김병수 (2018). 배심원 교육을 통한 공정한 국민참여재판의 실현. 법학연구, 59(3), 35-63.

김종대, 이은로, 한상훈 (2011). “합리적 의심의 여지 없는 증명” 기준에 대한 배심원의 이해도 연구. 법학연구, 21(2), 1-42.

법원행정처 (2017). 2008-2016년 국민참여재판 성과분석, 서울: 법원행정처 사법지원실.

이윤정, 조은경 (2014). “합리적 의심 없는 증명 원칙” 의 지시문 유형과 순서도 사용이 배심원들의 이해도와 평결에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 28(4), 71-92.

최대권 (2004). 국민의 사법참여: 무엇인 문제인가. 서울대학교 법학. 45(3), 119-140.

한유화, 강우예, 박광배 (2019). 배심 설시문 내용에 대한 일반인의 사전지식 및 이해도. 사회과학연구, 35(1), 73-95.

Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Inc. and John Wiley and Sons.

Baguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2020). Re-evaluating how to measure jurors’ comprehension and application of jury instructions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(1), 53-66.

Barnett, S. M., & Ceci , S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637.

Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and human Behavior, 23(1), 75-91.

Brewer, N., Harvey, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio‐visual presentation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 765-776.

Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118- 1133.

Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger III, H. L. (2008). Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 918-928.

Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312.

Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306-1374.

Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 238-259.

Cruse, D., & Brown, B. A. (1987). Reasoning in a jury trial: The influence of instructions. Journal of General Psychology, 114(2), 129-133.

Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1995). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79(5), 224-232.

Ede, T., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2013). Question trails in trials: structured versus unstructured juror decision-making. Criminal Law Journal, 37(2), 114-136.

Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: in ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1(2), 163-189.

Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.

Essex, R., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014). Judicial directions and the criminal standard of proof: Improving juror comprehension. Journal of Judicial Administration, 24(2), 75-94.

Forston, R. F. (1975). Sense and non-sense: Jury trial communication. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1975(3), 601-637.

Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Acton, M., Voelkel, A. R., & Etkind, R. (2007). Comparing and combining retrieval practice and the keyword mnemonic for foreign vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 499-526.

Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.

Hastie, R. (1983). Final report to the National Institute for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (Unpublished manuscript), Northwestern University, IL.

Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Increasing jurors' participation in trials: A field experiment with jury notetaking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), 231-261.

Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13(4), 409-430.

Hope, L., Eales, N., & Mirashi, A. (2014). Assisting jurors: Promoting recall of trial information through the use of a trial‐ordered notebook. Legal and Criminological psychology, 19(2), 316-331.

Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 621-629.

Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisiting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 260-271.

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966-968.

Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1046-1054.

Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1877-1887.

Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 282-294.

Larsen, D. P., & Butler, A. C. (2013). Test-enhanced learning. pp. 443-452. http://people.duke.edu/ ~ab259/pubs/Larsen%26Butler(2013)_Chapter.pdf

Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., Lawson, A. L., & Roediger III, H. L. (2012). The importance of seeing the patient: test-enhanced learning with standardized patients and written tests improves clinical application of knowledge. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(2), 409-425.

Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2013). Comparative effects of test‐enhanced learning and self‐explanation on long‐term retention. Medical Education, 47(7), 674-682.

Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(4), 589-644.

Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 337-358.

McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The Read-Recite-Review Study Strategy Effective and Portable. Psychological Science, 20(4), 516-522.

Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 783-792.

Murphy, P., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 305-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

Phelps, R. P. (2012). The effect of testing on student achievement, 1910–2010. International Journal of Testing, 12(1), 21-43.

Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors' understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16(5), 539-554.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.). Handbook of research on teacher education (second edition, pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan.

Randall, J. (2013) Plain English Jury Instructions for Massachusetts: first steps. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.

Randall, J. (2015). Improving juror comprehension: reading while listening. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon.

Randall, J., & Graf, L. (2014). Linguistics meets “legalese”: syntax, semantics, and jury instruction reform. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.

Roediger III, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20-27.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181-210.

Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25(4), 409-431.

Saxton, B. (1998). How Well Do Jurors Understand Jury Instructions-A Field Test Using Real Juries and Real Trials in Wyoming. Land & Water Law Review, 33, 59-189.

Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9(2), 262-270.

Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 75(1), 198-233.

Smith, V. L. (1987). The psychological and legal implications of pre-trial instruction in the law (Unpublished dissertation), Stanford University, CA.

Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the over correction bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1368-1377.

Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137-149.

Thorley, C., Baxter, R. E., & Lorek, J. (2016). The impact of note taking style and note availability at retrieval on mock jurors’ recall and recognition of trial information. Memory, 24(4), 560-574.

Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., & Morasco, B. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 516-576.

Wixted, J., & Stretch, V. (2004). In defense of the signal detection interpretation of remember/ know/judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(4), 616-641.