Information

Offical studies/papers of relationship evaluation in mobile apps

Offical studies/papers of relationship evaluation in mobile apps



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

There is this heise article https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Die-Psycho-Tricks-der-App-Entwickler-4547123.html (unfortunatley in German) talking about manipulative mechanisms in mobile apps. He is talking amongst others about snapshat evaluating realtionships with the help of emojis - I was wondering if there are any offical studies or papers talking about how this kind of features in apps makes people addicted to keep using these apps.


How do I evaluate Holism in Psychology, AQA Paper 3?

You can compare holism to reductionism to get AO3 marks too.

Holism is limited as it is not a feasible option. If psychologists were to study all factors that affect a person in depth it would be very complex hence holism is not a practical approach to take.

Holism is useful as it uses different levels of explanation to come to a conclusion. This is appropriate as it provides a complete and realistic understanding of human behaviour.

Holism is limited due to the incapability to establish cause and effect. Holism does not study people in operationalised variables, measured and manipulated hence can be seen as unscientific.

Try using the Tutor2u Article on Holism and Reductionism!

(Original post by Pearlfection1)
You can compare holism to reductionism to get AO3 marks too.

Holism is limited as it is not a feasible option. If psychologists were to study all factors that affect a person in depth it would be very complex hence holism is not a practical approach to take.

Holism is useful as it uses different levels of explanation to come to a conclusion. This is appropriate as it provides a complete and realistic understanding of human behaviour.

Holism is limited due to the incapability to establish cause and effect. Holism does not study people in operationalised variables, measured and manipulated hence can be seen as unscientific.


Offical studies/papers of relationship evaluation in mobile apps - Psychology

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - X Social Science (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - X Science (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - X English Language & Literature (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank Chapterwise & Topicwise Solved Papers For Class -XII Physics (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank Chapterwise & Topicwise Solved Papers For Class - XII Mathematics (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank Chapterwise & Topicwise Solved Papers For Class - XII Chemistry (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - X Mathematics (Standard) (March 2021 Exam)

Pharmaceutical Organic Chemistry - II

Holy Faith Humming Bird Mathematics Primer -A

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - IX Social Science (For March 2021 Exam)

Shuchita Prakashan CA Foundation Scanner (Green Edition) Paper-3 Business Mathematics, Logical Reasoning And Statistics for May 2020 Exam

उत्तराखंड पशुपालन विभाग पशुधन प्रसार अधिकारी भर्ती परीक्षा

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank Chapterwise & Topicwise Solved Papers For Class - XII English Core (March 2021 Exam)


Offical studies/papers of relationship evaluation in mobile apps - Psychology

WES’ mission-driven initiatives identify where progress is needed most, while our self-funding revenue model allows us to reinvest in programs, policies, and philanthropic ventures that reflect our values.

As the industry leader in credential evaluations, WES works directly with more than 48,000 global Higher Education Institutions in more than 200 countries, enabling life-changing outcomes for their students and alumni.

WES publishes original data-driven research, case studies, surveys, policy papers, and articles that reflect WES’ expertise and mission WES’ publications focus on international education, global mobility, economic opportunity, the future of work, and more.

Get your credential evaluation in three simple steps!

Submit your application and receive your WES reference number.

Read our document requirements and send in your documents.

We verify your credentials, create your report, and deliver it to your recipients.

The WES Mariam Assefa Fund

The WES Mariam Assefa Fund is the only philanthropic initiative focused exclusively on economic inclusion and mobility for immigrants and refugees in North America. The fund fosters collaboration, experimentation, and innovation, awarding grants for projects that empower immigrant leaders, improve employer practices, enhance worker skills, and build more inclusive economies.

WES Global Talent Bridge

WES Global Talent Bridge highlights the issue of immigrant and refugee community integration. WES Global Talent Bridge works with policy makers, training providers, social and professional networks, and employers to identify and remove individual and structural barriers that inhibit successful integration.

About WES

World Education Services (WES) is a globally-recognized social enterprise dedicated to helping internationally-educated people find meaningful roles in U.S. and Canadian communities and academic institutions through rigorous credential evaluations, immigrant integration and refugee advocacy, and mission-driven philanthropy.

