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)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Sticks or Carrots? How an Easy-to-Implement Incentive Plan Improved Our Performance on the In-training Exam.
    Fowler JG; VanEenenaam DP; Johnson KN; Traunero JR; Reynolds JE
    J Educ Perioper Med; 2020; 22(3):E647. PubMed ID: 33225017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. An account of subjective probability judgment for joint events: Conjunctive and disjunctive.
    Fisk JE; Marshall DA; Rogers P; Stock R
    Scand J Psychol; 2019 Oct; 60(5):405-420. PubMed ID: 31242534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Monetary incentives do not reduce the repetition-induced truth effect.
    Speckmann F; Unkelbach C
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Jun; 29(3):1045-1052. PubMed ID: 34918280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Size, weight, and expectations.
    Smeets JBJ; Vos K; Abbink E; Plaisier M
    Perception; 2022 May; 51(5):344-353. PubMed ID: 35354343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effects of accuracy motivation and anchoring on metacomprehension judgment and accuracy.
    Zhao Q
    J Gen Psychol; 2012; 139(3):155-74. PubMed ID: 24837018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Partial mental simulation explains fallacies in physical reasoning.
    Bass I; Smith KA; Bonawitz E; Ullman TD
    Cogn Neuropsychol; 2021; 38(7-8):413-424. PubMed ID: 35654749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Typicality and reasoning fallacies.
    Shafir EB; Smith EE; Osherson DN
    Mem Cognit; 1990 May; 18(3):229-39. PubMed ID: 2355854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Perceptual and Cognitive Judgments Show Both Anchoring and Repulsion.
    Spicer J; Zhu JQ; Chater N; Sanborn AN
    Psychol Sci; 2022 Sep; 33(9):1395-1407. PubMed ID: 35876741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Valence framing effects on moral judgments: A meta-analysis.
    McDonald K; Graves R; Yin S; Weese T; Sinnott-Armstrong W
    Cognition; 2021 Jul; 212():104703. PubMed ID: 33965894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Age-Related Differences in Moral Judgment: The Role of Probability Judgments.
    Margoni F; Geipel J; Hadjichristidis C; Bakiaj R; Surian L
    Cogn Sci; 2023 Sep; 47(9):e13345. PubMed ID: 37718470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Motivational signals disrupt metacognitive signals in the human ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
    Hoven M; Brunner G; de Boer NS; Goudriaan AE; Denys D; van Holst RJ; Luigjes J; Lebreton M
    Commun Biol; 2022 Mar; 5(1):244. PubMed ID: 35304877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Age differences in hindsight bias: A meta-analysis.
    Groß J; Pachur T
    Psychol Aging; 2019 Mar; 34(2):294-310. PubMed ID: 30652889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. An illusion of objectivity in workplace investigation: The cause analysis chart and consistency, accuracy, and bias in judgments.
    MacLean CL; Read JD
    J Safety Res; 2019 Feb; 68():139-148. PubMed ID: 30876505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Probability error in diagnosis: the conjunction fallacy among beginning medical students.
    Rao G
    Fam Med; 2009 Apr; 41(4):262-5. PubMed ID: 19343556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The influence of improper sets of information on judgment: how irrelevant information can bias judged probability.
    Dougherty MR; Sprenger A
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2006 May; 135(2):262-81. PubMed ID: 16719653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Outcome effects, moral luck and the hindsight bias.
    Kneer M; Skoczeń I
    Cognition; 2023 Mar; 232():105258. PubMed ID: 36516666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Cognitive and implicit biases in nurses' judgment and decision-making: A scoping review.
    Thirsk LM; Panchuk JT; Stahlke S; Hagtvedt R
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2022 Sep; 133():104284. PubMed ID: 35696809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Illusion of control: the role of personal involvement.
    Yarritu I; Matute H; Vadillo MA
    Exp Psychol; 2014 Jan; 61(1):38-47. PubMed ID: 23948387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.