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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30833010)

  • 1. Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts.
    Dorison CA; Minson JA; Rogers T
    Cognition; 2019 Jul; 188():98-107. PubMed ID: 30833010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Connections between viewing media about President Trump's dietary habits and fast food consumption intentions: Political differences and implications for public health.
    Myrick JG
    Appetite; 2020 Apr; 147():104545. PubMed ID: 31794820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy and artifact: reexamining the intensity bias in affective forecasting.
    Levine LJ; Lench HC; Kaplan RL; Safer MA
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2012 Oct; 103(4):584-605. PubMed ID: 22889075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cognitive Reflection and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
    Pennycook G; Rand DG
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2019 Feb; 45(2):224-239. PubMed ID: 29985107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. People See Political Opponents as More Stupid Than Evil.
    Hartman R; Hester N; Gray K
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2023 Jul; 49(7):1014-1027. PubMed ID: 35481435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Depolarizing American voters: Democrats and Republicans are equally susceptible to false attitude feedback.
    Strandberg T; Olson JA; Hall L; Woods A; Johansson P
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(2):e0226799. PubMed ID: 32023249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. When and why people misestimate future feelings: Identifying strengths and weaknesses in affective forecasting.
    Lench HC; Levine LJ; Perez K; Carpenter ZK; Carlson SJ; Bench SW; Wan Y
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2019 May; 116(5):724-742. PubMed ID: 30604985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Belief in a Favorable Future.
    Rogers T; Moore DA; Norton MI
    Psychol Sci; 2017 Sep; 28(9):1290-1301. PubMed ID: 28771396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide.
    Westfall J; Van Boven L; Chambers JR; Judd CM
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2015 Mar; 10(2):145-58. PubMed ID: 25910386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Age differences in affective forecasting and experienced emotion surrounding the 2008 US presidential election.
    Scheibe S; Mata R; Carstensen LL
    Cogn Emot; 2011 Sep; 25(6):1029-44. PubMed ID: 21547760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The transformative and informative nature of elections: Representation, schism, and exit.
    Gaffney AM; Sherburne B; Hackett JD; Rast DE; Hohman ZP
    Br J Soc Psychol; 2019 Jan; 58(1):88-104. PubMed ID: 30221774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Partisan self-interest is an important driver for people's support for the regulation of targeted political advertising.
    Baum K; Meissner S; Krasnova H
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(5):e0250506. PubMed ID: 33979358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The populist hotbed: How political attitudes, resentment, and justice beliefs predict both exposure to and avoidance of specific populist news features in the United States.
    Scherr S; Leiner D
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(10):e0258220. PubMed ID: 34618837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The abortion issue in the 1980 elections.
    Granberg D; Burlison J
    Fam Plann Perspect; 1983; 15(5):231-8. PubMed ID: 6653742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. They Saw a Debate: Political Polarization Is Associated with Greater Multivariate Neural Synchrony When Viewing the Opposing Candidate Speak.
    Broom TW; Stahl JL; Ping EEC; Wagner DD
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2022 Dec; 35(1):60-73. PubMed ID: 35802592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How warm are political interactions? A new measure of affective fractionalization.
    Hudde A; Horne W; Adams J; Gidron N
    PLoS One; 2024; 19(5):e0294401. PubMed ID: 38743720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Generically partisan: Polarization in political communication.
    Novoa G; Echelbarger M; Gelman A; Gelman SA
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2023 Nov; 120(47):e2309361120. PubMed ID: 37956300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fusion with political leaders predicts willingness to persecute immigrants and political opponents.
    Kunst JR; Dovidio JF; Thomsen L
    Nat Hum Behav; 2019 Nov; 3(11):1180-1189. PubMed ID: 31477913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Speaking two "Languages" in America: A semantic space analysis of how presidential candidates and their supporters represent abstract political concepts differently.
    Li P; Schloss B; Follmer DJ
    Behav Res Methods; 2017 Oct; 49(5):1668-1685. PubMed ID: 28718087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. If they were to vote, they would vote for us.
    Koudenburg N; Postmes T; Gordijn EH
    Psychol Sci; 2011 Dec; 22(12):1506-10. PubMed ID: 22095975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.