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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33189032)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. People's conditional probability judgments follow probability theory (plus noise).
    Costello F; Watts P
    Cogn Psychol; 2016 Sep; 89():106-33. PubMed ID: 27570097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Invariants in probabilistic reasoning.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Cogn Psychol; 2018 Feb; 100():1-16. PubMed ID: 29220640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment.
    Liberali JM; Reyna VF; Furlan S; Stein LM; Pardo ST
    J Behav Decis Mak; 2012 Oct; 25(4):361-381. PubMed ID: 23878413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Representativeness and conjoint probability.
    Gavanski I; Roskos-Ewoldsen DR
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1991 Aug; 61(2):181-94. PubMed ID: 1920061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Disjunction and conjunction fallacies in episodic memory.
    Nakamura K; Brainerd CJ
    Memory; 2017 Sep; 25(8):1009-1025. PubMed ID: 27778754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.
    Hahn U; Oaksford M
    Psychol Rev; 2007 Jul; 114(3):704-32. PubMed ID: 17638503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Who is susceptible to conjunction fallacies in category-based induction?
    Feeney A; Shafto P; Dunning D
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2007 Oct; 14(5):884-9. PubMed ID: 18087954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Enhancing Analytical Reasoning in the Intensive Care Unit.
    Barash M; Nanchal RS
    Crit Care Clin; 2022 Jan; 38(1):51-67. PubMed ID: 34794631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The allure of equality: uniformity in probabilistic and statistical judgment.
    Falk R; Lann A
    Cogn Psychol; 2008 Dec; 57(4):293-334. PubMed ID: 18456250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.