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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24364684)

  • 1. Options as information: rational reversals of evaluation and preference.
    Sher S; McKenzie CR
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2014 Jun; 143(3):1127-43. PubMed ID: 24364684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Preference reversals are diminished when gambles are presented as relative frequencies.
    Tunney RJ
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2006 Sep; 59(9):1516-23. PubMed ID: 16873105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The adding-and-averaging effect in bundles of information: Preference reversals across joint and separate evaluation.
    Weaver K; Garcia SM
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2018 Sep; 24(3):296-305. PubMed ID: 30137998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Why contextual preference reversals maximize expected value.
    Howes A; Warren PA; Farmer G; El-Deredy W; Lewis RL
    Psychol Rev; 2016 Jul; 123(4):368-91. PubMed ID: 27337391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Do framing effects reveal irrational choice?
    Mandel DR
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2014 Jun; 143(3):1185-98. PubMed ID: 23978186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Six of one, half dozen of the other: expanding and contracting numerical dimensions produces preference reversals.
    Burson KA; Larrick RP; Lynch JG
    Psychol Sci; 2009 Sep; 20(9):1074-8. PubMed ID: 19572972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. College students' awareness of irrational judgments on gambling tasks: a dual-process account.
    Amsel E; Close J; Sadler E; Klaczynski PA
    J Psychol; 2009 May; 143(3):293-317. PubMed ID: 19455857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations With Multiple Alternatives and Context Effects.
    Cheng YH; Yu AP; Huang MC; Dai CJ
    Psychol Rep; 2017 Dec; 120(6):1117-1136. PubMed ID: 28683594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The role of intent and harm in judgments of prejudice and discrimination.
    Swim JK; Scott ED; Sechrist GB; Campbell B; Stangor C
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2003 May; 84(5):944-59. PubMed ID: 12757140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Counterfactuals, control, and causation: why knowledgeable people get blamed more.
    Gilbert EA; Tenney ER; Holland CR; Spellman BA
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2015 May; 41(5):643-58. PubMed ID: 25758707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Prefrontal mechanisms in preference and non-preference-based judgments.
    Foo JC; Haji T; Sakai K
    Neuroimage; 2014 Jul; 95():151-61. PubMed ID: 24662580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Construal level and free will beliefs shape perceptions of actors' proximal and distal intent.
    Plaks JE; Robinson JS
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():777. PubMed ID: 26106352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena.
    Johnson JG; Busemeyer JR
    Psychol Rev; 2005 Oct; 112(4):841-61. PubMed ID: 16262470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Second-order beliefs about intention and children's attributions of sociomoral judgment.
    Shiverick SM; Moore CF
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2007 May; 97(1):44-60. PubMed ID: 17313956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. "I will fix only my own mistakes": an ERP study investigating error processing in a joint choice-RT task.
    Picton L; Saunders B; Jentzsch I
    Neuropsychologia; 2012 Apr; 50(5):777-85. PubMed ID: 22269931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reducing preference reversals: The role of preference imprecision and nontransparent methods.
    Pinto-Prades JL; Sánchez-Martínez FI; Abellán-Perpiñán JM; Martínez-Pérez JE
    Health Econ; 2018 Aug; 27(8):1230-1246. PubMed ID: 29770524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Gaze shifts do not affect preference judgments of graphic patterns.
    Nittono H; Wada Y
    Percept Mot Skills; 2009 Aug; 109(1):79-94. PubMed ID: 19831089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 'Most advanced, yet acceptable': typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design.
    Hekkert P; Snelders D; van Wieringen PC
    Br J Psychol; 2003 Feb; 94(Pt 1):111-24. PubMed ID: 12648393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Response reversals in recognition memory.
    Van Zandt T; Maldonado-Molina MM
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2004 Nov; 30(6):1147-66. PubMed ID: 15521795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The development of intent-based moral judgment.
    Cushman F; Sheketoff R; Wharton S; Carey S
    Cognition; 2013 Apr; 127(1):6-21. PubMed ID: 23318350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.