Our Work in Global Mobility

From credential evaluations and immigrant integration programs, to the WES Gateway Program for refugees who need to recreate missing credentials, WES is committed to helping people move around the world and ahead in their lives, and to helping communities discover and benefit from the skills of their immigrant members.

Digital Innovation

WES’ credential evaluation process is fully digitized we accept and evaluate direct server-to-server files from partner institutions, dramatically improving turn-around times, streamlining tasks for institutions, and creating permanent digital credential portfolios for applicants.


Infant Mental Health Journal

The Infant Mental Health Journal, the World Association for Infant Mental Health, and the Alliance for the Advancement of Infant Mental Health extend our well wishes for families and communities around the world in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Like you, we are deeply concerned about the serious impacts on physical wellness as well as the repercussions of the outbreak for emotional well-being, access to basic resources, and the economic impacts for families and communities. At this time, caring for the well-being of yourselves and your communities is most pressing. Here you will find resources that may be helpful during this time.

While the journal will continue to operate on an as-normal-a-basis as possible, we ask for your patience during what may be delayed review processes due to the pandemic.

About This Journal

Infant Mental Health Journal—Promoting social-emotional health prenatal - 5 yearpublishes peer-reviewed research articles, review articles, brief reports (including clinical case studies and novel pilot studies) and thematic collections that focus on early relationship development and other early relational contexts, such as attachment relationships and early relationships within parenting, family, and caregiving systems, impacting the social and emotional development of very young children, prenatal-5 years of age. All work published in IMHJ reflects robust infant and early childhood mental health frameworks.


Study 1: Item Identification

The purpose of Study 1 was to generate potential survey items based on previous literature and from a qualitative understanding of what makes a good mobile app experience.

Method

The initial set (selected from the literature and expected to apply to a broad range of mobile app categories) included 23 items associated with constructs of utility, usability, intended usage, reasons for deleting (Fakhruddin 2016 Varshneya, 2015), and future usage (Brooke, 1996 Lewis, Utesch, & Mayer, 2013 Ryu & Smith-Jackson, 2005 Sauro, 2016).

A total of 104 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed the Study 1 survey. Participants were located throughout the US, were a mix of gender (60% female), and varied in age (M= 34, 27 to 63) and device experience (59% Android, 41% iOS).

Initial data were collected in June 2016. Participants were paid $1.25 and asked to identify their favorite mobile app and answer the 23 candidate items in an online survey. Participants rated their level of agreement to each item using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5), except for the item “How likely are you to recommend the mobile app to a friend” which used an 11-point scale (Reichheld, 2003).

In addition to the 23 scale items, four free-response questions were asked to determine how participants thought and felt about their favorite mobile app. The questions were the following:

  • Describe what you like most about the app and why.
  • Describe your primary motivation for downloading the app.
  • What features do you frequently use on the app? Please be specific.
  • Under what circumstances do you use the app?

Results

A total of 104 responses were collected account for 59 unique apps. Participants were given an N/A option for the items. A high percentage of N/A responses indicated items that would not work well for a questionnaire designed to target all types of apps (e.g., a questionnaire equally applicable to gaming apps and banking apps). The percent of respondents (out of 104) who selected N/A for each item is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Items Considered in Study 1

Abbreviation

Using the app makes me happy.

It’s exciting to use the app.

I use the app when I am bored.

How likely are you to recommend the app to a friend or colleague?

The app’s capabilities meet my requirements.

The app offers features its mobile website doesn’t.

The app rarely crashes or causes problems on my phone.

The app runs without bugs or errors.

I would like to use the app frequently.

The app does not misuse my information.

I trust the app with my personal information.

I plan to use the app again soon.

It is easy to navigate within the app.

I find the app to be attractive.

The app has a clean and simple presentation.

I like discovering new features on the app.

I can’t live without the app on my phone.

I talk about things I do or learn on the app with my friends.

I am able to connect or communicate with friends directly from the app.

Two items had relatively high N/A rates: “The app offers features its mobile website doesn’t,” with 22% of respondents selecting it as not applicable, and “I am able to connect or communicate with friends directly from the app,” with 9% of respondents selecting it as not applicable.

