James Madison University

Much research in the last two decades has demonstrated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision making and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be interpreted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. However, four alternative interpretations preserve the assumption that human behavior and cognition is largely rational. These posit that the gap is due to (1) performance errors, (2) computational limitations, (3) the wrong norm being applied by the experimenter, and (4) a different construal of the task by the subject. In the debates about the viability of these alternative explanations, attention has been focused too narrowly on the model response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implications of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap. Performance errors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations underlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Unexpected patterns of covariance can suggest when the wrong norm is being applied to a task or when an alternative construal of the task should be considered appropriate.

The goals of this article are to (a) describe differences between moderator and mediator effects; (b) provide nontechnical descriptions of how to examine each type of effect, including study design, analysis, and interpretation of results; (c) demonstrate how to analyze each type of effect; and (d) provide suggestions for further reading. The authors focus on the use of multiple regression because it is an accessible data-analytic technique contained in major statistical packages. When appropriate, they also note limitations of using regression to detect moderator and mediator effects and describe alternative procedures, particularly structural equation modeling. Finally, to illustrate areas of confusion in counseling psychology research, they review research testing moderation and mediation that was published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology during 2001.

Significance Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C. We examine how much climate mitigation nature can contribute to this goal with a comprehensive analysis of “natural climate solutions” (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and/or improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We show that NCS can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Alongside aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, NCS offer a powerful set of options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity, cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity.

The HITRAN database is a compilation of molecular spectroscopic parameters. It was established in the early 1970s and is used by various computer codes to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in gaseous media (with an emphasis on terrestrial and planetary atmospheres). The HITRAN compilation is composed of five major components: the line-by-line spectroscopic parameters required for high-resolution radiative-transfer codes, experimental infrared absorption cross-sections (for molecules where it is not yet feasible for representation in a line-by-line form), collision-induced absorption data, aerosol indices of refraction, and general tables (including partition sums) that apply globally to the data. This paper describes the contents of the 2020 quadrennial edition of HITRAN. The HITRAN2020 edition takes advantage of recent experimental and theoretical data that were meticulously validated, in particular, against laboratory and atmospheric spectra. The new edition replaces the previous HITRAN edition of 2016 (including its updates during the intervening years). All five components of HITRAN have undergone major updates. In particular, the extent of the updates in the HITRAN2020 edition range from updating a few lines of specific molecules to complete replacements of the lists, and also the introduction of additional isotopologues and new (to HITRAN) molecules: SO, CH3F, GeH4, CS2, CH3I and NF3. Many new vibrational bands were added, extending the spectral coverage and completeness of the line lists. Also, the accuracy of the parameters for major atmospheric absorbers has been increased substantially, often featuring sub-percent uncertainties. Broadening parameters associated with the ambient pressure of water vapor were introduced to HITRAN for the first time and are now available for several molecules. The HITRAN2020 edition continues to take advantage of the relational structure and efficient interface available at www.hitran.org and the HITRAN Application Programming Interface (HAPI). The functionality of both tools has been extended for the new edition.

The present research was developed to examine the conceptualization and measurement of the political skill construct and to provide validation evidence for the Political Skill Inventory (PSI). The results of three investigations, involving seven samples, are reported that demonstrate consistency of the factor structure across studies, construct validity, and criterion-related validity of the PSI. As hypothesized, political skill was positively related to self-monitoring, political savvy, and emotional intelligence; negatively related to trait anxiety; and not correlated with general mental ability. Also, the PSI predicted performance ratings of managers in two samples. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are provided.

