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.
3. Naive probability: a mental model theory of extensional reasoning. Johnson-Laird PN; Legrenzi P; Girotto V; Legrenzi MS; Caverni JP Psychol Rev; 1999 Jan; 106(1):62-88. PubMed ID: 10197363 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Directional verbal probabilities: inconsistencies between preferential judgments and numerical meanings. Honda H; Yamagishi K Exp Psychol; 2006; 53(3):161-70. PubMed ID: 16955725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Stochastic representation decision theory: How probabilities and values are entangled dual characteristics in cognitive processes. Ferro GM; Sornette D PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0243661. PubMed ID: 33315897 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The probability of conditionals: A review. López-Astorga M; Ragni M; Johnson-Laird PN Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Feb; 29(1):1-20. PubMed ID: 34173186 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Probability theory, not the very guide of life. Juslin P; Nilsson H; Winman A Psychol Rev; 2009 Oct; 116(4):856-74. PubMed ID: 19839686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. If and or: Real and counterfactual possibilities in their truth and probability. Byrne RMJ; Johnson-Laird PN J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2020 Apr; 46(4):760-780. PubMed ID: 31647286 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Psychological 'double-slit experiment' in decision making: Quantum versus classical. Rashkovskiy S; Khrennikov A Biosystems; 2020 Jul; 195():104171. PubMed ID: 32485348 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Modeling choice and valuation in decision experiments. Loomes G Psychol Rev; 2010 Jul; 117(3):902-24. PubMed ID: 20658857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. People's conditional probability judgments follow probability theory (plus noise). Costello F; Watts P Cogn Psychol; 2016 Sep; 89():106-33. PubMed ID: 27570097 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Probability Theory Plus Noise: Descriptive Estimation and Inferential Judgment. Costello F; Watts P Top Cogn Sci; 2018 Jan; 10(1):192-208. PubMed ID: 29383882 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Surprising rationality in probability judgment: Assessing two competing models. Costello F; Watts P; Fisher C Cognition; 2018 Jan; 170():280-297. PubMed ID: 29096329 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessing the chances of success: naïve statistics versus kind experience. Hogarth RM; Mukherjee K; Soyer E J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Jan; 39(1):14-32. PubMed ID: 22686845 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Heuristics can produce surprisingly rational probability estimates: Comment on Costello and Watts (2014). Nilsson H; Juslin P; Winman A Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):103-11. PubMed ID: 26709414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments. Zhu JQ; Sanborn AN; Chater N Psychol Rev; 2020 Oct; 127(5):719-748. PubMed ID: 32191073 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Possibilities as the foundation of reasoning. Johnson-Laird PN; Ragni M Cognition; 2019 Dec; 193():103950. PubMed ID: 31374514 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An account of subjective probability judgment for joint events: Conjunctive and disjunctive. Fisk JE; Marshall DA; Rogers P; Stock R Scand J Psychol; 2019 Oct; 60(5):405-420. PubMed ID: 31242534 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]