BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25677976)

  • 1. A generalized distance function for preferential choices.
    Berkowitsch NA; Scheibehenne B; Rieskamp J; Matthäus M
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2015 May; 68(2):310-25. PubMed ID: 25677976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Attention and attribute overlap in preferential choice.
    Bhatia S
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2017 Jul; 70(7):1174-1196. PubMed ID: 27045894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Similarity and decision time in preferential choice.
    Bhatia S; Mullett TL
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Jun; 71(6):1276-1280. PubMed ID: 29451076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Game relativity: how context influences strategic decision making.
    Vlaev I; Chater N
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Jan; 32(1):131-49. PubMed ID: 16478346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Individual differences in decision making by foraging hummingbirds.
    Morgan KV; Hurly TA; Healy SD
    Behav Processes; 2014 Nov; 109 Pt B():195-200. PubMed ID: 25181327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Not just for consumers: context effects are fundamental to decision making.
    Trueblood JS; Brown SD; Heathcote A; Busemeyer JR
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Jun; 24(6):901-8. PubMed ID: 23610134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Adding small differences can increase similarity and choice.
    Kim J; Novemsky N; Dhar R
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Feb; 24(2):225-9. PubMed ID: 23257768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative.
    Vohs KD; Baumeister RF; Schmeichel BJ; Twenge JM; Nelson NM; Tice DM
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2008 May; 94(5):883-98. PubMed ID: 18444745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Integrating cognitive process and descriptive models of attitudes and preferences.
    Hawkins GE; Marley AA; Heathcote A; Flynn TN; Louviere JJ; Brown SD
    Cogn Sci; 2014; 38(4):701-35. PubMed ID: 24124986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Risk Preferences in Surrogate Decision Making.
    Batteux E; Ferguson E; Tunney RJ
    Exp Psychol; 2017 Jul; 64(4):290-297. PubMed ID: 28922998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models.
    Berkowitsch NA; Scheibehenne B; Rieskamp J
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2014 Jun; 143(3):1331-48. PubMed ID: 24364681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A dynamic computational model of gaze and choice in multi-attribute decisions.
    Yang X; Krajbich I
    Psychol Rev; 2023 Jan; 130(1):52-70. PubMed ID: 35025570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The effect of preference learning on context effects in multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice.
    Liu Y; Trueblood JS
    Cognition; 2023 Apr; 233():105365. PubMed ID: 36587529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Computational Model of Attention Control in Multi-Attribute, Context-Dependent Decision Making.
    Jung K; Jeong J; Kralik JD
    Front Comput Neurosci; 2019; 13():40. PubMed ID: 31354461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Attribute attention and option attention in risky choice.
    Zilker V; Pachur T
    Cognition; 2023 Jul; 236():105441. PubMed ID: 37058827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparing perceptual and preferential decision making.
    Dutilh G; Rieskamp J
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2016 Jun; 23(3):723-37. PubMed ID: 26432714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Risky decisions are influenced by individual attributes as a function of risk preference.
    Lee DG; D'Alessandro M; Iodice P; Calluso C; Rustichini A; Pezzulo G
    Cogn Psychol; 2023 Dec; 147():101614. PubMed ID: 37837926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. SEAT CHOICE AND DISTANCE JUDGMENT IN PUBLIC SPACES (1).
    Neto OA; Munakata J
    Percept Mot Skills; 2015 Oct; 121(2):548-67. PubMed ID: 26474441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Preference reversal in multiattribute choice.
    Tsetsos K; Usher M; Chater N
    Psychol Rev; 2010 Oct; 117(4):1275-93. PubMed ID: 21038979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.