, 849–899.
Vidmar, N. (1999a). Forward. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 1–6.
Vidmar, N. (1999b). The Canadian criminal jury: Searching for a middle ground. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 141–172.
Vidmar, N., & Rice, J. J. (1993). Assessments of noneconomic damage awards in medical negligence: A comparison of jurors with legal professionals. Iowa Law Review, 78, 883–911.
Visher, C. A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 117.
Warren, M. (chair) (2000, March). An examination of scholarly publishing in psychology and law: Why do we publish what we publish? How do we select it? Is peer review fair to authors? What do people in the real world want from our literature? Symposium presented at the biennial conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, LA.
Weeks v. Angelone, 120 S. Ct. 727 (2000).
Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors’ verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901–919.
Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71–93.
Wells, G. L, & Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682–687.
Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C, & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.
Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 455–467.
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
Wissler, R. L., Evans, D. L., Hart, A. J., Morry, M. M., & Saks, M. J. (1997). Explaining “pain and suffering” awards: The role of injury characteristics and fault attributions. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 181–207.
Wissler, R. L, Hart, A. J., & Saks, M. J. (1999). Decision-making about general damages: A comparison of jurors, judges, and lawyers. Michigan Law Review, 98, 751–826.
Wissler, R. L., Kuehn, P., & Saks, M. J. (in press). Instructing jurors on general damages. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
Wolfgang, M., & Reidel, M. (1973). Race and the death penalty. Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 407, 119–133.
Zeisel, H. (1971). And then there were none: The diminution of the federal jury. University of Chicago Law Review, 38, 710–724.
Zeisel, H., & Callahan, T. (1963). Split trials and time saving: A statistical analysis. Harvard Law Review, 76, 1606–1625.
Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. (1976). The jury selection in the Mitchell-Stans conspiracy trial. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1, 151–174.
Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. S. (1978). The effect of peremptory challenges on jury verdict: An experiment in a federal district court. Stanford Law Review, 30, 491–531.
Zickafoose, D. J., & Bernstein, B. H. (1999). Double discounting: The effects of comparative negligence on mock juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 577–596.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Greene, E. et al. (2004). Jurors and Juries. In: Taking Psychology and Law into the Twenty-First Century. Perspectives in Law & Psychology, vol 14. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47944-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47944-3_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-306-46760-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47944-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive