about
Communicating scientific uncertaintyNear-misses and future disaster preparedness.Counterfactual thinking and decision making.Evidence for arrogance: On the relative importance of expertise, outcome, and manner.To punish or to leave: distinct cognitive processes underlie partner control and partner choice behaviors.Is it time for studying real-life debiasing? Evaluation of the effectiveness of an analogical intervention technique.Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability.P300 and Decision Making under Risk and AmbiguityAristotle Meets Zeno: Psychophysiological Evidence.A Sorrow Shared Is a Sorrow Halved: Moral Judgments of Harm to Single versus Multiple Victims.Decision-making impairments in Parkinson's disease as a by-product of defective cost-benefit analysis and feedback processing.Bolam with the benefit of hindsight.Looking back on the London Olympics: Independent outcome and hindsight effects in decision evaluation.Moving toward patient-centered care: Women's decisions, perceptions, and experiences of the induction of labor process.Airline Safety Improvement Through Experience with Near-Misses: A Cautionary Tale.How do we want others to decide?: Geographical distance influences evaluations of decision makers.Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk.Reexamining our bias against heuristics.Judging the goring ox: retribution directed toward animals.Causal Conceptions in Social Explanation and Moral Evaluation: A Historical Tour.Culpable control and counterfactual reasoning in the psychology of blame.Differences in expectations of outcome mediate African American/white patient differences in "willingness" to consider joint replacement.The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks.Being similar while judging right and wrong: The effects of personal and situational similarity on moral judgements.Robustness of Decision-Making Competence: Evidence from two measures and an 11-year longitudinal studyHypocrisy: What counts?The Outcome Effect and Professional Skepticism
P2860
Q28655096-1ADB732A-0CC2-4D71-B2B9-94C1EC7A3559Q30210401-B1212FF5-5341-4637-9D22-4AE1A0B57218Q33842557-2B1E41E7-85E3-4F09-9EF9-CA63597B6D98Q33880698-3789FB44-6EF4-4721-B92F-F39706B54743Q35542697-2CDCA4D2-4AB0-4139-93D7-CF0725149C2CQ35912898-C969F555-4429-49DA-9D34-DCF0572AFD34Q36066387-F99709DF-2434-47FE-B15D-FF5A95441F48Q36204383-62F7D497-7DC8-45FF-9D95-517C33FBF823Q36235527-4DCA11B5-32EE-477E-A723-DB6B041611BBQ37143663-B0FCC02C-89F3-45AA-8AD2-B1DE66EC6817Q38260096-D45A8418-2424-4F57-BA5D-9CF6293C0A4EQ38892620-16E84333-DBE4-4173-B249-4609DE182748Q39004010-68E15106-0494-48AB-B615-3ABD208EE277Q39209005-F4811CFD-BCBD-4D06-BBCD-F6D5C2B876B2Q40390504-A05761C0-7120-4B62-ADC5-712B59987656Q45001906-C2C3EAC4-4A7A-418D-A60B-F2D272977E2EQ45946611-040C52E8-3597-42AD-A408-814BE37F3265Q46060360-4C4DEE76-1F4C-4DAC-B076-EA7EE9141888Q46833876-E7DFE20D-A0F3-4FF4-91E0-1BD4B9B53290Q47907632-50AD0A75-57C8-4C1F-840F-C8DDC72E24F1Q48330493-11B77132-14F8-491E-9644-85A5EB458AF0Q50708365-FEC08C17-0097-4B4A-B2AC-7779B8D45E1CQ51572456-9081CCA6-3D82-4762-8B6B-7645F858FF86Q53251019-4E945025-72A5-4EA8-849E-60170EDC11E2Q56741410-81EDE035-DEC2-4AD5-AECC-17A22FD78603Q56814889-BAE87686-AE5D-4752-A857-DB256D682350Q57429911-B0ACA229-4AAA-4DE8-87AE-4CDA2C93AA80
P2860
description
1988 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
1988 թուականին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
1988 թվականին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
1988年の論文
@ja
1988年論文
@yue
1988年論文
@zh-hant
1988年論文
@zh-hk
1988年論文
@zh-mo
1988年論文
@zh-tw
1988年论文
@wuu
name
Outcome bias in decision evaluation.
@ast
Outcome bias in decision evaluation.
@en
type
label
Outcome bias in decision evaluation.
@ast
Outcome bias in decision evaluation.
@en
prefLabel
Outcome bias in decision evaluation.
@ast
Outcome bias in decision evaluation.
@en
P1476
Outcome bias in decision evaluation
@en
P2093
John C. Hershey
Jonathan Baron
P304
P356
10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569
P577
1988-01-01T00:00:00Z