C. Midgley et al. (2001) raised important questions about the effects of performance-approach goals. The present authors disagree with their characterization of the research findings and implications for theory. They discuss 3 reasons to revise goal theory: (a) the importance of separating approach from avoidance strivings, (b) the positive potential of performance-approach goals, and (c) identification of the ways performance-approach goals can combine with mastery goals to promote optimal motivation. The authors review theory and research to substantiate their claim that goal theory is in need of revision, and they endorse a multiple goal perspective. The revision of goal theory is underway and offers a more complex, but necessary, perspective on important issues of motivation, learning, and achievement. In a recent article in Journal of Educational Psychology, Midgley, Kaplan, and Middleton (2001) focused on the question of whether performance-approach goals are adaptive and if so, whether they are uniformly adaptive or adaptive only under certain conditions. Midgley et al. (2001) made a number of cogent and important points about the nature of goal theory and research on performance-approach goals, and we compliment them for highlighting

BACKGROUND: Both performance-based and rating measures are commonly used to index executive function in clinical and neuropsychological assessments. They are intended to index the same broad underlying mental construct of executive function. The association between these two types of measures was investigated in the current article. METHOD AND RESULTS: We examined the association between performance-based and rating measures of executive function in 20 studies. These studies included 13 child and 7 adult samples, which were derived from 7 clinical, 2 nonclinical, and 11 combined clinical and nonclinical samples. Only 68 (24%) of the 286 relevant correlations reported in these studies were statistically significant, and the overall median correlation was only .19. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that performance-based and rating measures of executive function assess different underlying mental constructs. We discuss how these two types of measures appear to capture different levels of cognition, namely, the efficiency of cognitive abilities and success in goal pursuit. Clinical implications of using performance-based and rating measures of executive function are discussed, including the use of these measures in assessing ADHD.

We present the first results of the Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) Muon g -2 Experiment for the positive muon magnetic anomaly a g -2=2. The anomaly is determined from the precision measurements of two angular frequencies. Intensity variation of high-energy positrons from muon decays directly encodes the difference frequency a between the spin-precession and cyclotron frequencies for polarized muons in a magnetic storage ring. The storage ring magnetic field is measured using nuclear magnetic resonance probes calibrated in terms of the equivalent proton spin precession frequency 0

This meta-analysis addresses whether achievement goal researchers are using different labels for the same constructs or putting the same labels on different constructs. We systematically examined whether conceptual and methodological differences in the measurement of achievement goals moderated achievement goal intercorrelations and relationships with outcomes. We reviewed 243 correlational studies of self-reported achievement goals comprising a total of 91,087 participants. The items used to measure achievement goals were coded as being goal relevant (future-focused, cognitively represented, competence-related end states that the individual approaches or avoids) and were categorized according to the different conceptual definitions found within the literature. The results indicated that achievement goal-outcome and goal-goal correlations differed significantly depending on the goal scale chosen, the individual items used to assess goal strivings, and sociodemographic characteristics of the sample under study. For example, performance-approach goal scales coded as having a majority of normatively referenced items had a positive correlation with performance outcomes (r = .14), whereas scales with a majority of appearance and evaluative items had a negative relationship (r = -.14). Mastery-approach goal scales that contained goal-relevant language were not significantly related to performance outcomes (r = .05), whereas those that did not contain goal-relevant language had a positive relationship with performance outcomes (r = .14). We concluded that achievement goal researchers are using the same label for conceptually different constructs. This discrepancy between conceptual and operational definitions and the absence of goal-relevant language in achievement goal measures may be preventing productive theory testing, research synthesis, and practical application.

Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.

We tested whether classroom activities that encourage students to connect course materials to their lives will increase student motivation and learning. We hypothesized that this effect will be stronger for students who have low expectations of success. In a randomized field experiment with high school students, we found that a relevance intervention, which encouraged students to make connections between their lives and what they were learning in their science courses, increased interest in science and course grades for students with low success expectations. The results have implications for the development of science curricula and theories of motivation.

