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.
114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37707492)
1. Reference-Point Theory: An Account of Individual Differences in Risk Preferences. Mellers BA; Yin S Perspect Psychol Sci; 2023 Sep; ():17456916231190393. PubMed ID: 37707492 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk. Wang XT; Johnson JG J Exp Psychol Gen; 2012 Nov; 141(4):743-56. PubMed ID: 22390265 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy. Reyna VF; Farley F Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2006 Sep; 7(1):1-44. PubMed ID: 26158695 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Reward Responsiveness and Inhibition Traits Differentially Predict Economic Biases in Gain and Loss Contexts. Fernandez KN; Lighthall NR Front Psychol; 2019; 10():1948. PubMed ID: 31507496 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Aging and loss decision making: increased risk aversion and decreased use of maximizing information, with correlated rationality and value maximization. Kurnianingsih YA; Sim SK; Chee MW; Mullette-Gillman OA Front Hum Neurosci; 2015; 9():280. PubMed ID: 26029092 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. How do emotions respond to outcome values and influence choice? Grimani A; Yemiscigil A; Wang Q; Kirilov G; Kudrna L; Vlaev I Psychol Res; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 38985171 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Divergence and Convergence of Risky Decision Making Across Prospective Gains and Losses: Preferences and Strategies. Kurnianingsih YA; Mullette-Gillman OA Front Neurosci; 2015; 9():457. PubMed ID: 26733779 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Using dynamic monitoring of choices to predict and understand risk preferences. Stillman PE; Krajbich I; Ferguson MJ Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2020 Dec; 117(50):31738-31747. PubMed ID: 33234567 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Individual Differences in Subjective Utility and Risk Preferences: The Influence of Hedonic Capacity and Trait Anxiety. Howlett JR; Paulus MP Front Psychiatry; 2017; 8():88. PubMed ID: 28588508 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. On the Flexibility of Basic Risk Attitudes in Monkeys. Farashahi S; Azab H; Hayden B; Soltani A J Neurosci; 2018 May; 38(18):4383-4398. PubMed ID: 29626169 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Working memory loads differentially influence frame-induced bias and normative choice in risky decision making. Hinson JM; Whitney P; Wilson CG; Nusbaum AT PLoS One; 2019; 14(3):e0214571. PubMed ID: 30921395 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The adaptive decision-making, risky decision, and decision-making style of Internet gaming disorder. Ko CH; Wang PW; Liu TL; Chen CS; Yen CF; Yen JY Eur Psychiatry; 2017 Jul; 44():189-197. PubMed ID: 28646731 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Choice Under Risk: How Occupation Influences Preferences. Hill T; Kusev P; van Schaik P Front Psychol; 2019; 10():2003. PubMed ID: 31543852 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Models of Affective Decision Making: How Do Feelings Predict Choice? Charpentier CJ; De Neve JE; Li X; Roiser JP; Sharot T Psychol Sci; 2016 Jun; 27(6):763-75. PubMed ID: 27071751 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Economic decisions for others: an exception to loss aversion law. Mengarelli F; Moretti L; Faralla V; Vindras P; Sirigu A PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e85042. PubMed ID: 24454788 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Decisions for Others Are Less Risk-Averse in the Gain Frame and Less Risk-Seeking in the Loss Frame Than Decisions for the Self. Zhang X; Liu Y; Chen X; Shang X; Liu Y Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1601. PubMed ID: 28966604 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]