AngellM., “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?”New England Journal of Medicine343, no. 7 (2000): 1516–1518.
2.
KassirerJ. P., “Commercialism and Medicine: An Overview,”Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics16, no. 4 (2007): 377–386.
3.
DanaJ.LoewensteinG., “A Social Science Perspective on Gifts to Physicians from Industry,”JAMA290, no. 2 (2003): 252–255.
4.
See supra note 1.
5.
See also BabcockL.LoewensteinG.IssacharoffS.CamererC., “Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining,”American Economic Review85, no. 5 (1995): 1337–1343.
6.
LoewensteinG.IssacharoffS.CamererC.BabcockL., “Self-Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining,”Journal of Legal Studies22, no. 1 (1993): 135–159.
7.
BazermanM. H.MorganK. P.LoewensteinG., “The Impossibility of Auditor Independence,”Sloan Management Review38, no. 4 (1997): 89–94.
ChimonasS. C.BrennanT. A.RothmanD. J., “Physicians and Drug Representatives: Exploring the Dynamics of the Relationship,”Journal of General Internal Medicine22, no. 2 (2007): 184–190.
10.
SahS.LoewensteinG., “Effect of Reminders of Personal Sacrifice and Suggested Rationalizations on Residents' Self-Reported Willingness to Accept Gifts: A Randomized Trial,”JAMA204, no. 11 (2010): 1204–1211.
11.
SierlesF. S.BrodkeyA. C.ClearyL. M., “Medical Students' Exposure to and Attitudes about Drug Company Interactions: A National Survey,”JAMA294, no. 9 (2005): 1034–1042.
12.
PalmerB., Meeting 3 of the Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, 2008.
13.
See supra note 5.
14.
See supra note 1.
15.
CialdiniR. B., Influence: Science and practice. Foresman GlenviewS., IL; 1985.
16.
WazanaA., “Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Is a Gift Ever Just a Gift?”JAMA283, no. 3 (2000): 373–380.
17.
SteinmanM.A.HarperG. M.ChrenM.LandefeldC. S.BeroL.A., “Characteristics and Impact of Drug Detailing for Gabapentin,”PLoS Medicine4, no. 4 (2007): 743–751.
18.
FriedmanH. H.RahmanA., “Gifts-Upon-Entry and Appreciatory Comments: Reciprocity Effects in Retailing,”International Journal of Marketing Studies3, no. 3 (2011): 161–164.
19.
See supra note 2. SahS.LarrickR., “I Am Immune: A Sense of Invulnerability Predicts Increased Acceptance of, and Influence from, Conflicts of Interest,”Research in Progress, Duke University, 2012;
20.
BabcockL.WangX.LoewensteinG., “Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Ref*lect a Self-Serving Bias,”Quarterly Journal of Economics111, no. 1 (1996): 1–20;
21.
ThompsonL.LoewensteinG., “Egocentric Interpretations of Fairness and Interpersonal Conflict,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes51, no. 2 (1992): 176–197.
22.
KundaZ., “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,”Psychological Bulletin108, no. 3 (1990): 480–498.
23.
ProninE.LinD. Y.RossL., “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin28, no. 3 (2002): 369–381.
24.
McKinneyW. P.SchiedermayerD. L.LurieN., “Attitudes of Internal Medicine Faculty and Residents toward Professional Interaction with Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives,”JAMA264, no. 13 (1990): 1693–1697.
25.
KassirerJ. P., “Why Should We Swallow What These Studies Say?”Advanced Studies in Medicine4, no. 8 (2004): 397–400.
26.
SahS.LoewensteinG., “More Affected = More Neglected: Amplification of Bias in Advice to the Unidentified and Many,”Social Psychological and Personality Science3, no. 3 (2012): 365–372.
27.
See supra notes 1 and 10.
28.
See supra note 13.
29.
CainD. M.LoewensteinG.MooreD. A., “The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest,”Journal of Legal Studies34, no. 1 (2005): 1–25.
30.
CainD. M.LoewensteinG.MooreD. A., “When Sunlight Fails to Disinfect: Understanding the Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest,”Journal of Consumer Research37, no. 5 (2011): 836–857.
31.
LoewensteinG.CainD. M.SahS., “The Limits of Transparency: Pitfalls and Potential of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest,”American Economic Review: Paper and Proceedings101, no. 3 (2011): 423–428.
32.
SahS.LoewensteinG.CainD. M., “The Burden of Disclosure: Increased Compliance with Distrusted Advice,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (forthcoming).
33.
SahS.LoewensteinG.CainD. M., “Insinuation Anxiety: Increased Pressure to Follow Less Trusted Advice after Disclosure of a Conflict of Interest,” manuscript under review (2012), available at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=197096>(last visited July 9, 2012).
34.
Id.
35.
Id.
36.
SahS.LoewensteinG., “Second Thoughts on Second Opinions: Conflicted Advisors Exaggerate More When They Know They Will Be Second-Guessed,” manuscript under review (2012).