Cited by 7Education, Achievement, and GiftednessMemory Processes and InfluencesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Emotional correlates of errors in learning.

Carter, Harold D.·1936·Journal of Educational Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0057867

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Much of the evidence for an unpleasantness bias comes from comparisons of arousing negative stimuli with neutral stimuli, therefore providing equal support for an intensity bias.

    “Yet much of the evidence for an unpleasantness bias comes from comparisons of arousing negative stimuli with neutral stimuli (e.g., Banaji & Hardin, 1994;Bradley et al., 2001;Carter, 1936), therefore providing equal support for an intensity bias.”

    From Emotional Intensity Predicts Autobiographical Memory Experience (2004) · cites this paper as Carter, 1936

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carter, H. D.
Corresponding author
Carter, Harold D.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
1936
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
55-67
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2026169635
Cited by
7
References
12
FWCI
4.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
learning errors, affective learning, error analysis

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