163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14756595)
1. On the composition of risk preference and belief.
Wakkar PP
Psychol Rev; 2004 Jan; 111(1):236-41. PubMed ID: 14756595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Feedback produces divergence from prospect theory in descriptive choice.
Jessup RK; Bishara AJ; Busemeyer JR
Psychol Sci; 2008 Oct; 19(10):1015-22. PubMed ID: 19000212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The probabilistic nature of preferential choice.
Rieskamp J
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Nov; 34(6):1446-65. PubMed ID: 18980407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Decision making and learning while taking sequential risks.
Pleskac TJ
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Jan; 34(1):167-85. PubMed ID: 18194061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Exaggerated risk: prospect theory and probability weighting in risky choice.
Kusev P; van Schaik P; Ayton P; Dent J; Chater N
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Nov; 35(6):1487-505. PubMed ID: 19857019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Distinct neuropsychological processes may mediate decision-making under uncertainty with known and unknown probability in gain and loss frames.
Inukai K; Takahashi T
Med Hypotheses; 2006; 67(2):283-6. PubMed ID: 16574332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Normal aging affects decisions under ambiguity, but not decisions under risk.
Zamarian L; Sinz H; Bonatti E; Gamboz N; Delazer M
Neuropsychology; 2008 Sep; 22(5):645-57. PubMed ID: 18763884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Gambles vs. quasi-realistic scenarios: expectations to find probability and risk-defusing information.
Huber O; Huber OW
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Feb; 127(2):222-36. PubMed ID: 17603987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Decision making in the short and long run: repeated gambles and rationality.
Aloysius JA
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2007 May; 60(Pt 1):61-9. PubMed ID: 17535579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk.
Trepel C; Fox CR; Poldrack RA
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2005 Apr; 23(1):34-50. PubMed ID: 15795132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Impact of ambiguity and risk on decision making in mild Alzheimer's disease.
Sinz H; Zamarian L; Benke T; Wenning GK; Delazer M
Neuropsychologia; 2008; 46(7):2043-55. PubMed ID: 18339408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Five-year-olds do not show ambiguity aversion in a risk and ambiguity task with physical objects.
Li R; Roberts RC; Huettel SA; Brannon EM
J Exp Child Psychol; 2017 Jul; 159():319-326. PubMed ID: 28359540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Academic decision making and prospect theory.
Mowrer RR; Davidson WB
Psychol Rep; 2011 Aug; 109(1):289-300. PubMed ID: 22049669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Direct risk aversion: evidence from risky prospects valued below their worst outcome.
Simonsohn U
Psychol Sci; 2009 Jun; 20(6):686-92. PubMed ID: 19422629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Sensitivity of the brain to loss aversion during risky gambles.
Dreher JC
Trends Cogn Sci; 2007 Jul; 11(7):270-2. PubMed ID: 17556011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference.
Anderson LR; Mellor JM
J Health Econ; 2008 Sep; 27(5):1260-74. PubMed ID: 18621427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Source preference and ambiguity aversion: models and evidence from behavioral and neuroimaging experiments.
Chew SH; Li KK; Chark R; Zhong S
Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res; 2008; 20():179-201. PubMed ID: 19552309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Context effects: the proportional difference model and the reflection of preference.
Gonzalez-Vallejo C; Reid AA; Schiltz J
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Sep; 29(5):942-54. PubMed ID: 14516226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Preference reversals are diminished when gambles are presented as relative frequencies.
Tunney RJ
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2006 Sep; 59(9):1516-23. PubMed ID: 16873105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks.
Kühberger A; Schulte-Mecklenbeck M; Perner J
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process; 1999 Jun; 78(3):204-231. PubMed ID: 10343064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
