[1. Bedard, Jean, Michelene T. H. Chi, Lynford E. Graham, and James Shanteau. “Expertise in Auditing.” Auditing 12 (1993): 1-25.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Carruthers, Peter. “An Architecture for Dual Reasoning”: 109-128. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, eds. In Two Minds: Dual Processes andBeyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Camerer, Colin F., and Eric J. Johnson. “The Process-Performance Paradox in Expert Judgment: How Can Experts Know So Much and Predict So Badly?”: 195-217. In: K. Anders Ericsson and Jacqui Smith, eds., Toward a GeneralTheory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Chen, Serena, and Shelly Chaiken. “The Heuristic-Systemic Model in Its Broader Context”: 73-96. In: Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope, eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Colvin, Geoffrey. Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-ClassPerformers From Everybody Else. New York: Penguin Books, 2008.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Danzigera, Shai, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pessoa. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences(USA) 108 (2011): 6889-92.10.1073/pnas.1018033108]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Desvousges, William H., F. Reed Johnson, Richard W. Dunford, Kevin J. Boyle, Sara P. Hudson, and K. Nicole Wilson. “Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability”: 91-159. In: Jerry A. Hausman, ed. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1993.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Englich, Birte, Thomas Mussweiler, and Fritz Strack. “Playing Dice with Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32 (2006): 188-200.10.1177/0146167205282152]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Ericsson, K. Anders. “The Influence of Experience and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Superior Expert Performance”: 685-706. In: Ericsson, K. Anders, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, eds. The CambridgeHandbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Ericsson, K. Anders. “The Acquisition of Expert Performance: An Introduction to Some of the Issues”: 1-50. In: K. Anders Ericsson, ed., The Road toExcellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences,Sports, and Games. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Ericsson, K. Anders, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, eds. TheCambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.10.1017/CBO9780511816796]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. “How Many Dual-Process Theories Do We Need? One, Two, or Many?”: 33-54. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, eds. InTwo Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Frankish, Keith, and Jonathan St. B. T. Evans. “The Duality of Mind: An Historical Perspective”: 1-32. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, eds. InTwo Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Frederick, Shane. “Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making.” Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 19 (2005): 25-42.10.1257/089533005775196732]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Gilovich, Thomas. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of HumanReason in Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press, 1991.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. “Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases.” Cornell Law Review 93 (2007): 1-44.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. “Inside the Judicial Mind.” Cornell Law Review 86 (2001): 777-830.10.2139/ssrn.257634]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Hutcheson, Joseph C. Jr. “The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the 'Hunch’ in Judicial Decision.” Cornell Law Journal 14 (1929): 274-288.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Kahneman, Daniel, and Shane Frederick. “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment”: 49-81. In: Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, eds. Heuristics and Biases: ThePsychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Kiser, Randall. Beyond Right and Wrong: The Power of Effective DecisionMaking for Attorneys and Clients. Heidelberg: Springer, 2010.10.1007/978-3-642-03814-3]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Krieger, Stefan. “The Development of Legal Reasoning Skills in Law Students: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Legal Education 56 (2006): 332-355.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Lehman, Darrin R., Richard O. Lempert, and Richard E. Nisbett. “The Effects of Graduate Training on Reasoning: Formal Discipline and Thinking about Everyday-life Events.” American Psychologist 43 (1988): 431-442. Reprinted in: Richard E. Nisbett, ed. Rules for Reasoning. New Jersey: Routledge, 1993.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Leiter, Brian. “Positivism, Formalism, Realism.” Columbia Law Review 99 (1999):1138-1164.10.2307/1123484]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Posner, Richard A. How Judges Think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Radin, Max. “Legal Realism.” Columbia Law Review 31 (1931): 824-828.10.2307/1114380]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Radin, Max. “The Theory of Judicial Decisions: Or How Judges Think.” American Bar Association Journal 11 (1925): 357-362.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Schauer, Frederick. “Is There a Psychology of Judging?”: 103-120. In: David E. Klein and Gregory Mitchell, eds. The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making (American Psychology-Law Society). New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Schauer, Frederick. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to LegalReasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.10.4159/9780674054561]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Shah, Anuj K., and Daniel M. Oppenheimer. “Heuristics Made Easy: An Effort- Reduction Framework.” Psychological Bulletin 134 (2008): 207-222.10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Stanovich, Keith E. “Distinguishing the Reflective, Algorithmic, and Autonomous Minds: Is it Time for a Tri-Process Theory?”: 55-88. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, eds. In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Strak, Fritz, and Thomas Mussweiler. “Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility.” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 73 (1997): 437-446.10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Sullivan, William M., Anne Colby, Judith Welch Wegner, Lloyd Bond, Lee S. Shulman. Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law (Jossey- Bass/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching). California: Jossey-Bass, 2007.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Tamanaha, Brian Z. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.10.1515/9781400831982]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Tetlock, Philip E. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can WeKnow? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Tiedens, Larissa Z., and Susan Linton. “Judgment under Emotional Certainty and Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions on Information Processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2001): 973-988.10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Toplak, Maggie E., Richard F. West, and Keith E. Stanovich. “The Cognitive Reflection Test as a Predictor of Performance on Heuristics-and-Biases Tasks.” Memory & Cognition 39 (2011): 1275-1289.10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (1974): 1124-1130.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Tumonis, Vitalius. “Legal Realism & Judicial Decision-making.” Jurisprudence 19 (2012): 1361-1382.]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Vohs, Kathleen D., and Mary Frances Luce. “Judgment and Decision Making”: 733-756. In: Roy F. Baumeister and Eli J. Finkel, eds. Advanced SocialPsychology: The State of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Vohs, Kathleen D., Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, Jean M. Twenge, Noelle M. Nelson, and Dianne M. Tice. “Making Choices Impairs Subsequent Self-control: A Limited Resource Account of Decision Making, Self-regulation, and Active Initiative.” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 94 (2008): 883-898.10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Wilson, Timothy D., and Jonathan W. Schooler. “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions.” Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 60 (1991): 181-192. 10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.181]Search in Google Scholar
[1. Adam, Barbara, and Joost Loon. “Repositioning Risk; the Challenge for Social Theory”: 1-31. In: Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck, and Joost Loon, eds. The RiskSociety and Beyond. Sage Publications, 2005.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Apklausa: VAI šalininkų ir priešininkų yra beveik po lygiai (Survey: VNPPSupporters and Opponents Are Almost Equal)) // http://klaipeda.diena.lt/naujienos/ekonomika/apklausa-vae-salininku-irpriesininku- yra-beveik-po-lygiai-428441#axzz2AJ7Ld26A (accessed June 12, 2013).]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Augutis, Juozas, Ričardas Krikštolaitis, Dainius Genys, and Giedrius Česnakas, eds. Lietuvos energetinis saugumas. Metinė apžvalga. 2011-2012 (LithuanianEnergy Security. Annual Review. 2011-2012.). Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Baločkaitė, Rasa, and Leonardas Rinkevičius. “Branduolinės energetikos diskursai Lietuvos žiniasklaidoje ir viešojoje nuomonėje: nuostatų takoskyros ir ‘kalbančiųjų klasės’ formavimasis rizikos visuomenėje” (“Nuclear Power Discourse in Lithuanian Mass Media and Public Opinion: Attitudinal Divergences and the Emerging Talking and Acting Classes in the Risk Society”). Filosofija. Sociologija Vol. 20, No. 4 (2009): 259-270.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Balžekienė, Aistė. Socialinis branduolinės rizikos suvokimas: teorinės įžvalgosir jų refleksija Lietuvos visuomenės požiūriuose į Ignalinos AE (SocialPerception of Nuclear Risk: Theoretical Insights and its Reflection inLithuanian Society Perception Towards Ignalina NPP). Ph.D. thesis. Kaunas: Kaunas University of Technology, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Beck, Ulrich. “Living in the World Risk Society.” Economy and Society Vol. 35, No. 3 (2006): 329-345.10.1080/03085140600844902]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Bourdieu, Pierre. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Theory Vol. 7, No. 1 (1989): 14-25.10.2307/202060]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Česnakas, Giedrius. “Energy Security Challenges, Concepts and Controversy of Energy Nationalism in Lithuanian Energy Politics.” Baltic Journal of Law andPolitics 6:1 (2013) [forthcoming].10.2478/bjlp-2013-0006]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Foucault, Michel. Diskurso tvarka (The Order of Discourse). Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1998.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Foucault, Michel. Disciplinuoti ir bausti. Kalėjimo gimimas (To Discipline andto Punish: The Birth of the Prison). Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1998.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Gaidys, Vladas, and Leonardas Rinkevičius. “Černobylio baimė, pigios energijos nauda ar kai kas daugiau? Dvidešimties metų visuomenės nuomonės apie Ignalinos AE sociologiniai tyrimai Lietuvoje” (“The Scares of Chernobyl, the Favoring of Cheap Energy or Something More? Twenty Years of Sociological Public Opinion Polls in Lithuania on the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant”). Filosofija. Sociologija Vol. 19, No. 4 (2008): 102-111.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Genys, Dainius, and Eigintas Aleksandravičius. “Bendro vardiklio beieškant - Lietuvos energetinio saugumo orientyrai ekspertiniu požiūriu” (“Searching for Common Denominator - The Guidlines of Lithuania’s Energy Security in Expert Point of View”). Politikos mokslų almanachas No. 12 (2012): 63-84.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Janeliūnas, Tomas. “Lithuanian Energy Strategy and its Implications on Regional Cooperation”: 190-222. In: Andris Sprūds and Toms Rostoks, eds.]Search in Google Scholar
[Energy: Pulling the Baltic Sea Region together or apart? Riga: Zinatne, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Lyotard, J. Francois. Postmodernus būvis (Postmodern State). Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1993.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Molis, Arūnas. Lietuvos geoenergetinio saugumo politikos gairės ir Lietuvosgeoenergetinių alternatyvų paieškos trumpuoju ir vidutiniu laikotarpiu (TheGuidelines of Lithuanian Geo-Energetic Security and Search for LithuanianGeo-Energetic Alternatives in Short-term and Medium Periods). Vilnius: Centre for Strategic Studies, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania. The National EnergyIndependence Strategy. Vilnius, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Telešienė, Audronė. “Kritiškosios diskurso analizės metodologinių principų taikymas sociologiniuose tyrimuose” (“Application of the Methodological Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis to Sociological Research”). Filosofija.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sociologija Vol. 16, No. 2 (2005): 1-6.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Van Dijk, Teun A. Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Van Dijk, Teun A. “Discourse, Ideology and Context.” Paper for the 7th International Conference of Pragmatics. Budapest (July 2000). FoliaLinguistica XXX/1-2 (2001): 11-40. ]Search in Google Scholar
