The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of feedback on cognitive processing and choice of decision style
Abstract
Presentation d'un modele de processus cognitifs. En hypothese, le feedback negatif sur les resultats d'une decision et l'acceptation subordonnee des decisions devraient accroitre l'utilisation de scripts, d'evaluations, d'attentes et d'attributions, la variete des processus cognitifs utilises et changer le choix de style de decision des sujets. Un feedback negatif repete devrait accroitre les attributions, attentes, evaluations, processus de strategie et la variete du processus cognitif. Un feedback positif repete accroitrait l'utilisation de scripts et diminuerait celle de processus strategiques. Analyse de protocoles verbaux de 59 sujets
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Processing feedback requires investment of mental effort to interpret the feedback, diagnose errors, and adapt cognitive strategies.
“This process requires the investment of mental effort to interpret the feedback, diagnose errors, and adapt cognitive strategies (Wofford and Goodwin, 1990) after receiving feedback.”
From Assessing the Impact and Underlying Pathways of Sequenced AI feedback on Student Learning (2026) · cites this paper as Wofford and Goodwin, 1990
Citations
Cites
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.92.1.111 · Cited by 2,650
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessing the Impact and Underlying Pathways of Sequenced AI feedback on Student Learning
Cao, J., Zhao, C. Q., Schunn, C., McLaughlin, E. A., Lin, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.07469
Metadata
- Authors
- Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 1990
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 603-612
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1972638438
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- feedback, decision-making styles, cognitive processes, negative feedback, positive feedback, scripts, attribution, expectations, evaluation, strategy formulation, verbal protocols, decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
