Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Interpersonal and Small Group Communication

Review Of The Origins Of Collective Decision Making By Andy Blunden (Boston: Brill, 2016)., Timothy J. Shaffer Apr 2019

Review Of The Origins Of Collective Decision Making By Andy Blunden (Boston: Brill, 2016)., Timothy J. Shaffer

Journal of Public Deliberation

Review of The Origins of Collective Decision Making by Andy Blunden (Boston: Brill, 2016).


Comprehension Of Randomization And Uncertainty In Cancer Clinical Trials Decision Making Among Rural, Appalachian Patients, Janice L. Krieger, Angela L. Palmer-Wackerly, Phokeng M. Dailey, Jessica L. Krok-Schoen, Nancy E. Schoenberg, Electra D. Paskett Jan 2015

Comprehension Of Randomization And Uncertainty In Cancer Clinical Trials Decision Making Among Rural, Appalachian Patients, Janice L. Krieger, Angela L. Palmer-Wackerly, Phokeng M. Dailey, Jessica L. Krok-Schoen, Nancy E. Schoenberg, Electra D. Paskett

Papers in Communication Studies

Comprehension of randomization is a vital, but understudied, component of informed consent to participate incancer randomized clinical trials(RCTs). Thisstudy examines patient comprehension of the randomization process as well as sources of ongoing uncertainty that may inhibit a patient’s ability to provide informed consent to participate in RCTs. Cancer patients living in rural Appalachia who were offeredanopportunitytoparticipateinacancertreatmentRCT completed in-depth interviews and a brief survey. No systematic differences in randomization comprehension between patients who consented and those who declined participation in a cancer RCT were detected. Comprehension is conceptually distinct from uncertainty, with patients who had both high and low ...


Competition In The Courtroom: When Does Expert Testimony Improve Jurors’ Decisions?, Cheryl Boudreau, Mathew D. Mccubbins Jan 2009

Competition In The Courtroom: When Does Expert Testimony Improve Jurors’ Decisions?, Cheryl Boudreau, Mathew D. Mccubbins

Faculty Scholarship

Many scholars lament the increasing complexity of jury trials and question whether the testimony of competing experts helps unsophisticated jurors to make informed decisions. In this article, we analyze experimentally the effects that the testimony of competing experts has on (1) sophisticated versus unsophisticated subjects' decisions and (2) subjects' deci- sions on difficult versus easy problems. Our results demonstrate that competing expert testimony, by itself, does not help unsophisticated subjects to behave as though they are sophisticated, nor does it help subjects make comparable decisions on difficult and easy problems. When we impose additional institutions (such as penalties for lying ...