Both items were flagged for removal from the subsequent studies for the general app assessment, as they only seemed to pertain to a specific type of app (i.e., apps with a corresponding mobile website or apps with a communication component). However, these items may be useful when assessing specific subtypes of mobile applications, though we did not explore this as a possibility in the present research.

Qualitative data from the four free-response questions were coded and summarized by an expert-coding strategy. An analyst read through each of the 104 responses, noting recurring themes to inform future question generation. The primary themes extracted from these responses were as follows: (a) Users liked the way their favorite app integrated with other apps or features on their phone, (b) Users enjoyed apps that allowed them to connect with their friends or colleagues, (c) Users frequently used communication features in their app, (d) Users enjoyed apps with features that integrated with real world products. These insights were used to generate more rating scale items designed specifically to probe the integration and social aspects of mobile app use.


Results

Reasons for Divorce

Table 1 presents the “major contributors for divorce” list. Overall, the results indicate that the most often cited reasons for divorce at the individual level were lack of commitment (75.0%), infidelity (59.6%), and too much conflict and arguing (57.7%), followed by marrying too young (45.1%), financial problems (36.7%), substance abuse (34.6%), and domestic violence (23.5%). Other problems, such as religious differences, were endorsed less than 20% of the time. The order of these rankings was essentially identical at the couple level, although rates of endorsement increased because both partners were reporting. The following provides qualitative elaborations by participants on these specific reasons for divorce.

Commitment

Results indicated that the most common major contributing factor to divorce reported by participants was lack of commitment, reported by 75% of individuals and by at least one person in 94.4% of couples. Of the couples in which at least one partner mentioned commitment as a problem, 70.6% represented couples in which both partners agreed that lack of commitment was a major reason for divorce. Some participants reported that commitment within their relationships gradually eroded until there was not enough commitment to sustain the relationship, while others reported more drastic drops in commitment in response to negative events, such as infidelity.

“I realized it was the lack of commitment on my part because I didn’t really feel romantic towards him. I always had felt more still like he was a friend to me.”

“It became insurmountable. It got to a point where it seemed like he was no longer really willing to work [on the relationship]. All of the stresses together and then what seemed to me to be an unwillingness to work through it any longer was the last straw for me.”

Infidelity

The next most often cited major contributing factor to divorce was infidelity, endorsed by 59.6% of individuals and by at least one partner in 88.8% of couples. Of those couples who had a least one partner report infidelity as a reason for divorce, only 31.3% represented couples in which both partners agreed that infidelity was a major contributor to the dissolution of their marriage. Thus, the majority of couples with apparent infidelity in their relationships only had one partner mention it as a contributing factor to their divorce. Overall, infidelity was often cited as a critical turning point in a deteriorating relationship.

“It was the final straw when he actually admitted to cheating on me. I kind of had a feeling about it, but, you know, I guess we all deny [because] we never think that the person you are married to or care about would do that to us.”

“He cheated on me […] Then I met somebody else and did the same thing. […] And when he found out about it we both essentially agreed that it wasn’t worth trying to make it work anymore because it just hurt too bad.”

Conflict and arguing

Too much conflict and arguing was endorsed by 57.7% of individuals and 72.2% of couples had at least one partner report that was a major contributor to divorce. Of these couples, 53.8% of couples agreed that too much conflict and arguing was a contributor to divorce. Overall, participants indicated that conflicts were not generally resolved calmly or effectively. Respondents also reported that such communication problems increased in frequency and intensity throughout their marriages, which at times, seemed to coincide with lost feelings of positive connections and mutual support. By the end of the marriage, these respondents indicated that there was a significant lack of effective communication.

“I got frustrated of arguing too much.”

“We𠆝 have an argument over something really simple and it would turn into just huge, huge fights […] and so our arguments never got better they only ever got worse.”

Marrying too young

Getting married too young was reported as a major contributing factor to divorce by 45.1% of individuals and by at least one partner from 61.1% of couples. Both partners mentioned this reason in 27.3% of these couples. Participants who endorsed this item were an average of 23.3 years old at the time of marriage (SD = 5.5) and participants who did not endorse this item were 29.2 (SD = 6.7). In commenting about this issue, some participants reported that they had only known their partners for short periods of time before their marriage and/or that they wished they had dated their partners longer in order to either gain a better perspective on the relationship or to make a more rational decision as to whom they should marry. Additional comments about this issue included reports that participants were too young to make mature objective decisions regarding their marriage decisions.

