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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37231120)

  • 1. The effect of incentivization on the conjunction fallacy in judgments: a meta-analysis.
    Yechiam E; Zeif D
    Psychol Res; 2023 Nov; 87(8):2336-2344. PubMed ID: 37231120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Neurocognitive processes underlying heuristic and normative probability judgments.
    Andersson L; Eriksson J; Stillesjö S; Juslin P; Nyberg L; Wirebring LK
    Cognition; 2020 Mar; 196():104153. PubMed ID: 31838247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The conjunction effect: new evidence for robustness.
    Stolarz-Fantino S; Fantino E; Zizzo DJ; Wen J
    Am J Psychol; 2003; 116(1):15-34. PubMed ID: 12710220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The conjunction fallacy, confirmation, and quantum theory: comment on Tentori, Crupi, and Russo (2013).
    Busemeyer JR; Wang Z; Pothos EM; Trueblood JS
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2015 Feb; 144(1):236-43. PubMed ID: 25621376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Behavioral Economic Incentive Programs for Goal Achievement on Healthy Diet, Weight Control and Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
    Boonmanunt S; Pattanaprateep O; Ongphiphadhanakul B; McKay G; Attia J; Vlaev I; Thakkinstian A
    Ann Behav Med; 2023 Apr; 57(4):277-287. PubMed ID: 36367428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Parallel Interactive Processing as a Way to Understand Complex Information Processing: The Conjunction Fallacy and Other Examples.
    Nahinsky ID
    Am J Psychol; 2017 Summer; 130(2):201-222. PubMed ID: 29461716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Influence of Effortful Thought and Cognitive Proficiencies on the Conjunction Fallacy: Implications for Dual-Process Theories of Reasoning and Judgment.
    Scherer LD; Yates JF; Baker SG; Valentine KD
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2017 Jun; 43(6):874-887. PubMed ID: 28903676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.
    Neal TMS; Lienert P; Denne E; Singh JP
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Apr; 46(2):99-120. PubMed ID: 35191729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The Worst-Motive Fallacy: A Negativity Bias in Motive Attribution.
    Walmsley J; O'Madagain C
    Psychol Sci; 2020 Nov; 31(11):1430-1438. PubMed ID: 33085928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessment of cognitive biases and biostatistics knowledge of medical residents: a multicenter, cross-sectional questionnaire study.
    Msaouel P; Kappos T; Tasoulis A; Apostolopoulos AP; Lekkas I; Tripodaki ES; Keramaris NC
    Med Educ Online; 2014; 19():23646. PubMed ID: 24646439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An associative framework for probability judgment: an application to biases.
    Cobos PL; Almaraz J; García-Madruga JA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Jan; 29(1):80-96. PubMed ID: 12549585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How to explain receptivity to conjunction-fallacy inhibition training: evidence from the Iowa gambling task.
    Cassotti M; Moutier S
    Brain Cogn; 2010 Apr; 72(3):378-84. PubMed ID: 20015585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.