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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22344447)

  • 1. The cost of collaboration: why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information.
    Minson JA; Mueller JS
    Psychol Sci; 2012 Mar; 23(3):219-24. PubMed ID: 22344447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Two to tango: effects of collaboration and disagreement on dyadic judgment.
    Minson JA; Liberman V; Ross L
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2011 Oct; 37(10):1325-38. PubMed ID: 21632960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. When are two heads better than one and why?
    Koriat A
    Science; 2012 Apr; 336(6079):360-2. PubMed ID: 22517862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The costs and benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in groups.
    Caruso E; Epley N; Bazerman MH
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2006 Nov; 91(5):857-71. PubMed ID: 17059306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Groups weight outside information less than individuals do because they should: response to Minson and Mueller (2012).
    Schultze T; Mojzisch A; Schulz-Hardt S
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Jul; 24(7):1371-2. PubMed ID: 23640064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Does ADHD in adults affect the relative accuracy of metamemory judgments?
    Knouse LE; Paradise MJ; Dunlosky J
    J Atten Disord; 2006 Nov; 10(2):160-70. PubMed ID: 17085626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Groups weight outside information less than individuals do, although they shouldn't: response to Schultze, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2013).
    Minson JA; Mueller JS
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Jul; 24(7):1373-4. PubMed ID: 23640063
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Spurious consensus and opinion revision: why might people be more confident in their less accurate judgments?
    Yaniv I; Choshen-Hillel S; Milyavsky M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Mar; 35(2):558-63. PubMed ID: 19271867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Prior divergence: do researchers and participants share the same prior probability distributions?
    Fang C; Carp S; Shapira Z
    Cogn Sci; 2011; 35(4):744-62. PubMed ID: 21564269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A social choice approach to expert consensus panels.
    Gabel MJ; Shipan CR
    J Health Econ; 2004 May; 23(3):543-64. PubMed ID: 15120470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The consistency principle in interpersonal communication: consequences of preference confirmation and disconfirmation in collective decision making.
    Mojzisch A; Kerschreiter R; Faulmüller N; Vogelgesang F; Schulz-Hardt S
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2014 Jun; 106(6):961-77. PubMed ID: 24841099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making.
    De Dreu CK; Nijstad BA; van Knippenberg D
    Pers Soc Psychol Rev; 2008 Feb; 12(1):22-49. PubMed ID: 18453471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: when minority members make majority members more accurate privately.
    Sinaceur M; Thomas-Hunt MC; Neale MA; O'Neill OA; Haag C
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2010 Mar; 36(3):423-37. PubMed ID: 20179318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Collaboration in associative recognition memory: using recalled information to defend "new" judgments.
    Clark SE; Abbe A; Larson RP
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Nov; 32(6):1266-73. PubMed ID: 17087582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Unsafe sex: decision-making biases and heuristics.
    Kaplan BJ; Shayne VT
    AIDS Educ Prev; 1993; 5(4):294-301. PubMed ID: 8297709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [The influence of decision task and deliberation style on the verdict of the juries].
    Martín ME; de la Fuente EI; García J; De la Fuente L
    Psicothema; 2006 Nov; 18(4):772-7. PubMed ID: 17296116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Actor-observer differences in realism in confidence and frequency judgments.
    Allwood CM; Johansson M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2004 Nov; 117(3):251-74. PubMed ID: 15500806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Hidden profiles and concealed information: strategic information sharing and use in group decision making.
    Toma C; Butera F
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2009 Jun; 35(6):793-806. PubMed ID: 19332434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions.
    Soll JB; Larrick RP
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 May; 35(3):780-805. PubMed ID: 19379049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Leveraging member expertise to improve knowledge transfer and demonstrability in groups.
    Bonner BL; Baumann MR
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2012 Feb; 102(2):337-50. PubMed ID: 21967008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.