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 *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29268671)

  • 1. At the Boundaries of Misattribution.
    Weil R; Palma TA; Gawronski B
    Exp Psychol; 2017 Nov; 64(6):369-386. PubMed ID: 29268671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Contextual positivity-familiarity effects are unaffected by known moderators of misattribution.
    Weil R; Palma TA; Gawronski B
    Cogn Emot; 2021 Jun; 35(4):636-648. PubMed ID: 33300422
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Independent ERP predictors of affective priming underline the importance of depth of prime and target processing and implicit affect misattribution.
    Seib-Pfeifer LE; Gibbons H
    Brain Cogn; 2019 Nov; 136():103595. PubMed ID: 31450044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Affective priming and cognitive load: Event-related potentials suggest an interplay of implicit affect misattribution and strategic inhibition.
    Gibbons H; Seib-Pfeifer LE; Koppehele-Gossel J; Schnuerch R
    Psychophysiology; 2018 Apr; 55(4):. PubMed ID: 28940207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Using ERPs to investigate valence processing in the affect misattribution procedure.
    Von Gunten CD; Bartholow BD; Scherer LD
    Psychophysiology; 2017 Feb; 54(2):172-181. PubMed ID: 27754548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Testing the automaticity features of the affect misattribution procedure: The roles of awareness and intentionality.
    Kurdi B; Melnikoff DE; Hannay JW; Korkmaz A; Lee KM; Ritchie E; Surdel N; Vuletich HA; Yang X; Payne BK; Ferguson MJ
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 Apr; 56(4):3161-3194. PubMed ID: 38030926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Electrophysiological differences in the processing of affect misattribution.
    Hashimoto Y; Minami T; Nakauchi S
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(11):e49132. PubMed ID: 23145097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Stress-testing the affect misattribution procedure: Heterogeneous control of affect misattribution procedure effects under incentives.
    Hazlett CJ; Berinsky AJ
    Br J Soc Psychol; 2018 Jan; 57(1):61-74. PubMed ID: 28921604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The "emotion misattribution" procedure: processing beyond good and bad under masked and unmasked presentation conditions.
    Rohr M; Degner J; Wentura D
    Cogn Emot; 2015; 29(2):196-219. PubMed ID: 24650228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of processing fluency on impressions of familiarity and liking.
    Westerman DL; Lanska M; Olds JM
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2015 Mar; 41(2):426-38. PubMed ID: 25528088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. What drives priming effects in the affect misattribution procedure?
    Gawronski B; Ye Y
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2014 Jan; 40(1):3-15. PubMed ID: 23982152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reporting intentional rating of the primes predicts priming effects in the affective misattribution procedure.
    Bar-Anan Y; Nosek BA
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2012 Sep; 38(9):1194-208. PubMed ID: 22611055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Positivity can cue familiarity.
    Garcia-Marques T; Mackie DM; Claypool HM; Garcia-Marques L
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2004 May; 30(5):585-93. PubMed ID: 15107158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Implicit moral evaluations: A multinomial modeling approach.
    Cameron CD; Payne BK; Sinnott-Armstrong W; Scheffer JA; Inzlicht M
    Cognition; 2017 Jan; 158():224-241. PubMed ID: 27865113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Unintentional processing of motivational valence.
    Moors A; De Houwer J; Hermans D; Eelen P
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2005 Aug; 58(6):1043-63. PubMed ID: 16194947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Updating implicit impressions: New evidence on intentionality and the affect misattribution procedure.
    Mann TC; Cone J; Heggeseth B; Ferguson MJ
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2019 Mar; 116(3):349-374. PubMed ID: 30802132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Watch the target! Effects in the affective misattribution procedure become weaker (but not eliminated) when participants are motivated to provide accurate responses to the target.
    Eder AB; Deutsch R
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1442. PubMed ID: 26441807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Controlling the "uncontrollable": Faking effects on the affect misattribution procedure.
    Teige-Mocigemba S; Penzl B; Becker M; Henn L; Klauer KC
    Cogn Emot; 2016 Dec; 30(8):1470-1484. PubMed ID: 26256719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An inkblot for attitudes: affect misattribution as implicit measurement.
    Payne BK; Cheng CM; Govorun O; Stewart BD
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2005 Sep; 89(3):277-93. PubMed ID: 16248714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Applicability increases the effect of misattribution on judgment.
    Ecker Y; Bar-Anan Y
    Cogn Emot; 2019 Jun; 33(4):709-721. PubMed ID: 29999483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.