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.
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Why quantum probability does not explain the conjunction fallacy. Tentori K; Crupi V Behav Brain Sci; 2013 Jun; 36(3):308-10. PubMed ID: 23673055 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Probability theory plus noise: Replies to Crupi and Tentori (2016) and to Nilsson, Juslin, and Winman (2016). Costello F; Watts P Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):112-23. PubMed ID: 26709415 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Surprisingly rational: probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment. Costello F; Watts P Psychol Rev; 2014 Jul; 121(3):463-80. PubMed ID: 25090427 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Random variation and systematic biases in probability estimation. Howe R; Costello F Cogn Psychol; 2020 Dec; 123():101306. PubMed ID: 33189032 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A quantum theory account of order effects and conjunction fallacies in political judgments. Yearsley JM; Trueblood JS Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Aug; 25(4):1517-1525. PubMed ID: 28879495 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Source reliability and the conjunction fallacy. Jarvstad A; Hahn U Cogn Sci; 2011; 35(4):682-711. PubMed ID: 21564268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Quantum probability and conceptual combination in conjunctions. Hampton JA Behav Brain Sci; 2013 Jun; 36(3):290-1. PubMed ID: 23673036 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The conjunction fallacy, confirmation, and quantum theory: comment on Tentori, Crupi, and Russo (2013). Busemeyer JR; Wang Z; Pothos EM; Trueblood JS J Exp Psychol Gen; 2015 Feb; 144(1):236-43. PubMed ID: 25621376 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: probability versus inductive confirmation. Tentori K; Crupi V; Russo S J Exp Psychol Gen; 2013 Feb; 142(1):235-255. PubMed ID: 22823498 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Grounding quantum probability in psychological mechanism. Love BC Behav Brain Sci; 2013 Jun; 36(3):296. PubMed ID: 23673043 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Uncertainty about the value of quantum probability for cognitive modeling. Behme C Behav Brain Sci; 2013 Jun; 36(3):279-80. PubMed ID: 23673026 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A quantum of truth? Querying the alternative benchmark for human cognition. Newell BR; van Ravenzwaaij D; Donkin C Behav Brain Sci; 2013 Jun; 36(3):300-2. PubMed ID: 23673047 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The rational status of quantum cognition. Pothos EM; Busemeyer JR; Shiffrin RM; Yearsley JM J Exp Psychol Gen; 2017 Jul; 146(7):968-987. PubMed ID: 28447840 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]