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.
2. Effects of probability mode on preference reversal. González-Vallejo C; Wallsten TS J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1992 Jul; 18(4):855-64. PubMed ID: 1385620 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Nonlinear decision weights or moment-based preferences? A model competition involving described and experienced skewness. Spiliopoulos L; Hertwig R Cognition; 2019 Feb; 183():99-123. PubMed ID: 30447519 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The impact of the certainty context on the process of choice. Dickhaut J; McCabe K; Nagode JC; Rustichini A; Smith K; Pardo JV Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2003 Mar; 100(6):3536-41. PubMed ID: 12626760 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Framing effects in choices between multioutcome life-expectancy lotteries. Bernstein LM; Chapman GB; Elstein AS Med Decis Making; 1999; 19(3):324-38. PubMed ID: 10424839 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field. Dimmock SG; Kouwenberg R; Mitchell OS; Peijnenburg K J Risk Uncertain; 2015 Dec; 51(3):219-244. PubMed ID: 26924890 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The role of information search and its influence on risk preferences. Kopsacheilis O Theory Decis; 2018; 84(3):311-339. PubMed ID: 31258207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Source preference and ambiguity aversion: models and evidence from behavioral and neuroimaging experiments. Chew SH; Li KK; Chark R; Zhong S Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res; 2008; 20():179-201. PubMed ID: 19552309 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. On the Relationship between Cognitive Ability and Risk Preference. Dohmen T; Falk A; Huffman D; Sunde U J Econ Perspect; 2018; 32(2):115-34. PubMed ID: 30203932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Economic Decisions with Ambiguous Outcome Magnitudes Vary with Low and High Stakes but Not Trait Anxiety or Depression. Zbozinek TD; Charpentier CJ; Qi S; Mobbs D Comput Psychiatr; 2021; 5(1):119-139. PubMed ID: 38773996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prospect theory in the health domain: a quantitative assessment. Attema AE; Brouwer WB; I'Haridon O J Health Econ; 2013 Dec; 32(6):1057-65. PubMed ID: 24103499 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries Bougherara D; Friesen L; Nauges C J Risk Uncertain; 2021; 62(1):89-112. PubMed ID: 33967390 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]