Descriptor
| Higher Education | 2 |
| Imagination | 2 |
| Theories | 2 |
| Attention Control | 1 |
| Behavioral Science Research | 1 |
| Cognitive Processes | 1 |
| Court Litigation | 1 |
| Creative Thinking | 1 |
| Discussion | 1 |
| Fantasy | 1 |
| Hypothesis Testing | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Journal of Legal Education | 1 |
Author
| Gerwirtz, Paul | 1 |
| Lindlof, Thomas R. | 1 |
Publication Type
| Information Analyses | 1 |
| Journal Articles | 1 |
| Opinion Papers | 1 |
| Speeches/Meeting Papers | 1 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewedGerwirtz, Paul – Journal of Legal Education, 1982
Two opinions are expressed: (1) that the notion that lawyers and judges are obliged to answer all hypothetical questions asked about laws and litigation is unrealistic and inappropriate, and (2) that hypotheticals can be intelligent questions illuminating some of the difficulties of legal theory. (MSE)
Descriptors: Court Litigation, Creative Thinking, Discussion, Higher Education
Lindlof, Thomas R. – 1980
The similarities between television viewing and fantasy activity (daydreaming, reverie, mind-wandering, internal dialogue) more than warrant the building of a theoretical construct, especially in the context of recent empirical research on television viewing consequences. A construct of the television viewing process, based on cognitive theories…
Descriptors: Attention Control, Behavioral Science Research, Cognitive Processes, Fantasy
