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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22355121)

  • 1. Candidate preferences and expectations of election outcomes.
    Delavande A; Manski CF
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2012 Mar; 109(10):3711-5. PubMed ID: 22355121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: a study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior.
    Krosnick JA
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1988 Aug; 55(2):196-210. PubMed ID: 3171904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Toward a Developmental Science of Politics.
    Patterson MM; Bigler RS; Pahlke E; Brown CS; Hayes AR; Ramirez MC; Nelson A
    Monogr Soc Res Child Dev; 2019 Sep; 84(3):7-185. PubMed ID: 31503346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Wishful thinking in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
    Krizan Z; Miller JC; Johar O
    Psychol Sci; 2010 Jan; 21(1):140-6. PubMed ID: 20424035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Social media popularity and election results: A study of the 2016 Taiwanese general election.
    Zhang X
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0208190. PubMed ID: 30485347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The objectivity illusion and voter polarization in the 2016 presidential election.
    Schwalbe MC; Cohen GL; Ross LD
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2020 Sep; 117(35):21218-21229. PubMed ID: 32817537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Factors associated with post-election psychological distress: The case of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
    Pitcho-Prelorentzos S; Kaniasty K; Hamama-Raz Y; Goodwin R; Ring L; Ben-Ezra M; Mahat-Shamir M
    Psychiatry Res; 2018 Aug; 266():1-4. PubMed ID: 29787806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Statistical detection of systematic election irregularities.
    Klimek P; Yegorov Y; Hanel R; Thurner S
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2012 Oct; 109(41):16469-73. PubMed ID: 23010929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Determinants of Attitude toward the Public Health Spending and Its Relationship with Voting Behavior in the 2012 South Korean Presidential Election.
    Eun SJ; Lee JY; Jung HM; Lee JS
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(10):e0163763. PubMed ID: 27711213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Presidential, But Not Prime Minister, Candidates With Lower Pitched Voices Stand a Better Chance of Winning the Election in Conservative Countries.
    Banai B; Laustsen L; Banai IP; Bovan K
    Evol Psychol; 2018; 16(2):1474704918758736. PubMed ID: 29911405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of public opinion and politics on attitudes towards pill testing: Results from the 2019 Australian Election Study.
    McAllister I; Makkai T
    Drug Alcohol Rev; 2021 May; 40(4):521-529. PubMed ID: 33222283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Election polling errors across time and space.
    Jennings W; Wlezien C
    Nat Hum Behav; 2018 Apr; 2(4):276-283. PubMed ID: 30936537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: an investigation of the 1984 presidential election.
    Fazio RH; Williams CJ
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1986 Sep; 51(3):505-14. PubMed ID: 3761146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Political attitudes bias the mental representation of a presidential candidate's face.
    Young AI; Ratner KG; Fazio RH
    Psychol Sci; 2014 Feb; 25(2):503-10. PubMed ID: 24367060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Health care in the 2004 presidential election.
    Blendon RJ; Altman DE; Benson JM; Brodie M
    N Engl J Med; 2004 Sep; 351(13):1314-22. PubMed ID: 15385658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Another issue comes out: gay rights policy voting in recent U.S. presidential elections.
    Rhodebeck LA
    J Homosex; 2015; 62(6):701-34. PubMed ID: 25530286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Measuring relative opinion from location-based social media: A case study of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
    Gong Z; Cai T; Thill JC; Hale S; Graham M
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(5):e0233660. PubMed ID: 32442212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Social influence and political mobilization: Further evidence from a randomized experiment in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.
    Jones JJ; Bond RM; Bakshy E; Eckles D; Fowler JH
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(4):e0173851. PubMed ID: 28445476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The politics of color: preferences for Republican red versus Democratic blue.
    Schloss KB; Palmer SE
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2014 Dec; 21(6):1481-8. PubMed ID: 24733398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Testosterone fluctuations in response to a democratic election predict partisan attitudes toward the elected leader.
    Prasad S; Knight EL; Sarkar A; Welker KM; Lassetter B; Mehta PH
    Psychoneuroendocrinology; 2021 Nov; 133():105396. PubMed ID: 34508970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.