Icons / Logo / Facebook Created with Sketch. Icons / Logo / Google Created with Sketch. Icons / Logo / ORCID Created with Sketch. Branding/Logomark minus Citation Combined Shape Icon/Bookmark-empty Icon/Copy Icon/Collection Icon/Close Copy 7 no author result Created with Sketch. Icon/Back Created with Sketch. Match!
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Papers 1108
1 page of 111 pages (1,108 results)
Judith Avrahami10
Estimated H-index: 10
(HUJI: Hebrew University of Jerusalem),
Ayala Ezer (HUJI: Hebrew University of Jerusalem)+ -3 AuthorsUri Zak (HUJI: Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Published on Jul 12, 2019
Students’ low confidence, particularly in numerical topics, is thought to be a barrier to keeping them engaged with education. We studied the effects on confidence of exposure to a peer’s work of varying quality (very good, bad) and neatness (messy, neat). Previous research underpinned our hypothesis that a peer’s bad-quality work—which students rarely see—might boost student confidence more than excellent work. We also predicted that a peer’s excellent work—which students are often shown—might ...
Christopher Y. Olivola16
Estimated H-index: 16
(CMU: Carnegie Mellon University),
Yeonjeong Kim3
Estimated H-index: 3
(MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
+ -3 AuthorsIlana Ritov29
Estimated H-index: 29
(HUJI: Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Richard Yi20
Estimated H-index: 20
(KU: University of Kansas),
Juhan Lee (UF: University of Florida), Jama Bettis (KU: University of Kansas)
Published on Jun 20, 2019
Research within the psychological risk-return framework, namely using the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale, has led to a conclusion that risk attitude—measured as an individual’s sensitivity to the risk they perceive—is stable across people (e.g., gender) and domains (e.g., recreational, social, financial, health). Risk-taking differences across gen-der and domain have been interpreted in terms of differences in the magnitude of risk per-ceived (and expected benefit). Yet, the DOSPERT...
Published on Jul 11, 2019in Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1.79
J.M.T. Krijnen3
Estimated H-index: 3
(UCLA: University of California, Los Angeles),
Marcel Zeelenberg54
Estimated H-index: 54
(Tilburg University)
+ 1 AuthorsMarijke van Putten7
Estimated H-index: 7
(LEI: Leiden University)
Published on Jul 10, 2019in Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1.79
Meng-Hua Hsieh1
Estimated H-index: 1
(College of Business Administration),
Richard F. Yalch15
Estimated H-index: 15
(UW: University of Washington)