“The main reason [we divorced] was because of our age. I think that being 19 at the time we got married, it just didn’t take. I think that we didn’t take anything as seriously as we should have.”

“I wish that we wouldn’t have […] gotten married so young. I wish we would have waited a little bit longer before we actually got married.”

Financial problems

Financial problems were cited as a major contributor to divorce by 36.7% of participants and by at least one partner from 55.6% of couples. Of couples who had at least one partner endorse financial problems as a contributor to divorce, 50% represented couples in which both partners agreed that financial problems were a major reason for divorce. In elaborating about this issue, some participants indicated that financial difficulties were not the most pertinent reason for their divorce, but instead contributed to increased stress and tension within the relationship. Other participants also expressed that some financial difficulties were linked to other problems (e.g., health problems, substance abuse).

“I had a severe illness for almost a year and I was the only employed person [before that] so obviously money ran very short.”

“The stress of trying to figure out the finances became a wedge that was really insurmountable.”

Substance abuse

Substance abuse was reported as a major contributing factor to divorce by 34.6% of participants, and by at least one partner in 50% of couples. Of these couples, only 33.3% of partners agreed that substance abuse was a major contributing factor to divorce. Thus, similar to reports of infidelity, the majority of couples who listed substance abuse as a reason for divorce had only one partner cite this reason. Generally, participants expressed that the severity of the substance abuse problem in their relationship was either minimized over the duration of the relationship, or if attempts to address the problem were made, the partner with the substance abuse problem would not improve and/or seek help. After several attempts to address the problem, the relationship finally ended.

“I said �solutely no more bars’ and as soon as I found out he was back in them, I asked for [a divorce].”

“He never admitted that he even drank. It wasn’t me against him. It was me against him and the disease.”

Domestic violence

Domestic violence was cited as a contributing factor to divorce by 23.5% of participants and by at least one partner from 27.8% of couples. Of those couples in which one partner listed domestic abuse a major contributor to divorce, 40.0% of partners agreed that it was a major contributor to divorce. Elaborations of this item included descriptions of both physical and emotional abuse. Participants often expressed how the abuse in their relationship developed gradually, with intensified cycles of abuse and contrition, until the severity of the abuse intensified to insurmountable levels.

“[There was] continuous sexual abuse and emotional trauma which only got worse over time.”

“There were times that I felt very physically threatened. There was a time that there was a bit of shoving. I got an elbow to my nose and I got a nose bleed. Then there was another time that he literally just slid me along the floor. […]We𠆝 work on it. It would happen again.”

Final Straw

After assessing participant major reasons for divorce, we were interested to see if participants indicated a single event or reason that constituted a 𠇏inal straw” in the process of their marriage dissolution. Overall, 68.6% of participants and at least one partner in 88.9% of couples reported that there was a final straw leading to the end of their marriage. General themes of final straw issues where generated through qualitative methods for participants who reported a final straw. Of the individuals who indicated that there was a final straw involved in ending their marriages, the most common cited reason was infidelity, which was reported by 24% of these participants, followed by domestic violence (21.2%) and substance abuse (12.1%). At the couple level, no couples (0%) had both partners report the same reason for the final straw. Participants expressed that although these final straw events may not have been the first incident of their kind (e.g., the first time they realized their partner had a substance abuse problem) an event involving these behaviors led to the final decision for their relationship to end. Also, there were some situations in which individuals expressed that these three issues may have interacted with one another or other relationship issues.

“[My ex-husband] and I both had substance abuse problems which led to infidelity […] which also led to domestic violence”.

𠇊long with him having alcohol and drug issues as well as infidelity issues [and] the stress, came the physical and verbal abuse.”

Who is to Blame?

Considering that infidelity, domestic violence, and substance abuse were the most often endorsed 𠇏inal straw” reasons for divorce, we were interested in deciphering which member of the relationship participants saw as responsible for these behaviors. In examining participants’ elaborations of infidelity, substance abuse, and domestic violence, we found that 76.9%, 72.2%, and 77.8%, respectively, described these events in terms of their partner engaging in these negative behaviors, and only 11.5%, 11.1%, and 0%, respectively, volunteered that they engaged in the behavior themselves.

