The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
After-Event Reviews: Drawing Lessons From Successful and Failed Experience.
Abstract
The claim that appropriate after-event review might decrease the relative advantage of drawing lessons from failures over drawing lessons from successes was examined in a quasi-field experiment. The results show that performance of soldiers doing successive navigation exercises improved significantly when they were debriefed on their failures and successes after each training day, compared with others who reviewed their failed events only. The findings also show that, before the manipulation, in both groups, learners' mental models of failed events were richer in constructs and links than were their mental models of successful events. This gap closed gradually in subsequent measurements.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion
Weiner, B. (1985) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.548 · Cited by 7,846
Plans and the structure of behavior.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960) · doi:10.1037/10039-000 · Cited by 4,630
Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 · Cited by 1,714
A Closed-Loop Theory of Motor Learning
Adams, J. A. (1971) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.1971.10734898 · Cited by 1,636
Peer interaction and learning in small groups
Webb, N. M. (1989) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1 · Cited by 1,050
Cited by
Eppich, W., & Cheng, A. (2015) · Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000072 · Cited by 1,106
Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction
Liedtka, J. (2015) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12163 · Cited by 951
Narcissism and learning from entrepreneurial failure
Liu, Y., Li, Y., Hao, X., & Zhang, Y. (2019) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.003 · Cited by 172
Crane, M. F., Boga, D., Karin, E., Gucciardi, D. F., Rapport, F., Callen, J., & Sinclair, L. (2019) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000356 · Cited by 79
Becker, F., Wirzberger, M., Pammer-Schindler, V., Srinivas, S., & Lieder, F. (2023) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2023.16 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellis, S., & Davidi, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 857-871
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1989350776
- Cited by
- 374
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 9.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
