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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33945126)

  • 1. How risk-prone are people when facing a sure loss? Negative interest rates as a convenient conceptual framework.
    Efendić E; Corneille O; D'Hondt C; De Winne R
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2021 Oct; 28(5):1715-1725. PubMed ID: 33945126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Risk preferences and aging: the "certainty effect" in older adults' decision making.
    Mather M; Mazar N; Gorlick MA; Lighthall NR; Burgeno J; Schoeke A; Ariely D
    Psychol Aging; 2012 Dec; 27(4):801-16. PubMed ID: 23066800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The sure thing: The role of integral affect in risky choice framing.
    Young NA; Shuster MM; Mikels JA
    Emotion; 2019 Sep; 19(6):1035-1043. PubMed ID: 30138007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Enhanced Risk Aversion, But Not Loss Aversion, in Unmedicated Pathological Anxiety.
    Charpentier CJ; Aylward J; Roiser JP; Robinson OJ
    Biol Psychiatry; 2017 Jun; 81(12):1014-1022. PubMed ID: 28126210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Effect of Positive and Negative Feedback on Risk-Taking across Different Contexts.
    Losecaat Vermeer AB; Sanfey AG
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(9):e0139010. PubMed ID: 26407298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Acceptance of mixed gambles is sensitive to the range of gains and losses experienced, and estimates of lambda (λ) are not a reliable measure of loss aversion: Reply to André and de Langhe (2020).
    Walasek L; Mullett TL; Stewart N
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2021 Dec; 150(12):2666-2670. PubMed ID: 35025561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. "Acceptance of Mixed Gambles Is Sensitive to the Range of Gains and Losses Experienced, and "Estimates of Lambda (k) Are Not a Reliable Measure of Loss Aversion: Reply to André and de Langhe (2021)": Correction.
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2022 Jan; 151(1):160. PubMed ID: 35238600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Unpleasant odors increase aversion to monetary losses.
    Stancak A; Xie Y; Fallon N; Bulsing P; Giesbrecht T; Thomas A; Pantelous AA
    Biol Psychol; 2015 Apr; 107():1-9. PubMed ID: 25711689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Monetary losses do not loom large in later life: age differences in the framing effect.
    Mikels JA; Reed AE
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2009 Jun; 64(4):457-60. PubMed ID: 19497929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Psychological mechanisms of loss aversion: A drift-diffusion decomposition.
    Zhao WJ; Walasek L; Bhatia S
    Cogn Psychol; 2020 Dec; 123():101331. PubMed ID: 32777328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Information overload or search-amplified risk? Set size and order effects on decisions from experience.
    Hills TT; Noguchi T; Gibbert M
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2013 Oct; 20(5):1023-31. PubMed ID: 23516097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sizing up information distortion: quantifying its effect on the subjective values of choice options.
    DeKay ML; Stone ER; Sorenson CM
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2012 Apr; 19(2):349-56. PubMed ID: 22135106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains.
    Wang XT
    Organ Behav Hum Decis Process; 1996 Nov; 68(2):145-57. PubMed ID: 8954876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sex Differences in Risk Preference and c-Fos Expression in Paraventricular Thalamic Nucleus of Rats During Gambling Task.
    Ishii H; Onodera M; Ohara S; Tsutsui KI; Iijima T
    Front Behav Neurosci; 2018; 12():68. PubMed ID: 29692713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Disjunction Effect in two-stage simulated gambles. An experimental study and comparison of a heuristic logistic, Markov and quantum-like model.
    Broekaert JB; Busemeyer JR; Pothos EM
    Cogn Psychol; 2020 Mar; 117():101262. PubMed ID: 31865226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Lay, professional, and artificial intelligence perspectives on risky medical decisions and COVID-19: How does the number of lives matter in clinical trials framed as gains versus losses?
    Mukherjee S; Reji D
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2022 May; 75(5):784-795. PubMed ID: 34609226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Changing plans: dynamic inconsistency and the effect of experience on the reference point.
    Barkan R; Busemeyer JR
    Psychon Bull Rev; 1999 Dec; 6(4):547-54. PubMed ID: 10682196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Serotonin and dopamine play complementary roles in gambling to recover losses.
    Campbell-Meiklejohn D; Wakeley J; Herbert V; Cook J; Scollo P; Ray MK; Selvaraj S; Passingham RE; Cowen P; Rogers RD
    Neuropsychopharmacology; 2011 Jan; 36(2):402-10. PubMed ID: 20980990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The joint effect of framing and defaults on choice behavior.
    Giuliani F; Cannito L; Gigliotti G; Rosa A; Pietroni D; Palumbo R
    Psychol Res; 2023 Jun; 87(4):1114-1128. PubMed ID: 36063226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Opportunity Neglect: An Aversion to Low-Probability Gains.
    Prinsloo E; Barasz K; John LK; Norton MI
    Psychol Sci; 2022 Nov; 33(11):1857-1866. PubMed ID: 36154337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.