1. No category

Sattler, Sebastian
1. Maher B. Poll results: look who´s doping. Nature. 2008; 452: 674-675.
2. Cutler KA. Prescription stimulants are “a okay”: Applying neutralization theory to college students’ nonmedical
prescription stimulant use. Journal of American College Health. 2014; 62: 478-486.
3. Forlini C; Racine E. Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive enhancement” using methylphenidate: perspectives
of key stakeholders. Neuroethics. 2009; 2: 163-177.
4. Ball N; Wolbring G. Cognitive enhancement: perceptions among parents of children with disabilities. Neuroethics. 2014;
7: 1-20.
5. Singh I; Kelleher KJ. Neuroenhancement in young people: Proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. Ajob
Neuroscience. 2010; 1: 3-16.
6. Gaucher N; Payot A; Racine E. Cognitive enhancement in children and adolescents: Is it in their best interests? Acta
Paediatrica. 2013; 102: 1118-1124.
7. Greely H; Sahakian B; Harris J; Kessler R; Gazzaniga M; Campbell P, et al. Towards responsible use of cognitive
enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature. 2008; 456: 702-705.
8. Bostrom N; Sandberg A. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics.
2009; 15: 311-341.
9. Dresler M; Sandberg A; Ohla K; Bublitz C; Trenado C; Mroczko-Wąsowicz A, et al. Non-pharmacological cognitive
enhancement. Neuropharmacology. 2013; 64: 529-543.
10. Wiegel C; Sattler S; Göritz A; Diewald M. Work-related Stress and Cognitive Enhancement among University Teachers.
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 2015; (online first).
11. Müller C; Schumann G. Drugs as instruments: A new framework for non-addictive psychoactive drug use. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences. 2011; 34: 293-310.
12. Sattler S. Cognitive enhancement in Germany: Prevalence, attitudes, terms, legal status, and the ethics debate. In Cognitive
enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspectives (Jotterand, F. and Dubljević, V. (eds.)).
Oxford: Oxford University Press; in progress.
13. Wulf M; Joksimovic L; Tress W. The struggle for meaning and acknowledgement-A psychodynamic view of the
phenomenon of neuroenhancement (NE). Ethik in der Medizin. 2012; 24: 29-42.
14. Harris J. Chemical cognitive enhancement: is it unfair, unjust, discriminatory, or cheating for healthy adults to use smart
drugs. In Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics (Illes, J. and Sahakian, B. (eds.)). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011: 265272.
15. Hagger L; Hagger-Johnson G. 'Super Kids': Regulating the Use of Cognitive and Psychological Enhancement in Children.
Law, Innovation and Technology. 2011; 3: 137-166.
16. Graf WD; Nagel SK; Epstein LG; Miller G; Nass R; Larriviere D. Pediatric neuroenhancement Ethical, legal, social, and
neurodevelopmental implications. Neurology. 2013; 80: 1251-1260.
17. Galert T; Bublitz C; Heuser I; Merkel R; Repantis D; Schöne-Seifert B, et al. Das optimierte Gehirn. Gehirn und Geist.
2009; 8: 40-48.
18. Walcher-Andris E. Ethische Aspekte des pharmakologischen „cognition enhancement“ am Beispiel des Gebrauchs von
Psychostimulanzien durch Kinder und Jugendliche. Ethik in der Medizin. 2006; 18: 27-36.
19. Glannon W. Psychopharmacological Enhancement. Neuroethics 2008; 1: 45-54.
20. Sher KJ; Grekin ER; Williams NA. The development of alcohol use disorders. Annu Rev Clin Psycho. 2005; 1: 493-523.
21. Metzinger T. Zehn Jahre Neuroethik des pharmazeutischen kognitiven Enhancements–Aktuelle Probleme und
Handlungsrichtlinien für die Praxis. Fortschritte der Neurologie Psychiatrie. 2012; 80: 36-43.
