Proximity, compatibility, and noncomplementarity in subjective probability

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 136-155

  Yamagishi, Kimihiko ^a  

^a TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036170492     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2959     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Suppressing natural heuristics by formal instruction: The case of the conjunction fallacy
2. Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression
3. Proper and improper linear models
4. Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect
5. The influence of unique features and direction of comparison on preferences
6. On the psychology of prediction
7. The enhance effect in probability judgment
8. Variations of box plots
9. The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information
10. Distributional versus singular approaches to probability and errors in probabilistic reasoning
11. Unpacking, repacking, and enchoring: Advances in Support theory
12. Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others
13. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice
14. Subjective sampling distributions and the additivity of estimates
15. Studies in subjective probability III: The unimportance of alternatives
16. Features of similarity
17. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases
18. Weighting risk and uncertainty
19. Judgments of and by representativeness
20. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment
21. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice
22. Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability
23. Strength of preference and effects of valence in the domains of grains and losses
24. Asymmetries in strength of preference: A focus shift model of valence effects in difference judgment