Open innovation is a powerful framework encompassing the generation, capture, and employment of intellectual property at the firm level. We identify three fundamental challenges for firms in applying the concept of open innovation: finding creative ways to exploit internal innovation, incorporating external innovation into internal development, and motivating outsiders to supply an ongoing stream of external innovations. This latter challenge involves a paradox, why would firms spend money on R&D efforts if the results of these efforts are available to rival firms? To explore these challenges, we examine the activity of firms in open-source software to support their innovation strategies. Firms involved in open-source software often make investments that will be shared with real and potential rivals. We identify four strategies firms employ – pooled R&D/product development, spinouts, selling complements and attracting donated complements – and discuss how they address the three key challenges of open innovation. We conclude with suggestions for how similar strategies may apply in other industries and offer some possible avenues for future research on open innovation.

This article explores how the concept of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has been portrayed and assessed in prior research. The challenges and decision criteria associated with formative versus reflective measurement approaches are reviewed. It is argued that, as a latent construct, EO exists apart from its measures and that researchers are free to choose whichever measurement approach best serves their research purposes, recognizing that unidimensional versus multidimensional EO measurement models are consistent with fundamentally different conceptualizations of the EO construct. Recommendations are offered regarding potentially appropriate formative and reflective measures of EO.

Abstract Managers of contemporary publicly held organisations typically are not the owners. Rather, a specialisation of responsibilities has evolved whereby managers coordinate activities within the firm and position it appropriately in its competitive environment; the owners of the firm bear financial risk in the hope of retaining the difference between the firm’s productive cash-flows and the outflows of its promised payments (Fama and Jensen 1983a, 1983b). As the firm’s owners would suffer tremendous financial losses if the firm failed, they tend to diversify their holdings across a variety of firms as a hedge against such a possibility. As a result, the individual owner has little interest in conducting, or even closely monitoring, the day-to-day activities in all of the firms in which he or she has a financial interest (Fama 1980). The owners hire boards of directors who, in turn, hire managers to perform these duties.

CONTEXT: Suicide attempts constitute a major risk factor for completed suicide, yet few interventions specifically designed to prevent suicide attempts have been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a 10-session cognitive therapy intervention designed to prevent repeat suicide attempts in adults who recently attempted suicide. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial of adults (N = 120) who attempted suicide and were evaluated at a hospital emergency department within 48 hours of the attempt. Potential participants (N = 350) were consecutively recruited from October 1999 to September 2002; 66 refused to participate and 164 were ineligible. Participants were followed up for 18 months. INTERVENTION: Cognitive therapy or enhanced usual care with tracking and referral services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of repeat suicide attempts and number of days until a repeat suicide attempt. Suicide ideation (dichotomized), hopelessness, and depression severity at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. RESULTS: From baseline to the 18-month assessment, 13 participants (24.1%) in the cognitive therapy group and 23 participants (41.6%) in the usual care group made at least 1 subsequent suicide attempt (asymptotic z score, 1.97; P = .049). Using the Kaplan-Meier method, the estimated 18-month reattempt-free probability in the cognitive therapy group was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.85) and in the usual care group was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.44-0.70). Participants in the cognitive therapy group had a significantly lower reattempt rate (Wald chi2(1) = 3.9; P = .049) and were 50% less likely to reattempt suicide than participants in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26-0.997). The severity of self-reported depression was significantly lower for the cognitive therapy group than for the usual care group at 6 months (P= .02), 12 months (P = .009), and 18 months (P = .046). The cognitive therapy group reported significantly less hopelessness than the usual care group at 6 months (P = .045). There were no significant differences between groups based on rates of suicide ideation at any assessment point. CONCLUSION: Cognitive therapy was effective in preventing suicide attempts for adults who recently attempted suicide.

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance ( p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion ( p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.

