On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt.

Anderson, N. H. Information integration theory: A brief survey. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce and P. Suppes (Eds.),Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology. San Francisco: Freeman, 1974.

Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr and R. M. Bray (Eds.),The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic, 1982.

Carroll, J. S. Causal attributions in parole decisions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,36, 1501?1511.

Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. Judgments about crime and the criminal: A model and a method for investigating parole decisions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.),Perspectives in law and psychology, Vol. I: Criminal justice system. New York: Plenum, 1977.

Cochran, W. G. The comparison of percentages in matched samples.Biometrika, 1950,37, 256?266.

Cornish, W. R., & Sealy, A. P. Juries and the rules of evidence.Criminal Law Quarterly, 1973,16, 208?223.

Doob, A., & Kirshenbaum, H. Some empirical evidence on the effect of S. 12 of the canada evidence act upon an accused.Criminal Law Quarterly, 1972,15, 88?96.

Federal rules of evidence, 1975.

Gordon v. United States, 383 F.2d 936 (DC Cir. 1967).

Greene, E., & Loftus, E.When crimes are joined at trial: Institutionalized prejudice? Paper presented at the convention of the American Psychology?Law Society, Boston, 1981.

Hans, V., & Doob, A. Section 12 of the canada evidence act and the deliberations of simulated juries.Criminal Law Quarterly, 1975,18, 235?253.

Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. A comparison of verdicts obtained in severed and joined criminal trials.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1980,10, 444?456.

Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, and R. F. Kidd (Eds.),New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1976.

Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. The actor and observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971.

Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H.The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.

Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967.

Kelley, H. H. Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. Attribution theory and research.Annual Review of Psychology, 1980,31, 457?501.

Keppel, G.Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Kerr, N. L., & Sawyers, G. W. Independence of multiple verdicts within a trial by mock jurors.Representative Research in Social Psychology,1979,10, 16?27.

Kone?ni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B.. Social psychology and the law: The choice of research problems, settings, and methodology. In V. J. Kone?ni and E. B. Ebbesen (Eds.),The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis. San Francisco: Freeman, 1982.

Lempert, R. O. Modeling relevance.Michigan Law Review, 1977,75, 1021?1057.

Lussier, R. J., Perlman, D., & Breen, L. J. Causal attributions, attitude similarity, and the punishment of drug offenders.British Journal of Addiction, 1977,72, 357?364.

Margolis, L. A. An eclectic approach to impeachment by prior convictions.Journal of Law Reform, 1972,5, 552?540.

Nagao, D. H. & Davis, J. H. The effects of prior experience on mock juror case judgments.Social Psychology Quarterly, 1980,43, 190?199.

Note. To take the stand or not to take the stand: The dilemma of the defendant with a criminal record.Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 1968,4, 215?223.

Penrod, S.Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1983.

People v. Antick, 15 Cal. 3d 79 (1975).

People v. Beagle, 6 Cal.3d 441 (1972).

People v. Fries, 24 Cal.3d 222 (1979).

People v. Rist, 16 Cal.3d 211 (1976).

People v. Rollo, 20 Cal. 3d 109 (1977).

Rosenberg, S., & Olshan, K. Evaluative and descriptive asepects in personality perception.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970,16, 619?626.

Ross, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Saks, M. J., & Kidd, R. F. Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics.Law and Society Review, 1980?1981,15, 123?160.

Spector, R. G.. Impeachment by past convictions.Loyola University of Chicago Law Review, 1979,10, 339?362.

Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C. Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1973,3, 344?353.

Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. Biases in trials involving defendants charged with multiple offenses.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1982,12, 453?480.

Thomas, E. A. C., & Hogue, A. Apparent weight of evidence, decision criteria and confidence ratings in juror decision making.Psychological Review, 1976,83, 442?465.

United States v. Smith, 551 F.2d 348 (1976).

United States v. Toney, 615 F.2d 277 (1980).

Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1977,7, 205?219.