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 *

394 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28662485)

  • 1. People learn other people's preferences through inverse decision-making.
    Jern A; Lucas CG; Kemp C
    Cognition; 2017 Nov; 168():46-64. PubMed ID: 28662485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Humans can infer social preferences from decision speed alone.
    Bavard S; Stuchlý E; Konovalov A; Gluth S
    PLoS Biol; 2024 Jun; 22(6):e3002686. PubMed ID: 38900903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A decision network account of reasoning about other people's choices.
    Jern A; Kemp C
    Cognition; 2015 Sep; 142():12-38. PubMed ID: 26010559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A rational model of people's inferences about others' preferences based on response times.
    Gates V; Callaway F; Ho MK; Griffiths TL
    Cognition; 2021 Dec; 217():104885. PubMed ID: 34454336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Learning the Structure of Social Influence.
    Gershman SJ; Pouncy HT; Gweon H
    Cogn Sci; 2017 Apr; 41 Suppl 3():545-575. PubMed ID: 28294384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The child as econometrician: a rational model of preference understanding in children.
    Lucas CG; Griffiths TL; Xu F; Fawcett C; Gopnik A; Kushnir T; Markson L; Hu J
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(3):e92160. PubMed ID: 24667309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sensitivity to the Sampling Process Emerges From the Principle of Efficiency.
    Jara-Ettinger J; Sun F; Schulz L; Tenenbaum JB
    Cogn Sci; 2018 May; 42 Suppl 1():270-286. PubMed ID: 29451315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Is social decision making for close others consistent across domains and within individuals?
    Guassi Moreira JF; Tashjian SM; Galván A; Silvers JA
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2020 Aug; 149(8):1509-1526. PubMed ID: 31804124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Learning What to Want: Context-Sensitive Preference Learning.
    Srivastava N; Schrater P
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(10):e0141129. PubMed ID: 26496645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Decision-makers are resilient in the face of social exclusion.
    Juanchich M; Walasek L; Sirota M
    Br J Psychol; 2018 Aug; 109(3):604-630. PubMed ID: 29512152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Identifying expectations about the strength of causal relationships.
    Yeung S; Griffiths TL
    Cogn Psychol; 2015 Feb; 76():1-29. PubMed ID: 25522277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Societal Preferences for Interventions with the Same Efficiency: Assessment and Application to Decision Making.
    Shiroiwa T; Saito S; Shimozuma K; Kodama S; Noto S; Fukuda T
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Jun; 14(3):375-85. PubMed ID: 26940671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Influence of branding on preference-based decision making.
    Philiastides MG; Ratcliff R
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Jul; 24(7):1208-15. PubMed ID: 23696199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Conformist social learning leads to self-organised prevention against adverse bias in risky decision making.
    Toyokawa W; Gaissmaier W
    Elife; 2022 May; 11():. PubMed ID: 35535494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Decision making heuristics and the elicitation of preferences: being fast and frugal about the future.
    Cairns J; van der Pol M; Lloyd A
    Health Econ; 2002 Oct; 11(7):655-8. PubMed ID: 12369067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Love of Large Numbers: A Popularity Bias in Consumer Choice.
    Powell D; Yu J; DeWolf M; Holyoak KJ
    Psychol Sci; 2017 Oct; 28(10):1432-1442. PubMed ID: 28825874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Individual differences in causal learning and decision making.
    Osman M; Shanks DR
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2005 Sep; 120(1):93-112. PubMed ID: 15982627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.