Teigen, K. H. & Brun, W. (2003). Verbal expressions of probability and uncertainty. In D. Hardman & L. Macchi (Eds.), Thinking: Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment, and decision making (pp. 125-145). Chichester: Wiley.

Teigen, K. H. (2004). Judgments by representativeness. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: Fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment, and memory (pp. 165-182). Hove: Psychology Press.

Keren, G. & Teigen, K. H. (2004). Yet another look at the heuristics and biases approach. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 89-109). Oxford: Blackwell.

Teigen, K. H. & Jørgensen, M. (2005). When 90% confidence intervals are only 50% certain: On the credibility of credible intervals. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 455-475.

Teigen, K. H.  (2005). The proximity heuristic in judgments of accident probabilities. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 423-440.

Teigen, K. H., Halberg, A. M. & Fostervold, K. I. (2007). Single-limit interval estimates as reference points. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 383-406. 

Teigen, K. H., Halberg, A. M. & Fostervold, K. I. (2007). More than, less than, or between: How upper and lower bounds determine subjective interval estimates. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 179-201.

Teigen, K. H. & Keren, G. (2007). Waiting for the bus: When base rates refuse to be neglected. Cognition, 103, 337-357.

Teigen, K. H. (2008). More than X is a lot: Pragmatic implicatures of one-sided intervals.
Social Cognition, 26, 379-400.

Halberg, A.-M. & Teigen, K. H. (2009). Framing of imprecise quantities: When are lower interval bounds preferred to upper bounds? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 490-509.

Halberg, A.-M., Teigen, K. H., & Fostervold, K. I. (2009). Maximum vs. minimum values: Preferences of speakers and listeners for upper and lower limit estimates. Acta Psychologica, 132, 228-239.

Juanchich, M., Teigen, K. H. & Villejoubert, G. (2010). Is guilt ‘likely’ or ‘not certain’? Contrast with previous probabilities determines choice of terms. Acta Psychologica, 135, 267-277.  doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.016

Keren, G. & Teigen, K. H. (2010). Decision by coin toss: Inappropriate but fair. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 83-101.

Halkjelsvik, T. B., Jørgensen, M., & Teigen, K. H. (in press). To read two pages, I need 5 min, but give me 5 min and I will read four: How to change productivity estimates by inverting the question. Applied Cognitive Psychology. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1693.
Teigen, K. H. & Filkuková, P. (2011). Can > will: Predictions of what can happen are extreme, but believed to be probable. Manuscript submitted for publication (Journal of Behavioral Decision Making).

Publisert 22. mars 2011 22:36