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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29461716)

  • 1. Parallel Interactive Processing as a Way to Understand Complex Information Processing: The Conjunction Fallacy and Other Examples.
    Nahinsky ID
    Am J Psychol; 2017 Summer; 130(2):201-222. PubMed ID: 29461716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors.
    Busemeyer JR; Pothos EM; Franco R; Trueblood JS
    Psychol Rev; 2011 Apr; 118(2):193-218. PubMed ID: 21480739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Primer on quantum cognition.
    Busemeyer JR; Wang Z
    Span J Psychol; 2019 Dec; 22():E53. PubMed ID: 31868156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Surprising rationality in probability judgment: Assessing two competing models.
    Costello F; Watts P; Fisher C
    Cognition; 2018 Jan; 170():280-297. PubMed ID: 29096329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Neurocognitive processes underlying heuristic and normative probability judgments.
    Andersson L; Eriksson J; Stillesjö S; Juslin P; Nyberg L; Wirebring LK
    Cognition; 2020 Mar; 196():104153. PubMed ID: 31838247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Double Conjunction Fallacies in Physicians' Probability Judgment.
    Crupi V; Elia F; Aprà F; Tentori K
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Aug; 38(6):756-760. PubMed ID: 29978726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quantum Cognition.
    Pothos EM; Busemeyer JR
    Annu Rev Psychol; 2022 Jan; 73():749-778. PubMed ID: 34546804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Is There a Conjunction Fallacy in Legal Probabilistic Decision Making?
    Wojciechowski BW; Pothos EM
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():391. PubMed ID: 29674983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A pattern recognition account of decision making.
    Massaro DW
    Mem Cognit; 1994 Sep; 22(5):616-27. PubMed ID: 7968557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Not that neglected! Base rates influence related and unrelated judgments.
    Białek M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Jun; 177():10-16. PubMed ID: 28431299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Noisy probability judgment, the conjunction fallacy, and rationality: Comment on Costello and Watts (2014).
    Crupi V; Tentori K
    Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):97-102. PubMed ID: 26709413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effect of incentivization on the conjunction fallacy in judgments: a meta-analysis.
    Yechiam E; Zeif D
    Psychol Res; 2023 Nov; 87(8):2336-2344. PubMed ID: 37231120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Exemplars in the mist: the cognitive substrate of the representativeness heuristic.
    Nilsson H; Juslin P; Olsson H
    Scand J Psychol; 2008 Jun; 49(3):201-12. PubMed ID: 18419587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.