22. Lev O. Should children have equal access to neuroenhancements? Ajob Neuroscience. 2010; 1: 21-23.
23. Maslen H; Douglas T; Cohen Kadosh R; Levy N; Savulescu J. The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: extending
the medical model. Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2014; 1: 68-93.
24. Flanigan J. Adderall for All: A Defense of Pediatric Neuroenhancement. HEC Forum. 2013; 25: 325-344.
25. Kroutil L; van Brunt D; Herman-Stahl M; Heller D; Bray R; Penne M. Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants in the
United States. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2006; 84: 135-143.
26. Wilens T; Adler L; Adams J; Sgambati S; Rotrosen J; Sawtelle R, et al. Misuse and diversion of stimulants prescribed for
ADHD: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008;
47: 21-31.
27. Weyandt L; Janusis G; Wilson K; Verdi G; Paquin G; Lopes J, et al. Nonmedical prescription stimulant use among a
sample of college students: relationship with psychological variables. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2009; 13: 284-296.
28. Diller LH. The Run on Ritalin: Attention Deficit Disorder and Stimulant Treatment in the 1990s. Hastings Center Report.
1996; 26: 12-18.
29. Marschall J; Nolting H-D; Hildebrandt S; Sydow H. Gesundheitsreport 2015. Analyse der Arbeitsunfähigkeitsdaten.
Update: Doping am Arbeitsplatz.). Berlin/Hamburg: DAK/IGES; 2015.
30. McCabe SE; Knight JR; Teter CJ; Wechsler H. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students:
prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction. 2005; 99: 96-106.
31. Rose S. 'Smart drugs': do they work? Are they ethical? Will they be legal? Natural Review Neuroscience. 2002; 3: 975 979.
32. DAK. Gesundheitsreport 2009. Analyse der Arbeitsunfähigkeitsdaten. Schwerpunktthema Doping am Arbeitsplatz.).
Berlin/Hamburg: DAK/IGES; 2009.
33. Franke A; Bonertz C; Christmann M; Engeser S; Lieb K. Attitudes toward cognitive enhancement in users and nonusers
of stimulants for cognitive enhancement: a pilot study. American journal of bioethics primary research. 2012; 3: 48-57.
34. Pustovrh T; Mali F. Exploring some challenges of the pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement discourse: Users and policy
recommendations. Neuroethics. 2014; 7: 137-158.
1 Sattler, Sebastian
35. McCabe S; Knight J; Teter C; Wechsler H. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students:
prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction. 2005; 99: 96-106.
36. Smith M; Farah M. Are prescription stimulants "smart pills"? The epidemiology and cognitive neuroscience of prescription
stimulant use by normal healthy individuals. Psychological Bulletin. 2011; 137: 717-741.
37. Sahakian B; Morein-Zamir S. Professor´s little helper. Nature. 2007; 450: 1157-1159.
38. Kroneberg C; Kalter F. Rational choice theory and empirical research: Methodological and theoretical contributions in
Europe. Annual Review of Sociology. 2012; 38: 73-92.
39. Voss T; Abraham M. Rational choice theory in sociology: A survey. In The International Handbook of Sociology (Quah,
S. R. and Sales, A. (eds.)). London: Sage; 2000: 50-83.
40. Chaiken S; Trope Y. Dual-process theories in social psychology, New York: Guilford Press; 1999.
41. Sattler S; Mehlkop G; Graeff P; Sauer C. Evaluating the drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use cognitive
enhancement drugs: the influence of drug characteristics, social environment, and personal characteristics. Substance
Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. 2014; 9: 8.
42. Caviola L; Mannino A; Savulescu J; Faulmüller N. Cognitive biases can affect moral intuitions about cognitive
enhancement. Frontiers in systems neuroscience. 2014; 8: 195.
43. Voss T; Abraham M. Rational choice theory in sociology: A survey. In The International Handbook of Sociology (Quah,
S. R. and Sales, A. (eds.)). London: Sage Publications; 2000.
44. Tittle C; Burke M; Jackson E. Modeling Sutherland's theory of differential association: toward an empirical clarification.
