References
- Bloechl, A. L., Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Erickson, S. K. 2007. An empirical investigation of insanity defense attitudes: Exploring factors related to bias. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.007
- Breheney, C., Groscup, J., & Galietta, M. (2007). Gender matters in the insanity defense. Law and Psychology Review, 31, 93–124.
- Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
- Dwyer, S. (2009). Moral Dumbfounding and the Linguistic Analogy: Methodological Implications for the Study of Moral Judgment. Mind & Language, 24(3), 274–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01363.x
- Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
- Greene, E., Hayman, K., & Motyl, M. (2008). ”Shouldn't we consider...?”: Jury discussions of forbidden topics and effects on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(3), 194–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013486
- Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
- Maeder, E. M., & Yamamoto, S. (2015). Culture in the courtroom: Ethnocentrism and juror decision-making. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0137799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137799
- Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & McManus, L. A. (2017). Methodology matters: Comparing sample types and data collection methods in a juror decision-making study on the influence of defendant race. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(7), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1409895
- Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015. Pennebaker Conglomerates. www.LIWC.net
- People v. Grant. (1977). 46 Ill. App. 3d 125, 4 Ill. Dec. 696, 360 N.E.2d 809
- R. v. K. 2 O.R. 401. (1971).
- R v Quick. (1973). 3 All ER 359
- Ryan v. the Queen. (1967) 121 CLR 205
- Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.174
- Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G
- Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons's Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense: Developing, Refining, and Validating a Scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 623–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7
- State v. Hinkley. (1996). 200 W. Va. 280, 489 S.E.2d 257.
- Vaughan, T. J., Holleran, L. B., & Silver, J. R. (2019). Applying moral foundations theory to the explanation of capital jurors’ sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 36, 1176–1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1537400
- Wheatman, S. R., & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate. Law and Human Behavior, 25(2), 167–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005645414992
- Yamamoto, S., & Maeder, E. M. (2019). Creating the punishment orientation questionnaire: An item response theory approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218818485
- Yamamoto, S., & Maeder, E. M. (2021). What's in the Box? Punishment and Insanity in the Canadian Jury Deliberation Room. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689128