117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34986164)
1. Anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold when decisions are hypothetical.
Brzozowicz M; Krawczyk M
PLoS One; 2022; 17(1):e0262130. PubMed ID: 34986164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Demand for self-tests: Evidence from a Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism field experiment.
Aylward P; Essendi H; Little K; Wilson N
Health Econ; 2020 Apr; 29(4):489-507. PubMed ID: 31965689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dataset and protocols on the applicability of the BDM mechanism in product evaluation.
Lichters M; Wackershauser V; Han S; Vogt B
Data Brief; 2019 Aug; 25():104060. PubMed ID: 31211206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients.
Brewer NT; Chapman GB; Schwartz JA; Bergus GR
Med Decis Making; 2007; 27(2):203-11. PubMed ID: 17409369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: do people adjust from provided anchors?
Simmons JP; LeBoeuf RA; Nelson LD
J Pers Soc Psychol; 2010 Dec; 99(6):917-32. PubMed ID: 21114351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit time trade-off and willingness-to-pay amounts for influenza health-related quality of life at different ages.
Prosser LA; Payne K; Rusinak D; Shi P; Messonnier M
Pharmacoeconomics; 2013 Apr; 31(4):305-15. PubMed ID: 23512145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Interval Anchoring Effect.
Liu M; Zeng J; Gao Z
Exp Psychol; 2021 Nov; 68(6):295-304. PubMed ID: 35258361
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information.
Bobinac A
Eur J Health Econ; 2019 Feb; 20(1):75-82. PubMed ID: 29796781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Neural correlates of economic value and valuation context: an event-related potential study.
Tyson-Carr J; Kokmotou K; Soto V; Cook S; Fallon N; Giesbrecht T; Stancak A
J Neurophysiol; 2018 May; 119(5):1924-1933. PubMed ID: 29442556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Neural underpinnings of value-guided choice during auction tasks: An eye-fixation related potentials study.
Tyson-Carr J; Soto V; Kokmotou K; Roberts H; Fallon N; Byrne A; Giesbrecht T; Stancak A
Neuroimage; 2020 Jan; 204():116213. PubMed ID: 31542511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Hypothetical and real choice differentially activate common valuation areas.
Kang MJ; Rangel A; Camus M; Camerer CF
J Neurosci; 2011 Jan; 31(2):461-8. PubMed ID: 21228156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Altruism costs-the cheap signal from amygdala.
Gospic K; Sundberg M; Maeder J; Fransson P; Petrovic P; Isacsson G; Karlström A; Ingvar M
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci; 2014 Sep; 9(9):1325-32. PubMed ID: 23945997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Motivated Use of Numerical Anchors for Judgments Relevant to the Self.
Joel S; Spielmann SS; MacDonald G
Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2017 Jul; 43(7):972-985. PubMed ID: 28903703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Testing hypothetical bias in a choice experiment: An application to the value of the carbon footprint of mandarin oranges.
Aoki K; Akai K
PLoS One; 2022; 17(1):e0261369. PubMed ID: 35041683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Personality traits and preferences for specialty coffee: Results from a coffee shop field experiment.
Ufer D; Lin W; Ortega DL
Food Res Int; 2019 Nov; 125():108504. PubMed ID: 31554119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Endogenous formation of preferences: Choices systematically change willingness-to-pay for goods.
Voigt K; Murawski C; Bode S
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Dec; 43(12):1872-1882. PubMed ID: 28504526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. fMRI evidence of a hot-cold empathy gap in hypothetical and real aversive choices.
Kang MJ; Camerer CF
Front Neurosci; 2013; 7():104. PubMed ID: 23772205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Context-dependent choice and evaluation in real-world consumer behavior.
Otto AR; Devine S; Schulz E; Bornstein AM; Louie K
Sci Rep; 2022 Oct; 12(1):17744. PubMed ID: 36273073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Arbitrary coherence in theoretical decision making about surgical training: the effect of irrelevant subliminal anchoring.
Pothier DD; Mangal T; Loizou P; Mason KA
J Surg Educ; 2009; 66(3):129-31. PubMed ID: 19712909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Follow Your Heart: How Is Willingness to Pay Formed under Multiple Anchors?
Lin CH; Chen M
Front Psychol; 2017; 8():2269. PubMed ID: 29312098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
