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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34508970)

  • 1. Testosterone fluctuations in response to a democratic election predict partisan attitudes toward the elected leader.
    Prasad S; Knight EL; Sarkar A; Welker KM; Lassetter B; Mehta PH
    Psychoneuroendocrinology; 2021 Nov; 133():105396. PubMed ID: 34508970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dominance, politics, and physiology: voters' testosterone changes on the night of the 2008 United States presidential election.
    Stanton SJ; Beehner JC; Saini EK; Kuhn CM; Labar KS
    PLoS One; 2009 Oct; 4(10):e7543. PubMed ID: 19844583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Suspicious Minds: Unexpected Election Outcomes, Perceived Electoral Integrity and Satisfaction With Democracy in American Presidential Elections.
    Mongrain P
    Polit Res Q; 2023 Dec; 76(4):1589-1603. PubMed ID: 37916035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The costs of electoral fraud: establishing the link between electoral integrity, winning an election, and satisfaction with democracy.
    Fortin-Rittberger J; Harfst P; Dingler SC
    J Elect Public Opin Parties; 2017 Jul; 27(3):350-368. PubMed ID: 28824703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Elections have Consequences: Partisan Politics may be Literally Killing Us.
    Maas A; Lu L
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2021 Jan; 19(1):45-56. PubMed ID: 33336326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dynamic remodeling of in-group bias during the 2008 presidential election.
    Rand DG; Pfeiffer T; Dreber A; Sheketoff RW; Wernerfelt NC; Benkler Y
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2009 Apr; 106(15):6187-91. PubMed ID: 19332775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Determinants of Attitude toward the Public Health Spending and Its Relationship with Voting Behavior in the 2012 South Korean Presidential Election.
    Eun SJ; Lee JY; Jung HM; Lee JS
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(10):e0163763. PubMed ID: 27711213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Did Hurricane Sandy influence the 2012 US presidential election?
    Hart J
    Soc Sci Res; 2014 Jul; 46():1-8. PubMed ID: 24767585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Toward a Developmental Science of Politics.
    Patterson MM; Bigler RS; Pahlke E; Brown CS; Hayes AR; Ramirez MC; Nelson A
    Monogr Soc Res Child Dev; 2019 Sep; 84(3):7-185. PubMed ID: 31503346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Communicating group norms through election results.
    Syfers L; Gaffney AM; Rast DE; Estrada DA
    Br J Soc Psychol; 2022 Jan; 61(1):300-321. PubMed ID: 34258766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Latino early adolescents' psychological and physiological responses during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
    Zeiders KH; Nair RL; Hoyt LT; Pace TWW; Cruze A
    Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol; 2020 Apr; 26(2):169-175. PubMed ID: 31436441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Elite rhetoric can undermine democratic norms.
    Clayton K; Davis NT; Nyhan B; Porter E; Ryan TJ; Wood TJ
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2021 Jun; 118(23):. PubMed ID: 34078668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Political polarization projection: social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes.
    Van Boven L; Judd CM; Sherman DK
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2012 Jul; 103(1):84-100. PubMed ID: 22545744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The general age of leadership: older-looking presidential candidates win elections during war.
    Spisak BR
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(5):e36945. PubMed ID: 22649504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Stressful politics: voters' cortisol responses to the outcome of the 2008 United States Presidential election.
    Stanton SJ; Labar KS; Saini EK; Kuhn CM; Beehner JC
    Psychoneuroendocrinology; 2010 Jun; 35(5):768-74. PubMed ID: 19962831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Ethics Versus Success? The Acceptance of Unethical Leadership in the 2016 US Presidential Elections.
    Morais C; Abrams D; Randsley de Moura G
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():3089. PubMed ID: 32038430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Uncommon and nonpartisan: Antidemocratic attitudes in the American public.
    Holliday DE; Iyengar S; Lelkes Y; Westwood SJ
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2024 Mar; 121(13):e2313013121. PubMed ID: 38498713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The objectivity illusion and voter polarization in the 2016 presidential election.
    Schwalbe MC; Cohen GL; Ross LD
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2020 Sep; 117(35):21218-21229. PubMed ID: 32817537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.