256 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18473655)
1. The psychophysics of contingency assessment.
Allan LG; Hannah SD; Crump MJ; Siegel S
J Exp Psychol Gen; 2008 May; 137(2):226-43. PubMed ID: 18473655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cue-interaction effects in contingency judgments using the streamed-trial procedure.
Hannah SD; Crump MJ; Allan LG; Siegel S
Can J Exp Psychol; 2009 Jun; 63(2):103-12. PubMed ID: 19485601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Base rates, contingencies, and prediction behavior.
Kareev Y; Fiedler K; Avrahami J
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Mar; 35(2):371-80. PubMed ID: 19271852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Psychophysics of associative learning: Quantitative properties of subjective contingency.
Maia S; Lefèvre F; Jozefowiez J
J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2018 Jan; 44(1):67-81. PubMed ID: 29154562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Aging and the detection of contingency in causal learning.
Mutter SA; Williams TW
Psychol Aging; 2004 Mar; 19(1):13-26. PubMed ID: 15065928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Contiguity and the outcome density bias in action-outcome contingency judgements.
Vallée-Tourangeau F; Murphy RA; Baker AG
Q J Exp Psychol B; 2005 Apr; 58(2):177-92. PubMed ID: 16095045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Judgments of causal efficacy under constant and changing interevent contingencies.
Katagiri M; Kao SF; Simon AM; Castro L; Wasserman EA
Behav Processes; 2007 Feb; 74(2):251-64. PubMed ID: 17029817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The influence of stimulus properties on category construction.
Milton F; Wills AJ
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2004 Mar; 30(2):407-15. PubMed ID: 14979814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Game relativity: how context influences strategic decision making.
Vlaev I; Chater N
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Jan; 32(1):131-49. PubMed ID: 16478346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Accounting for occurrences: a new view of the use of contingency information in causal judgment.
White PA
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Jan; 34(1):204-18. PubMed ID: 18194063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Producing biased diagnoses with unambiguous stimuli: The importance of feature instantiations.
Hannah SD; Brooks LR
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Nov; 32(6):1416-23. PubMed ID: 17087593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning.
Topolinski S; Strack F
J Exp Psychol Gen; 2009 Feb; 138(1):39-63. PubMed ID: 19203169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Dissociation between judgments and outcome-expectancy measures in covariation learning: a signal detection theory approach.
Perales JC; Catena A; Shanks DR; González JA
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2005 Sep; 31(5):1105-20. PubMed ID: 16248753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The dynamics of experimentally induced criterion shifts.
Brown S; Steyvers M
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2005 Jul; 31(4):587-99. PubMed ID: 16060767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgements than on causal judgements.
De Houwer J; Vandorpe S; Beckers T
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):418-32. PubMed ID: 17366309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Enumeration: shape information and expertise.
Allen R; McGeorge P
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 18495080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effects of assessment type on verbal ratings of conditional stimulus valence and contingency judgments: implications for the extinction of evaluative learning.
Lipp OV; Purkis HM
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2006 Oct; 32(4):431-40. PubMed ID: 17044745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Strategy changes in human contingency judgments as a function of contingency tables.
Shimazaki T; Tsuda Y; Imada H
J Gen Psychol; 1991 Oct; 118(4):349-60. PubMed ID: 1813597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Predispositions to approach and avoid are contextually sensitive and goal dependent.
Bamford S; Ward R
Emotion; 2008 Apr; 8(2):174-83. PubMed ID: 18410191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The consequences of surrendering a degree of freedom to the participant in a contingency assessment task.
Hannah S; Allan LG; Siegel S
Behav Processes; 2007 Feb; 74(2):265-73. PubMed ID: 17081705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
