@article{EngelTimmeGloeckner2020,
  author    = {Engel, Christoph and Timme, Sinika and Gl{\"o}ckner, Andreas},
  title     = {Coherence-based reasoning and order effects in legal judgments},
  series = {Psychology, public policy and law},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {Psychology, public policy and law},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1076-8971},
  doi       = {10.1037/law0000257},
  pages     = {333 -- 352},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {According to coherence-based models of legal judgment, individuals form coherent mental representations to make sense of the available evidence. In this process, evidence supporting the emerging assessment is accentuated, resulting in coherence effects. Dependent on specific implementations of coherence-based models, in legal tasks both overweighting of evidence that is presented early (a primacy effect) or late (a recency effect) can be predicted. In two studies (N-1 = 221, N-2 = 332), we investigate coherence effects, order effects, and their interrelation in a mock legal case. We manipulate the order in which the evidence is presented, and whether or not individuals are induced to assess provisionally whether they deem the defendant guilty after seeing half of the evidence (leaning). This leaning manipulation should increase primacy effects. We consistently observed recency effects and no stronger influence of primacy effects when people indicate a leaning. Order and leaning did not influence the magnitude of coherence effects. In contrast to previous findings in consumer research and risky choice tasks, coherence effects did not mediate the effect of the order in which the evidence in legal judgments is presented. If our results hold more generally, coherence-based models of legal judgment might have to be revised to give more weight to recency effects as compared to the typically predicted primacy effects. This revision would have implications for the design of criminal procedure.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinMurphy2022,
  author    = {Hein, Johannes and Murphy, Andrew},
  title     = {VP-nominalization and the Final-over-Final Condition},
  series = {Linguistic inquiry},
  volume    = {53},
  journal   = {Linguistic inquiry},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {MIT Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {0024-3892},
  doi       = {10.1162/ling_a_00407},
  pages     = {337 -- 370},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The Final-over-Final Condition has emerged as a robust and explanatory generalization for a wide range of phenomena (Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts 2014, Sheehan et al. 2017). In this article, we argue that it also holds in another domain, nominalization. In languages that show overt nominalization of VPs, one word order is routinely unattested, namely, a head-initial VP with a suffixal nominalizer. This typological gap can be accounted for by the Final-over-Final Condition, if we allow it to hold within mixed extended projections. This view also makes correct predictions about agentive nominalizations and nominalized serial verb constructions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Proeve2014,
  author    = {Proeve, Ralf},
  title     = {Social order, stability, and certainty violence and social power in early modern history},
  series = {Revue de synth{\`e}se : revue semestrielle publ. avec le concours du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et du Centre National du Livre},
  volume    = {135},
  journal   = {Revue de synth{\`e}se : revue semestrielle publ. avec le concours du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et du Centre National du Livre},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Paris},
  issn      = {0035-1776},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11873-014-0263-x},
  pages     = {385 -- 403},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {This article develops a comprehensive critique of historical research focussing on the mutual relations between social power and violence. According to the methodological initial hypothesis, due to the inadequate distinction between indigenious concept (from sources) and heuristic (from reseach) in the historical sciences, there have been very few valuable insights into these relations to date. In order to expand the research focus which is the objective of this article, the analysis draws on the two actor-centric reference systems of "certainty" and "order". The key idea behind this, operationalizing certainty/uncertainty by means of order/disorder, is a promising way of programmatically combining a vertical and horizontal network of relationships of power, violence, certainty, and order.},
  language  = {de}
}