Abstract Achievement goal theory has been one of the most prominent theories of motivation in educational research for more than 25 years. It has undergone considerable revision during that span, most notably with the distinction between approach and avoidance goals, debate concerning the critical features of performance goals, and the emergence of a multiple goal perspective that emphasizes the positive potential of performance-approach goals alongside mastery goals. This multiple goal perspective has met several criticisms from theorists taking the traditional perspective that emphasizes mastery goals over performance goals. We review these criticisms and the ongoing debate in light of the relevant research. We then spotlight two areas for future research, with the aim of advancing theory development and bridging these perspectives. Notes 1Our review of the history of achievement goal theory is necessarily brief. Readers interested in a more thorough review are directed to CitationElliot (2005); Senko, Durik, and CitationHarackiewicz (2008); and Urdan (1997a). 2The few studies showing directrelationships between mastery goals and achievement are far outnumbered by studies showing no direct link. Of course it is possible for mastery goals to improve achievement indirectly by promoting behaviors that do boost performance. Indeed, a small number of other studies found that mastery goals were associated with persistence (J. K. Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998; CitationSimons, Dewitte, & Lens, 2004) or deep studying strategies (CitationGreene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004; CitationLee, Sheldon, & Turban, 2003; CitationWolters, 1998) and that these behaviors were in turn associated with achievement. However, several others studies found that persistence and deep learning strategies failed to predict achievement (Al-Emadi, 2001; CitationBandalos, Finney, & Geske, 2003; CitationElliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; CitationHarackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002; CitationStipek & Gralinki, 1996). 3In this vein, Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, and Lens (2010) advised exploration of performance goal effects for people pursuing the goal for autonomous reasons versus controlled reasons, and CitationMolden and Dweck (2006) advised exploration of performance goal effects for people with fixed versus malleable views of intelligence. 4Our discussion here has been limited to performance-approach goals. Performance-avoidance goals have almost always been defined in non-normative ways, with an emphasis either on trying to avoid appearing incompetent or on fears about doing poorly (see CitationHulleman et al., 2010). Only recently have theorists begun to define these goals with an emphasis solely on avoiding doing worse than others (CitationElliot & Murayama, 2008). It is too early, therefore, to test whether normative-avoidance versus appearance-avoidance goals yield different effects. 5The size of the normative goal relationship with achievement generally ranges from .10 to .25, a small to medium effect size by conventional standards for correlations (CitationRosenthal, Rosnow, & Rubin, 2000). It is also consistent with a meta-analysis showing that, aside from students’ prior achievement, motivational factors such as goals and self-efficacy remain the strongest predictors of school achievement, above socioeconomic status, learning strategies, and other variables (CitationRobbins et al., 2004). 6By contrast, a negative interaction effect, such that mastery goals are less effective when pursued alongside performance goals, would reveal support for the mastery goal perspective. This pattern has been seldom found in the literature (CitationMidgley et al., 2001). 7Timing is essential with this statistical approach. Several studies (e.g., CitationHarackiewicz et al., 2000; CitationHarackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink, & Tauer, 2008; CitationSenko & Harackiewicz, 2005b; CitationWolters et al., 1996) measured goals at the beginning of the semester (Time 1) and achievement (or perceived competence) at multiple separate points later in the semester, for example, a midterm exam (Time 2) and then final grade (Time 3). It is tempting to treat the Time 2 achievement measure as an ability covariate when testing the goal effects on Time 3 achievement. Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. (2008) took this approach and concluded from their review of seven studies that the relationship between performance goals and grades often disappears when controlling for ability. We believe this approach is misguided, however, because the Time 2 achievement measure is not a valid indicator of baseline ability; statistically controlling it removes not only ability but also any effects that achievement goals have on ongoing achievement. The best baseline measures are those taken prior to the assessment of achievement goals. 8Because college entrance exams (e.g., the SAT) and high school performance (rank or grade point average) rate among the most robust and reliable predictors of college achievement (CitationRobbins et al., 2004), researchers use them as baseline ability measures. Nonetheless, one's prior performance in a similar class(es) or on a similar task might provide an even better index of baseline ability. Fortunately, a few of the studies listed in Table 1 did use measures of pretask performance or cumulative baseline grade point average, and they showed the same effects as those using college entrance exams or high school achievement. So, too, do the studies using baseline competence perceptions, which are likely to be strongly influenced by one's performance history on similar tasks (see Table 2). The consistency across these different baseline measures is impressive and, we believe, allows reasonable confidence in the use of SAT or high school performance as baseline ability measures. Nonetheless, use of various other baseline ability measures would be welcome in future tests of the ability confound hypothesis. 9Though Nicholls (1984) never used the performance-approach and performance-avoidance terminology, his hypothesis clearly captured the basic goal-switching process described here. 10 CitationVan Yperen and Renkema (2008) also tested the effects of competence feedback on goal pursuit. They found that normatively based performance goals were more likely to be chosen after receiving positive instead of negative feedback in two studies. The effects on performance-avoidance goals were less consistent: Positive feedback produced high performance-avoidance goal pursuit in their Study 1 but low pursuit in their Study 2. However, their studies lacked a baseline goal measure and thus were unable to examine change in goal pursuit. 11Murdock and colleagues’ studies showed that evaluative classroom climates, but not students’ personal appearance-based performance goals, predicted tolerance of cheating. 12Although we disagree with Brophy's call to “move on” from performance goals, our focus on mechanism as a new direction is partially inspired by his earlier attention to this topic, in particular at a special session he organized during the 2005 meeting of the American Educational Researcher Association. Prominent theorists on the panel were invited to discuss possible reasons for why performance goals, but not mastery goals, are often unrelated to achievement. 13Three of these studies (Barker et al., 2001; CitationBereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005; CitationGraham & Golan, 1991, Study 1) also provided 14 total comparisons between appearance goals and a no-goal control group on the deep learning tasks. Each study observed one case of a disadvantage of appearance goals, yet the remaining 11 deep learning tests showed no difference between these two conditions. However, we recommend some caution in generalizing these findings to the broader debate about normative goal benefits, as each experiment used appearance-based performance goal manipulations that focused on social presentation concerns (i.e., wanting to look smart) rather than normative-based performance goal manipulations.

