Volume 80, Number 1 (1999), in Article No. obhd.1999.2854, “Collective Induction: Twelve Postulates,” by Patrick R. Laughlin, pages 50–69:

Author：  

Publisher： Academic Press

ISSN： 0749-5978

Source： Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.81, Iss.2, 2000-03, pp. : 359-359

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Related content

Volume 82, Number 2 (2000), in the article “Familiarity Bias and Belief Reversal in Relative Likelihood Judgment,” by Craig R. Fox and Jonathan Levav, pages 268–292 (obhd.2000.2898)

By  

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86, Iss. 2, 2001-11 ,pp. : 322-322

Academic Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Volume 6, Number 1 (1997), in Article No. CC960287, “Consciousness and Cognition May Be Mediated by Multiple Independent Coherent Ensembles,” by E. Roy John, Paul Easton, and Robert Isenhart, pages 3–39: Due to a printer's error, Fig. 6 on page 26 did not reproduce well.

By  

Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 6, Iss. 4, 1997-12 ,pp. : 598-599

Academic Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Volume 43, Number 1 (2001), in the article “The Development of Ordinal Numerical Competence in Young Children,” by Elizabeth M. Brannon and Gretchen A. Van de Walle, pages 53–81 (doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0756):

By  

Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 44, Iss. 2, 2002-03 ,pp. : 191-192

Academic Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Volume 10, Number 2 (2001), in the article “Invariant Reversible QEEG Effects of Anesthetics,” by E. R. John, L. S. Prichep, W. Kox, P. Valdés-Sosa, J. Bosch-Bayard, E. Aubert, M. Tom, F. diMichele, and L. D. Gugino, pages 165–183 (doi:10.1006/ccog.2001.0507)

By  

Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, 2002-03 ,pp. : 138-138

Academic Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Volume 8, Number 4 (1999), in the article “Response Deadline and Subjective Awareness in Recognition Memory,” by Johh M. Gardiner, Cristina Ramponi, and Alan Richardson–Klavehn, pages 484–496 (doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0409): On pages 490–491, in describing the results of Experiment 2, the authors state that out of a total of 3840 responses, only 355 (or 9%) fell outside the response deadlines. In fact, the total number of responses in Experiment 2 was 3200 and so the 355 responses represented 11%, not 9%, of the total. This error has no other implications. The authors are grateful to Peter Graf (personal communication, March 12, 2000) for pointing out the error.

By  

Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 9, Iss. 2, 2000-06 ,pp. : 327-327

Academic Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite