更正：确定之事与概率性慈善捐赠：关于个体差异在风险和模糊慈善决策中作用的实验证据。
Correction: Sure-thing vs. probabilistic charitable giving: Experimental evidence on the role of individual differences in risky and ambiguous charitable decision-making.
作者信息
Costa-Gomes Miguel, Schoenegger Philipp
出版信息
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 22;19(7):e0307847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307847. eCollection 2024.
Abstract
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273971.].
摘要
[本文更正了文章的数字对象标识符：10.1371/journal.pone.0273971。]
相似文献
1
Correction: Sure-thing vs. probabilistic charitable giving: Experimental evidence on the role of individual differences in risky and ambiguous charitable decision-making.更正：确定之事与概率性慈善捐赠：关于个体差异在风险和模糊慈善决策中作用的实验证据。
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 22;19(7):e0307847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307847. eCollection 2024.
2
Sure-thing vs. probabilistic charitable giving: Experimental evidence on the role of individual differences in risky and ambiguous charitable decision-making.有把握与概率性慈善捐赠：个体差异在风险和模糊慈善决策中的作用的实验证据。
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 22;17(9):e0273971. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273971. eCollection 2022.
3
What is Quantum in probabilistic explanations of the sure-thing principle violation?在确性原理违背的概率解释中，量子是什么？
Biosystems. 2024 Apr;238:105180. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2024.105180. Epub 2024 Mar 11.
4
Correction: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Probabilistic Inference: Evidence from the Domain of Color.更正：萨丕尔-沃尔夫假说与概率推理：来自颜色领域的证据。
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 16;11(8):e0161521. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161521. eCollection 2016.
5
Correction: Equivalent Indels - Ambiguous Functional Classes and Redundancy in Databases.更正：等效插入缺失——数据库中的模糊功能类别和冗余
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 19;8(12). doi: 10.1371/annotation/7e304601-fc5c-40fe-857c-d6ea894d1647. eCollection 2013.
6
Correction: Gender stigma awareness is associated with adolescent risky health behaviors.更正：对性别污名的认知与青少年的危险健康行为有关。
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 16;17(9):e0274987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274987. eCollection 2022.
7
Correction: learning probabilistic features for robotic navigation using laser sensors.更正：使用激光传感器学习机器人导航的概率特征。
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 23;10(3):e0119342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119342. eCollection 2015.
8
Correction: Modeling the dynamics of the COVID-19 population in Australia: A probabilistic analysis.更正：澳大利亚新冠病毒感染人群动态建模：概率分析。
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 3;17(8):e0272762. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272762. eCollection 2022.
9
Psychological value theory: A computational cognitive model of charitable giving.心理价值理论：慈善捐赠的一种计算认知模型。
Cogn Psychol. 2023 Sep;145:101593. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101593. Epub 2023 Sep 4.
10
Correction: What influences the clinical decision-making of dentists? A cross-sectional study.更正：什么影响牙医的临床决策？一项横断面研究。
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 8;16(6):e0253183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253183. eCollection 2021.
本文引用的文献
1
Sure-thing vs. probabilistic charitable giving: Experimental evidence on the role of individual differences in risky and ambiguous charitable decision-making.有把握与概率性慈善捐赠：个体差异在风险和模糊慈善决策中的作用的实验证据。
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 22;17(9):e0273971. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273971. eCollection 2022.
Zotero 插件