Dual process theories: A key for understanding the diversification bias?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief
Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2003) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00185-3 · Cited by 442 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Probability matching and strategy availability
J. Koehler, D., & James, G. (2010) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.38.6.667 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Probability matching and statistical naïveté
Barlow, M., Doan, T., Friedman, O., & Denison, S. (2025) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2025.10014 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kogler, C., & Kühberger, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Salzburg (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Kühberger, Anton
- Venue
- Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
- Published
- 2007-03-08
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-154
- ISSN
- 0895-5646 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0476
- OpenAlex
- W2105422397
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 0.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
- Keywords
- dual-process theory, System 1, System 2, probability judgment, contextual cues, statistical reasoning, decision making under risk
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