Social Forces. 1986; 65: 405-432.
45. Buhrmester M; Kwang T; Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality,
Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011; 6: 3-5.
46. Göritz AS. Determinants of the starting rate and the completion rate in online panel studies. In Online Panel Research
(Callegaro, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J. and Göritz, A. S. (eds.)). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014: 154-170.
47. van Veen F; Göritz A; Sattler S. Response effects of prenotification, prepaid cash, prepaid vouchers, and postpaid vouchers:
An experimental comparison. Social Science Computer Review. (in press).
48. Dietz P; Striegel H; Franke A; Lieb K; Simon P; Ulrich R. Randomized response estimates for the 12-month prevalence
of cognitive-enhancing drug use in university students. Pharmacotherapy. 2013; 33: 44-50.
49. Wason K; Polonsky M; Hyman M. Designing vignette studies in marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal. 2002; 10:
41-58.
50. Näher A-F; Krumpal I. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social
desirability bias. Quality & Quantity. 2012; 46: 1601-1616.
51. Berinsky AJ; Margolis MF; Sances MW. Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention
on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science. 2014; 58: 739-753.
52. Gibbons FX; Houlihan AE; Gerrard M. Reason and reaction: The utility of a dual-focus, dual-processing perspective on
promotion and prevention of adolescent health risk behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2009; 14: 231-248.
53. Sattler S; Sauer C; Mehlkop G; Graeff P. The Rationale for Consuming Cognitive Enhancement Drugs in University
Students and Teachers. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e68821.
54. Cabrera L; Fitz N; Reiner P. Reasons for comfort and discomfort with pharmacological enhancement of cognitive,
affective, and social domains. Neuroethics. 2014; online first: 1-14.
55. Dubljević V; Sattler S; Racine É. Cognitive enhancement and academic misconduct: a study exploring their frequency and
relationship. Ethics & Behavior. 2014; 24: 408-420.
56. Sattler S; Forlini C; Racine E; Sauer C. Impact of contextual factors and substance characteristics on perspectives toward
cognitive enhancement. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e71452.
57. Sattler S; Graeff P; Willen S. Explaining the decision to plagiarize: an empirical test of the interplay between rationality,
norms, and opportunity. Deviant Behavior. 2013; 34: 444-463.
58. Sattler S; Wiegel C. Cognitive test anxiety and cognitive enhancement: The influence of students’ worries on their use of
performance-enhancing drugs. Substance Use & Misuse. 2013; 48: 220-232.
59. Chew LD; Griffin JM; Partin MR; Noorbaloochi S; Grill JP; Snyder A, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited
health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. Journal of general internal medicine. 2008; 23: 561-566.
60. Betsch C. Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie. 2004; 25:
179-197.
61. Rammstedt B; John OP. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in
English and German. Journal of research in Personality. 2007; 41: 203-212.
62. Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Pajares, F. and Urdan, T. C.
(eds.)). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2006: 307-337.
63. Paulhus DL; Carey JM. The FAD-Plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of
personality assessment. 2011; 93: 96-104.
64. Klumparendt A; Drenckhan I. Deutsche Version der Religious Commitment Scale. In Zusammenstellung
sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen ZIS Version 1500 (Glöckner-Rist, A. (ed.)). Bonn: GESIS; 2012.
65. ZA; ZUMA. Erwünschte Kindeigenschaften. In Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen ZIS Version
1500 (Glöckner-Rist, A. (ed.)). Bonn: GESIS; 2012.
66. Rebellon CJ. Differential association and substance use: Assessing the roles of discriminant validity, socialization, and
selection in traditional empirical tests. European Journal of Criminology. 2012; 9: 73-96.
67. Schelle KJ; Faulmüller N; Caviola L; Hewstone M. Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement—a review.
Frontiers in systems neuroscience. 2014; 8: 1-14.
68. Dubljevic V. Prohibition or coffee shops: regulation of amphetamine and methylphenidate for enhancement use by healthy
adults. American Journals of Bioethics. 2013; 13: 23-33.
2