These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19391044)

  • 1. Weighting of contingency information in causal judgement: evidence of hypothesis dependence and use of a positive-test strategy.
    Mandel DR; Vartanian O
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Dec; 62(12):2388-408. PubMed ID: 19391044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Causal judgement from contingency information: judging interactions between two causal candidates.
    White PA
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2002 Jul; 55(3):819-38. PubMed ID: 12188515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Normative and descriptive accounts of the influence of power and contingency on causal judgement.
    Perales JC; Shanks DR
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2003 Aug; 56(6):977-1007. PubMed ID: 12881167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Perceiving a strong causal relation in a weak contingency: further investigation of the evidential evaluation model of causal judgement.
    White PA
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2002 Jan; 55(1):97-114. PubMed ID: 11873858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Judgement of two causal candidates from contingency information: II. Effects of information about one cause on judgements of the other cause.
    White PA
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2005 Aug; 58(6):999-1021. PubMed ID: 16194945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Cue interaction effects in causal judgement: an interpretation in terms of the evidential evaluation model.
    White PA
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 2005 Apr; 58(2):99-140. PubMed ID: 16095042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Judgement of two causal candidates from contingency information: effects of relative prevalence of the two causes.
    White P
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 Aug; 57(6):961-91. PubMed ID: 15370512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Causal judgement from information about outcome magnitude.
    White PA
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013; 66(11):2268-88. PubMed ID: 23573791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The influence of virtual sample size on confidence and causal-strength judgments.
    Liljeholm M; Cheng PW
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Jan; 35(1):157-72. PubMed ID: 19210088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Inferences about unobserved causes in human contingency learning.
    Hagmayer Y; Waldmann MR
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):330-55. PubMed ID: 17366304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Judgement frequency, belief revision, and serial processing of causal information.
    Catena A; Maldonado A; Megías JL; Frese B
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 2002 Jul; 55(3):267-81. PubMed ID: 12188527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A dissociation between causal judgement and the ease with which a cause is categorized with its effect.
    Mitchell CJ; Livesey E; Lovibond PF
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):400-17. PubMed ID: 17366308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Predictions and causal estimations are not supported by the same associative structure.
    Vadillo MA; Matute H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):433-47. PubMed ID: 17366310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Choosing optimal causal backgrounds for causal discovery.
    Barberia I; Baetu I; Sansa J; Baker AG
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Dec; 63(12):2413-31. PubMed ID: 20521215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Differences in the weighting and choice of evidence for plausible versus implausible causes.
    Goedert KM; Ellefson MR; Rehder B
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2014 May; 40(3):683-702. PubMed ID: 24417328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Conformity to the power PC theory of causal induction depends on the type of probe question.
    Collins DJ; Shanks DR
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2006 Feb; 59(2):225-32. PubMed ID: 16618631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Positive and negative mediation as a function of whether the absent cue was previously associated with the outcome.
    Castro L; Matute H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Dec; 63(12):2359-75. PubMed ID: 20603776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Interaction between previous beliefs and cue predictive value in covariation-based causal induction.
    Catena A; Maldonado A; Perales JC; Cándido A
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Jun; 128(2):339-49. PubMed ID: 18445489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.