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.
43. How do decision makers evaluate advice from advisors with happy and angry expressions? A behavioural and ERP study. Du X; Ren Y; Yuan X Cogn Emot; 2023; 37(4):852-862. PubMed ID: 37132215 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. From discipline-centered rivalries to solution-centered science: Producing better probability estimates for policy makers. Mellers BA; Tetlock PE Am Psychol; 2019 Apr; 74(3):290-300. PubMed ID: 30945892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Flexible use of confidence to guide advice requests. Carlebach N; Yeung N Cognition; 2023 Jan; 230():105264. PubMed ID: 36087357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Burden of disease scenarios for 204 countries and territories, 2022-2050: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. GBD 2021 Forecasting Collaborators Lancet; 2024 May; 403(10440):2204-2256. PubMed ID: 38762325 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. How strongly do moral character inferences predict forecasts of the future? Testing the moderating roles of transgressor age, implicit personality theories, and belief in karma. White CJM; Norenzayan A; Schaller M PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0244144. PubMed ID: 33347513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Eyewitness confidence and mock juror decisions of guilt: A meta-analytic review. Slane CR; Dodson CS Law Hum Behav; 2022 Feb; 46(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 35073115 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Inconsistent advice by ChatGPT influences decision making in various areas. Ikeda S Sci Rep; 2024 Jul; 14(1):15876. PubMed ID: 38982276 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments. Zhu JQ; Sanborn AN; Chater N Psychol Rev; 2020 Oct; 127(5):719-748. PubMed ID: 32191073 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament. Mellers B; Ungar L; Baron J; Ramos J; Gurcay B; Fincher K; Scott SE; Moore D; Atanasov P; Swift SA; Murray T; Stone E; Tetlock PE Psychol Sci; 2014 May; 25(5):1106-15. PubMed ID: 24659192 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Perceptions of weather-based pain forecasts and their effect on daily activities. Elcik CJ; Fuhrmann CM; Sheridan SC; Sherman-Morris K; Mercer AE Int J Biometeorol; 2024 Jan; 68(1):109-123. PubMed ID: 37987810 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. And the winner is . . . ? Forecasting the outcome of others' competitive efforts. Kupor D; Brucks MS; Huang SC J Pers Soc Psychol; 2019 Sep; 117(3):500-521. PubMed ID: 31120289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Social metacognition in moral judgment: Decisional conflict promotes perspective taking. Mata A J Pers Soc Psychol; 2019 Dec; 117(6):1061-1082. PubMed ID: 31219289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Influence of advisees' facial feedback on subsequent advice-giving by advisors: Evidence from the behavioral and neurophysiological approach. Yan K; Tao R; Huang X; Zhang E Biol Psychol; 2023 Feb; 177():108506. PubMed ID: 36736571 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Chimeric Forecasting: An experiment to leverage human judgment to improve forecasts of infectious disease using simulated surveillance data. McAndrew T; Gibson GC; Braun D; Srivastava A; Brown K Epidemics; 2024 Jun; 47():100756. PubMed ID: 38452456 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. When do consumers favor overly precise information about investment returns? Batteux E; Bilovich A; Khon Z; Johnson SGB; Tuckett D J Exp Psychol Appl; 2023 Jun; 29(2):302-321. PubMed ID: 37261759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]