Institution
James Madison University
Education•Harrisonburg, Virginia, United States•
About: James Madison University is a education organization based out in Harrisonburg, Virginia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 3931 authors who have published 7180 publications receiving 189534 citations. The organization is also known as: JMU & James Madison.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe differences between moderator and mediator effects, and provide non-technical descriptions of how to examine each type of effect, including study design, analysis, and interpretation of results.
Abstract: 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.
4,012 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the implica- tions of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap, including performance errors, computational limitations, the wrong norm being applied by the experi- menter, and a different construal of the task by the subject.
Abstract: Much research in the last two decades has demon- strated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision mak- ing and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be inter- preted 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 experi- menter, 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 modal response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implica- tions of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap. Performance er- rors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations un- derlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Un- expected 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.
3,068 citations
••
James Madison University1, The Nature Conservancy2, Woods Hole Research Center3, Ohio State University4, Institute of Ecosystem Studies5, Resources For The Future6, University of Aberdeen7, Cornell University8, Colorado State University9, World Resources Institute10, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences11, University of Minnesota12, University of Maryland, College Park13, University of Florida14, Wetlands International15, University of Vermont16
TL;DR: It is shown 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.
Abstract: Better stewardship of land is needed to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement goal of holding warming to below 2 °C; however, confusion persists about the specific set of land stewardship options available and their mitigation potential. To address this, we identify and quantify "natural climate solutions" (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We find that the maximum potential of NCS-when constrained by food security, fiber security, and biodiversity conservation-is 23.8 petagrams of CO2 equivalent (PgCO2e) y-1 (95% CI 20.3-37.4). This is ≥30% higher than prior estimates, which did not include the full range of options and safeguards considered here. About half of this maximum (11.3 PgCO2e y-1) represents cost-effective climate mitigation, assuming the social cost of CO2 pollution is ≥100 USD MgCO2e-1 by 2030. Natural climate solutions can provide 37% of cost-effective CO2 mitigation needed through 2030 for a >66% chance of holding warming to below 2 °C. One-third of this cost-effective NCS mitigation can be delivered at or below 10 USD MgCO2-1 Most NCS actions-if effectively implemented-also offer water filtration, flood buffering, soil health, biodiversity habitat, and enhanced climate resilience. Work remains to better constrain uncertainty of NCS mitigation estimates. Nevertheless, existing knowledge reported here provides a robust basis for immediate global action to improve ecosystem stewardship as a major solution to climate change.
1,508 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, a review summarizes and critiques the empirical ethical decision-making literature from 1996 to 2003, concluding that one hundred and seventy-four articles were published in top business journals during this period.
Abstract: This review summarizes and critiques the empirical ethical decision-making literature from 1996–2003. One hundred and seventy-four articles were published in top business journals during this period. Tables are included that summarize the findings by dependent variable – awareness, judgment, intent, and behavior. We compare this review with past reviews in order to draw conclusions regarding trends in the ethical decision-making literature and to surface directions for future research.
1,355 citations
••
TL;DR: Barron, Pintrich, P. K. Elliot, and T. M. Harackiewicz as discussed by the authors discuss the importance of separating approach from avoidance strivings, the positive potential of performance-approach goals, and identification of the ways performanceapproach goal can combine with mastery goal to promote optimal motivation.
Abstract: 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 tins response. the authors dispel interpretation of their critical review of research on performance-approach goals as support for a dichotomous perspective of achievement goal theory. Second, the authors challenge the suggestion that accepting recent research findings and adopting a multiple goals perspective constitutes a theoretical revision of the assumption that mastery goals are always good and performance goals are always bad (J. M. Harackiewicz. K. E. Barron, P. R. Pintrich, P. R. Elliot, & T. M. Thrash. 2002, p. 643). The authors make a distinction between developments that contribute to the explanatory power of the theory and value-laden interpretations of theory and research. The authors argue that phrasing the latter in terms of the former is misleading and that it masks the necessity for a critical discussion over the desired purposes in different types of achievement contexts.
1,236 citations
Authors
Showing all 4000 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Carl Folke | 133 | 360 | 125990 |
William E. Pelham | 109 | 432 | 41845 |
Edwin W. Rubel | 90 | 349 | 22388 |
C. W. Walter | 82 | 268 | 48047 |
Gregory F. Ball | 76 | 342 | 21193 |
Ellen D. Ketterson | 63 | 207 | 12499 |
John Miller | 61 | 182 | 33007 |
Catherine C. Eckel | 60 | 230 | 18268 |
Larissa K. Temple | 59 | 226 | 16690 |
Christopher C.W. Hughes | 57 | 142 | 14123 |
I. Niculescu | 56 | 258 | 10506 |
Christy L. Ludlow | 53 | 162 | 10171 |
James N. Demas | 49 | 148 | 12737 |
K. L. Giovanetti | 48 | 212 | 8279 |
Larry E. Humes | 48 | 190 | 7050 |