BeachW. A. (1985) Temporal density in courtroom interaction: constraints on the recovery of past events in legal discourse. Communication Monographs52, 1–18.
2.
BennettK.Fife-SchawC. R. (1993) Attractiveness, confidence and their relation to eyewitness believability. Presentation at the British Psychological Society, Social Psychology Section Conference, Jesus College, Oxford, September.
3.
BennettW. L.FeldmanM. S. (1981) Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom. London, Tavistock.
4.
BerryD. S.McArthurL. Z. (1988) What's in a face? Facial maturity and the attribution of legal responsibility. Personality and Soc. Psychol. Bull.14, 23–33.
5.
BothwellR. K.DeffenbacherK. A.BrighamJ. C. (1987) Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: the optimality hypothesis revisited. J. App. Psychol.72, 691–5.
6.
CashT. F.KehrJ. A.PolysonJ.FreemanV. (1977) Role of physical attractiveness in peer attribution of psychological disturbance. J. Consult. and Clin. Psychol.45, 987–93.
7.
CatanoV. (1980) Impact on simulated jurors of testimony as a function of non-evidential characteristics of witness and defendant. Psychol. Rep.46 (2), 343–8.
8.
ChaikenS. (1980) Heuristics versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Personality and Soc. Psychol.39, 752–66.
9.
DeffenbacherK.LoftusE. (1982) Do jurors have a common understanding concerning eyewitness behaviour?Law & Human Behav.6, 15–30.
10.
DionK. E. (1972) Physical attractiveness stereotype: Is it present at childhood?J. Personality and Soc. Psychol.24, 207–13.
11.
DionK. E.BerscheidE.WalsterE. (1972) What is beautiful is good. J. Personality and Soc. Psychol.24, 285–9
12.
DipboyeR. L.ArveyR. D.TerpstraD. E. (1977) Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. J. App. Psychol.62, 288–94.
13.
DownsA. C.LyonsP. M. (1991) Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgements. Personality and Soc. Psychol. Bull.17, 541–7.
14.
DunneM. (1994) Eyewitness believability and potential jury-room influence. Unpublished dissertation, Dept of Psychology, University of Surrey.
15.
GarciaL. T.GriffittW (1975) Impact of testimonial evidence as a function of witness characteristics. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Denver.
16.
HastieR.PenrodS. D.PenningtonN. (1983) Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
17.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L. (eds) (1959) Personality and Persuasibility. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
18.
KaplanM. F.ScherschingC. (1980) Reducing juror bias: an experimental approach. In: LipsittP. D.SalesB. D. (eds) New Directions in Psycholegal Research. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
19.
KramerG. P.KerrN. L. (1989) Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behaviour: a methodological review. Law and Human Behav.13 (1), 89–99.
20.
KulkaK. A.KesslerJ. B. (1978) Is justice really blind? The influence of litigant physical attractiveness on judicial judgement. J. App. Soc. Psychol.7, 855–68.
21.
LandyD.SigallH. (1974) Beauty is talent: task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. J. Personality and Soc. Psychol.29, 299–304.
22.
LeVanE. A. (1984) Nonverbal communication in the courtroom: attorney beware. Law and Psychol. Rev.8, 83–104.
23.
LindsayR. C.WellsG. L.RumpelC. M. (1981) Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and between situations?J. App. Psychol.66, 79–89.
24.
LoftusE. F. (1979) Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
25.
MacCounR. J. (1990) The emergence of extralegal bias during jury deliberation. Criminal Justice and Behav.17 (3), 303–14.
26.
MatlonR. J.DavisJ. W.CatchingsB. W.DerrW. R. (1986) Factors affecting jury decision-making. Soc. Action and the Law12 (2), 41–8.
27.
McCabeS.PurvesR. (1974) The Shadow Jury at Work. Oxford, Blackwell.
28.
McGillisD. (1979) Biases and jury decision making. In: FriezeI. H.Bar-TalD.CarrollJ. S. (eds) New Approaches to Social Problems. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
29.
PettyR. E.CaccioppoJ. T. (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: BerkowitzL. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19). Orlando, Academic Press.
30.
RoskillE. W. (1986) Improving the Presentation of Information to Juries in Fraud Trials. Four research studies by the Medical Research Council Applied Psychology Unit for the Fraud Trials Committee under the chairmanship of E. W. Roskill. HMSO.
31.
SaladinM.SaperZ.BreenL. (1988) Perceived attractiveness and attributions of criminality: what is beautiful is not criminal. Can. J. Crimin.30, 251–9.
32.
StephenC.TulleyJ. C. (1977) The influence of physical attractiveness of a plaintiff on the decisions of simulated jurors. J. Soc. Psychol.10, 149–51.
33.
StephensonG. M. (1992) The Psychology of Criminal Justice. Oxford, Blackwell.
34.
StewartJ. E.II (1980) Defendants' attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: an observational study. J. App. Soc. Psychol.9, 348–61.
35.
StoneM. (1991) Instant he detection? Demeanour and credibility in criminal trials. Crim. Law Rev.Nov., 821–30.
36.
WellsG. L.LeippeM. R. (1981) How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. J. App. Psychol.66, 682–7.
37.
WellsG. L.LoftusE. F. (1984) Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
38.
WellsG. L.LindsayR. C. L.FergusonT. J. (1979) Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. J. App. Psychol.64, 440–8.
39.
WellsG. L.LindsayR. C. L. (1985) Methodological notes on the accuracy-confidence relationship in eyewitness identifications. J. Appl. Psychol.70, 413–9.
40.
WellsG. L.MurrayD. M. (1984) Eyewitness confidence. In: WellsG. L.LoftusE. F. (eds) Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives. New York, Cambridge University Press.
41.
ZimbardoP. G.LeippeM. R. (1991) The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. New York, McGraw-Hill.