1,721,023 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
How do we regulate others’ emotions? Exploring predictors of extrinsic emotion regulation using ESM
No full text
Coping Mediates the Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Well-being and Ill-Being
No full textDo Judgments of Learning Impair Recall When Uninformative Cues Are Salient?
No full textJudgments of learning (JOL) are one of the most commonly used measures of metamemory. There is mixed evidence that eliciting JOLs while participants are studying word pairs influences their subsequent recall, a phenomenon known as reactivity. The majority of studies have found that positive reactivity occurs when word pairs are related. This finding suggests that when the final test is sensitive to the cues used to make a JOL (e.g., pair relatedness), a benefit to recall is observed. Here, in three experiments, JOL reactivity is examined in the presence of a salient, yet non-diagnostic cue—font size. The results show that when study time is limited and font size is made salient, eliciting JOLs impairs future recall. It is argued that JOLs prompt participants to evaluate salient cues in the learning environment to evaluate whether they will affect future recall. This increased processing of salient cues can impair recall if it comes at the expense of processing less salient but more informative cues. These findings suggest that the relevance to the test of the cues processed when JOLs are performed determines the direction of reactivity effects, with both positive and negative reactivity being possible depending on how diagnostic the salient metacognitive cues are for recall
Causal Illusions in Emotion Regulation: How does emotional base-rate impact efficacy beliefs?
No full text
Reactivity to Confidence Ratings: Evidence of Impaired Rule-learning
No full textRecent evidence has shown that eliciting confidence ratings can affect cognitive performance – a so-called reactivity effect. Several mechanisms have been proposed to account for reactivity, but currently there is only indirect evidence about why confidence ratings are reactive. Here, we explore the strategic changes in cognitive processes that occur in response to confidence ratings. Using a category learning paradigm that distinguishes between memorization and rule learning, in a large-sample (N = 710) pre-registered study, we show that eliciting confidence ratings caused a reduction in rule-based learning, even when compared to participants who made judgments of learning that asked them to reflect on their learning during the task as a whole. We argue that confidence ratings promote changes in the strategies participants adopt, driven by a more conservative approach that prioritizes performance over mastery and ultimately hinders rule-based learning and knowledge transfer
- …
