Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Shell (1980)
Psychiatric testimony: Science or fortune telling?Barrister, 7
N. Dawson, H. Arkes, Carl Siciliano, R. Blinkhorn, M. Lakshmanan, M. Petrelli (1988)
Hindsight Bias: An Impediment to Accurate Probability Estimation in Clinicopathologic ConferencesMedical Decision Making, 8
R. Wiener (1990)
A Psycholegal and Empirical Approach to the Medical Standard of CareNebraska law review, 69
N. Poythress (1994)
Procedural preferences, perceptions of fairness, and compliance with outcomesLaw and Human Behavior, 18
J. Thibaut, L. Walker (1978)
A Theory of ProcedureCalifornia Law Review, 66
N. Poythress, J. Schumacher, R. Wiener, M. Murrin (1993)
Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Procedures for Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23
J. W. Thibaut, L. Walker (1975)
Procedural justice: A psychological perspective
Blair Sheppard (1985)
Justice is no simple matter: Case for elaborating our model of procedural fairness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49
D. Kagehiro, W. Laufer (1992)
Handbook of psychology and law
L. Harris, Associates (1989)
Judges' opinions on procedural issues: A survey of state and federal judges who spend at least half their time on general civil casesBoston University Law Review, 69
A. Moenssens (1974)
The “impartial” medical expert: A new look at an old issueMedical Trial Technique Quarterly, 25
Allan Lind, John Thibaut, L. Walker, EA Lind, TR Tyler (1988)
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
N. Poythress, R. Wiener (1995)
Reforming medical malpractice torts: Accuracy, procedural justice, and the law as moral educator, 1
N. Poythress, R. Wiener, J. E. Schumacher (1992)
Reframing the medical malpractice tort reform debate: Social science research implications for non-economic reformsLaw and Psychology Review, 16
N. G. Poythress (1994)
Procedural preferences, perceptions of fairness, and compliance with outcomes: A study of alternatives to the standard adversary trial procedureLaw and Human Behavior, 18
M. Saks (1992)
Normative and Empirical Issues About the Role of Expert Witnesses
Mental health professionals were asked to imagine themselves in the role of defendant in a medical malpractice case. Each participant was told that their case could be tried according to standard adversary trial procedures or by an alternative procedure. The alternative procedures involved either varying the way that expert testimony would be developed or bifurcation of issues at trial. Participants rated the available alternative procedure relative to the ADVERS procedure in terms of preference, fairness, willingness to comply with trial outcomes, and other procedural justice dimensions. Results indicated a strong endorsement of potential alternatives to the standard adversarial trial process for resolving medical malpractice claims.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Jun 1, 1997
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.