Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology.

D'Mello, Sidney·2013·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed considerable interest in the investigation of the affective dimensions of learning and in the development of advanced learning technologies that automatically detect and respond to student affect. Identifying the affective states that students experience in technology-enhanced learning contexts is a fundamental question in this area. This article provides an initial attempt to answer this question with a selective meta-analysis of 24 studies that utilized a mixture of methodologies (online self-reports, online observations, emote-aloud protocols, cued recall) and affect judges (students themselves, untrained peers, trained judges) for fine-grained monitoring of 14 discrete affective states of 1,740 middle school, high school, college, and adult students in 5 countries. Affective states occurred over the course of interactions with a range of learning technologies, including intelligent tutoring systems, serious games, simulation environments, and simple computer interfaces. Standardized effect sizes of relative frequency, computed by comparing the proportional occurrence of each affective state to the other states in each study, were modeled with random-effects models. Engagement/flow was consistently found to be relatively frequent (d+ = 2.5), and contempt, anger, disgust, sadness, anxiety, delight, fear, and surprise were consistently infrequent, with d+ ranging from −6.5 to −0.78. Effects for boredom (d+ = 0.19), confusion (d+ = 0.12), curiosity (d+ = −0.10), happiness (d+ = −0.13), and frustration (d+ = −2.5) varied substantially across studies. Mixed-effects models indicated that the source of the affect judgments (self vs. observers) and the authenticity of the learning contexts (classroom vs. laboratory) accounted for greater heterogeneity than the use of advanced learning technologies and training time. Theoretical and applied implications of the findings are discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0032674

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 86 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
D'Mello, S.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2013-11
Volume
105
Issue
4
Pages
1082-1099
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2171618137
Cited by
300
References
86
FWCI
19.88
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0032674
The paper
D'Mello, S. (2013). A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032674

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.