| scholarly article | Q13442814 |
| P50 | author | Angela Jones | Q57902909 |
| P2093 | author name string | Steven Penrod | |
| P2860 | cites work | The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence | Q28253552 |
| The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? | Q29030390 | ||
| Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? | Q30979637 | ||
| Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm | Q34424808 | ||
| Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations | Q37551691 | ||
| Police-induced confessions, risk factors, and recommendations: looking ahead | Q37683572 | ||
| The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation | Q37728793 | ||
| After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors | Q37749679 | ||
| Confessions that corrupt: evidence from the DNA exoneration case files | Q38406385 | ||
| The Psychology of Confessions: A Review of the Literature and Issues | Q38445380 | ||
| Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions | Q39844752 | ||
| A survey of people's attitudes and beliefs about false confessions. | Q45904649 | ||
| Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. | Q46032108 | ||
| Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: Dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession | Q47425372 | ||
| "I'd know a false confession if I saw one": a comparative study of college students and police investigators. | Q50968296 | ||
| Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works. | Q52006879 | ||
| Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions | Q56224535 | ||
| The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process | Q56289214 | ||
| On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis | Q56637655 | ||
| Coerced Confessions, Judicial Instruction, and Mock Juror Verdicts1 | Q56688262 | ||
| Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion | Q57382872 | ||
| Confession Evidence | Q57405612 | ||
| Overlooking coerciveness: The impact of interrogation techniques and guilt corroboration on jurors’ judgments of coerciveness | Q57601961 | ||
| Can Expert Testimony Sensitize Jurors to Coercive Interrogation Tactics? | Q58824350 | ||
| Effects of expert testimony and interrogation tactics on perceptions of confessions | Q80468057 | ||
| Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence | Q81142640 | ||
| Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence | Q83750203 | ||
| What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? | Q83750243 | ||
| Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence? | Q89327890 | ||
| P433 | issue | 2 | |
| P304 | page(s) | 257-272 | |
| P577 | publication date | 2017-08-31 | |
| P1433 | published in | Psychiatry Psychology and Law | Q15759564 |
| P1476 | title | Research-Based Instructions Induce Sensitivity to Confession Evidence | |
| P478 | volume | 25 |
Search more.