PAYNE, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92
382^02. PETERSON, R. A., WILSON, W. R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: Fact an(
artifact. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 61-71. PETERSON, C. R., DUCHARME, W. M. (1967). A primacy effect in subjective próba
bility revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 61-65. PISAREK, M., L. (1971). Œwiat oczami odkrywców. Warszawa: Nasza Ksiêgarnia. PITZ, G. F. (1969). Añ inertia effect (resistance to change) in the revision ofopinion
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 23, 24-33. PITZ, G. F., DOWNING, L., REINHOLD, H. (1967). Sequential effects in the revisioi
of subjective probabilities. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 21, 381-393. PLOUS, S. (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York
McGraw-Hill. PLUMMER, T. (1995). Psychologia rynków finansowych. U Ÿróde³ analizy technicznej
Warszawa: WIG-Press. PRATKANIS, A. R., (1988). The attitude heuristic and selective fact identification. Bri
tish Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 257-263. PROTHRO, J. W., GRIGG, C. M. (1960). Fundamental principles ofdemocracy: Base
of agreement and disagreement. Journal ofPolitics, 22, 276-294. PRUS, B. (1956). Lalka. Warszawa: PIW. PYSZCZYNSKI, T, GREENBERG, J., SOLOMON, S., STUBING, M. (1993). Emo
tional expression and the inhibition of motivated cognitive bias: Evidence from co
gnitive dissonance and distancing from yictims' paradigm. Journal of Personalit
and Social Psychology, 64, 177-186. OUATTRONE, G. A., TVERSKY, A. (1984). Causal versus diagnostic contingenciei
On selfdeception and the voter's illusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psyche
logy, 46, 237-248.
ROSENTHAL, R., JACOBSON, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Ciassroom: Teache Expectation andPupils ' Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wir
ston. (9, 15) ROSS, M., SICOLY, F. (1982). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. [w:] Kat
neman. D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (red.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics a Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 179-198.
raT£/l-IULULaK^-IMt I^U³-Al^M U^tlMIAIMIA l l^UUtJMUWANIA DECYZJI
RUSSO, J. E., SHOEMAKER, P. J. H. (1989). Decision Traps. New York: Doubleday.
SAKS, M. J., HASTIE, R. (1988). Social Psychology in court: Thejudge. [w:] Arkes, H. R., Hammond, K. R. (red.), Judgment and Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 255-274.
SAKS, M. J., KIDD, R. F. (1988). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. [w:] Arkes, H. R., Hammond, K. R. (red.), Judgment and Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 213-242.
SCHUMAN, H., PRESSER, S. (1981). Questions andAnswers inAttitudeSuryeys: Expe-riments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. Orlando: Academic Press.
SCHUMAN, H. (1992). Context effects: State ofthe past / state ofthe art. [w:] Schwartz, N., Sudman, S. (red.), Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. New York: Springer-Verlag, s. 5-20.
SCHWARZ, N., CLORE, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments ofwell-being: Informative and directive functions ofaffective states. Journal ofPer-sonality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.
SÊDEK, G., KOFTA, M., TYSZKA, T. (1993). Effects ofuncontrollability on subsequ-ent decision making: Testing the cognitive exhaustion hypothesis. Journal ofPerso-nality and Social Psychology, 65, 1270-1281.
SIGALL, H., OSTROVE, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: Effects ofoffender attrac-tiveness and naturê of the crime on juridical Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 410^14.
SIMONSON, I., TVERSKY, A. (1992). Choice m Context: Tradeoff contrast and extre-meness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
SIMONSON, I. (1989). Choice based on reason: The case ofattraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
SLOVIC, P., FISCHHOFF, B., LICHTENSTEIN, S., (1980). Facts and fears: Under-standing pereeived risk. [w:] Schwing R. C., Alberts W. A. Jr. (red.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Sofê is Safe Enough? New York: Plenum Press, s. 181-216.
SLOVIC, P. (1987). Perception ofrisk. Science, 236, 280-285.
SLOVIC, P., FISCHHOFF, B., LICHTENSTEIN, S. (1982). Response modê, framing, and information processing effects in risk assessment. [w:] R. M. Hogarth (red.), New Directions For Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: The Framing of Questions and the Consistency of Response. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, s. 21-36.
SLOVIC, P, FISCHHOFF, B., LICHTENSTEIN, S. (1978). Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10,281-285.
SMEDSLUND, J. (1963). The concept ofcorrelation in aduits. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 4, 165-173.
SNYDER, M., TANKE, E. D., BERSCHEID, E. (1977). Social perception and interper-sonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling naturê ofsocial stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.
BIBLIOGRAFIA
^^^,^STAROWIEYSKI, M. (red.) Ksiêga Starców (1983). Kraków: Znak, s. 294. STEYENS, S. (1957). On the psychological law. Psychological Review, 64, 153-181. STRICKLAND, L. H., LEWICKI, R. J., KATZ, A. M. (1966). Temporal orientation am
pereeived control as determinants of risk-talking. Journal of Experimental Soda
Psychology, 2, 143-151. STEWART, J. E. II. (1980). Defendanfs attractiveness as a factor in the outcome ofthi
trials. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 348-361. SUE, S., SMITH, R. E., CALDWELL, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence 01
the decision of simulated jurors: A mora³ diiemma. Journal of Applied Social Psy
chology. 3, 345-353. SVENSON, O. (1981). Arê we all less risky and morê skillful than our fellow drivers'
Acta Psychologica, 47, 143-148. TESSER, A., CAMPBELL, J. (1982). Self-evaluation maintenance and the perceptiol
offriends and strangers. Journal of Personality, 50, 216-279. THALER, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory ofconsumer choice. Journal ofEcono
mic Behavior and Organization, l, 39-80. THALER, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, A
199-214. TTOURANGEAU, R. (1992). Context Effects on Responses to Attitude Questions
Attitudes as Memory Structures. [w:] Schwartz, N., Sudman, S. (red.), Context E)