The authors examined the role of achievement goals, ability, and high school performance in predicting academic success over students’ college careers. First, the authors examined which variables predicted students’ interest and performance in an introductory psychology course taken their first semester in college. Then, the authors followed students until they graduated to examine continued interest in psychology and performance in subsequent classes. Achievement goals, ability measures, and prior high school performance each contributed unique variance in predicting initial and long-term outcomes, but these predictors were linked to different educational outcomes. Mastery goals predicted continued interest, whereas performance-approach goals predicted performance. Ability measures and prior high school performance predicted academic performance but not interest. The findings support a multiple goals perspective.

The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005) is designed to measure the tendency to override a prepotent response alternative that is incorrect and to engage in further reflection that leads to the correct response. It is a prime measure of the miserly information processing posited by most dual process theories. The original three-item test may be becoming known to potential participants, however. We examined a four-item version that could serve as a substitute for the original. Our data show that it displays a .58 correlation with the original version and that it has very similar relationships with cognitive ability, various thinking dispositions, and with several other rational thinking tasks. Combining the two versions into a seven-item test resulted in a measure of miserly processing with substantial reliability (.72). The seven-item version was a strong independent predictor of performance on rational thinking tasks after the variance accounted for by cognitive ability and thinking dispositions had been partialled out.

Currently, there is a debate about which types of achievement goals promote optimal motivation. A number of theorists argue for a mastery goal perspective focusing on the adaptive consequences of mastery goals and the maladaptive consequences of performance goals. Others endorse a multiple goal perspective in which both mastery and performance goals can be beneficial. The purpose of the present investigation was to review why this debate has emerged and to offer a critical test of the mastery versus multiple goal perspectives. In Study 1, a correlational approach was used to identify the optimal goals for college participants to adopt for a learning activity. In Study 2, an experimental approach was used to identify the optimal goals to assign for the same activity. Each study revealed benefits of both mastery and performance goals, providing support for the multiple goal perspective.