- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: Reply to Dube, Rotello, and Heit (2010)
Psychological Review 118 (1):164-173 (2011)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Other Versions
No versions found
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
The belief bias effect is aptly named: A reply to Klauer and Kellen (2011).Chad Dube, Caren M. Rotello & Evan Heit - 2011 - Psychological Review 118 (1):155-163.
Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: It's a response bias effect.Chad Dube, Caren M. Rotello & Evan Heit - 2010 - Psychological Review 117 (3):831-863.
Postscript: Accounting for belief bias in a mental model framework--No problem for whom?Alan Garnham & Jane V. Oakhill - 2005 - Psychological Review 112 (2):517-518.
Where is the criterion noise in recognition? (Almost) everyplace you look: Comment on Kellen, Klauer, and Singmann (2012).Aaron S. Benjamin - 2013 - Psychological Review 120 (3):720-726.
Accounting for Belief Bias in a Mental Model Framework: Comment on Klauer, Musch, and Naumer (2000).Alan Garnham & Jane V. Oakhill - 2005 - Psychological Review 112 (2):509-517.
Postscript: Reply to Macmillan and Rotello (2006).Bennet Murdock - 2006 - Psychological Review 113 (3):655-656.
"Decision-making models of remember-know judgments: Comment on Rotello, Macmillan, and Reeder (2004)": Reply to postscript.Neil A. Macmillan & Caren M. Rotello - 2006 - Psychological Review 113 (3):664-665.
Accounting for Belief Bias in a Mental Model Framework? No Problem! Reply to Garnham and Oakhill (2005).Karl Christoph Klauer & Jochen Musch - 2005 - Psychological Review 112 (2):519-520.
Information gain and decision-theoretic approaches to data selection: Response to Klauer (1999).Nick Chater & Mike Oaksford - 1999 - Psychological Review 106 (1):223-227.
Decision-making models of remember-know judgments: Comment on Rotello, Macmillan, and Reeder (2004).Bennet Murdock - 2006 - Psychological Review 113 (3):648-655.
Analytics
Added to PP
2016-06-30
Downloads
23 (#921,351)
6 months
6 (#793,123)
2016-06-30
Downloads
23 (#921,351)
6 months
6 (#793,123)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning.Jonathan St B. T. Evans - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (1):5 - 31.
Traditional difference-score analyses of reasoning are flawed.Evan Heit & Caren M. Rotello - 2014 - Cognition 131 (1):75-91.
Belief bias in informal reasoning.Valerie Thompson & Jonathan St B. T. Evans - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):278 - 310.
Fluency and belief bias in deductive reasoning: new indices for old effects.Dries Trippas, Simon J. Handley & Michael F. Verde - 2014 - Frontiers in Psychology 5.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6f97f49787-zlfb6 uwo