English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Guo and Regenwetter (2014) took the perceived relative argument model, added various auxiliary assumptions of their own about the utility of money, made assumptions about possible stochastic specifications, and tested the various combined models against data from an experiment they conducted. However, their modeling assumptions were questionable and their experiment was unsatisfactory: The stimuli omitted crucial information, the incentives were weak, and the task load was excessive. These shortcomings undermine the quality of the data, and the study provides no new information about the scope and limitations of the perceived relative argument model or its performance relative to other models of risky choice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

Quantitative tests of the Perceived Relative Argument Model: Reply to Guo and Regenwetter (2014).