No abstract

Two studies provide empirical support for Thibaut and Walker’s (1978) theory that inquisitorial and adversarial dispute resolution systems are associated with different psychological values: the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice. Study 1 suggests that, in civil and criminal disputes, the adversarial system is perceived to produce less truth than it does justice, and less truth than does the inquisitorial system. Conversely, the inquisitorial system is perceived to produce less justice than it does truth, and less justice than does the adversarial system. Study 2 examines how legal outcomes moderate litigants’ perceptions of the truth and justice produced by these dispute resolution systems. Study 2 suggests that perceptions of the truth and justice provided by the adversarial system are highly sensitive to the outcome of the dispute, whereas perceptions of the truth and justice provided by the inquisitorial system are not affected by dispute outcomes. Implications for Thibaut and Walker’s theory are discussed.

No abstract

Over time, organs may lose their ability to adapt to the oxidative stressors from internal and external environments. Exercise and other lifestyle factors may slow the effects of aging. This chapter focuses on changes in three organ systems: skin, vision, and hearing. Alternative recommendations are given for preventing or delaying age-related skin conditions, eye diseases, and hearing loss. Topics covered are melanoma, skin cancer, sun exposure, xerosis, pressure ulcers, cataracts, macular degeneration, glaucoma, and presbycusis. Mock case studies are provided to further explain risk factors.

Empirical psychology is a natural fit for understanding the law of evidence but is also substantially at odds with it. Since the early twentieth century, researchers have begun applying the insights from experimental psychology to various aspects of courtroom adjudication, including the assumptions underlying the Federal Rules of Evidence and the effects of the rules on litigants and the public. At the same time, the law has struggled with whether and how to incorporate insights from an academic discipline that embodies goals and methodologies that are, in many ways, dramatically different from its own. This chapter unfolds a brief historical account of the relationship between empirical psychology and the law of evidence, specifies the major contributions that psychologists have made to our understanding of evidence law, highlights recent, cutting-edge research, and makes several suggestions for how future research can assist in maintaining the relevance of psychology to sound evidentiary policy.