Furthermore, when participants were asked if their partner should have worked harder to save their marriages, 65.8% of men and 73.8% of women believe that their ex-spouse should have worked harder to save their marriages. Conversely, when participants were asked if they, personally, should have worked harder to save their marriages, only 31.6% of men and 33.3% of women expressed that they, personally, should have worked harder. Further, at the couple level, 70.6% of couples showed a pattern in which the women believed their ex-husbands should have worked harder to save their relationships while their ex-husbands did not believe they, themselves, should have worked harder. Only 11.7% agreed that the husband should have worked harder and 11.7% had the husband endorse that he should have worked harder with the wife disagreeing. Conversely, only 35.3% of couples displayed the pattern in which the men blamed their ex-wives for not working harder while their ex-wives, themselves, denied that they should have worked harder. Only 11.7% agreed that the wife should have worked harder and 17.7% had the wife endorsed that she should have worked harder with her husband disagreeing. Further, 35.3% of couples agreed that the wife had not needed to work harder to save the marriage, while only 5.9% of couples agreed that the husband had not needed to work harder. Thus, most participants believed their ex-partners should have worked harder, but at the couple level, there were more couples in which both partners agreed that the wife did not need to work harder than there were couples in which both partners agreed the husband did not need to work harder. When asked who filed for the divorce, 63.5% of participants indicated that the woman filed for divorce and only 25% participants indicated that the man filed for divorce.

Feedback on PREP

Next, we provide the findings on the most commonly cited qualitative feedback reported by participants regarding how to improve premarital education. The following results and percentages refer to counts of qualitative codes created by the research team based on common themes in the interviews.

Learning more about one’s partner

Results show that 42.3% of participants and 77.8% of couples expressed that they wished they had known more about their ex-spouse before they were married. Of these couples, 28.6% of partners agreed. These statements included desires to understand their partner better in order to improve their communication and better prepare for the marriage, or conversely, information that would have led them to never marry one’s partner in the first place. Indeed, 30.8% of participants specifically mentioned that they wished they had recognized “red flags” to leave the relationship before they entered their marriage.

“I think the only information that could have [helped] would’ve been information that might have led me to not marry him.”

“I probably wish that we would have had more premarital counseling and had somebody tell us we should not be getting married.”

Participating in the program before constraints to marry

Twenty-five percent (25.0%) of participants specifically reported that they were influenced by constraints to stay in the relationship already in place during the program. Example constraints included having become engaged, set a wedding date, sent out invitations, or purchased a dress, which made it difficult for participants to objectively reconsider if they were marrying the right person through the educational experience. Thus, a large portion of participants expressed that receiving PREP just before marriage made it difficult for them to seriously considered delaying their wedding plans in order to make more objective decisions about the relationship.

“It was one of those things where you’re like, ‘Well, I already have the dress. We’re already getting married. We already have all the people. Everything is already set up and we bought the house.’ And you just kind of think, ‘Well you know I’m sure things will get better.’ You see the red flags but you kind of ignore them.”

“I just didn’t have the guts to say, ‘You know what, I understand the dresses have been paid for. The churches have been booked. The invitations have gone out. But I don’t think I want to do this.’”

Improved support for ongoing implementation

Thirty-one percent (30.8%) of individuals and 38.9% of couples had at least one partner express that, although they found PREP skills helpful during the duration of the program, they had difficulty using these skills in their daily lives outside of their premarital education classes. Of these couples, 42.9% of partners agreed that they had difficulty implementing program skills in their marriage. In general, these participants expressed that, in the heat of the moment, it was hard to utilize their communication skills, such as staying calm, actively listening, working toward the problem as a team, or taking “time outs” as suggested in PREP. Other participants simply expressed that it was hard to remember and perfect their skills after the program ended because they did not practice them regularly.

“I think that the techniques […] were helpful. I just think it mattered if you were going to apply the principles or not. And I don’t think a lot of them were applied.”

“It helped with discussion and listening tools. I think, it’s just the follow through, you know. We didn’t remember those things when it came down to it.”

“He tried to use it at the beginning, but it was just the continual using of the techniques that were given to us.”

Education regarding the realities of marriage

In addition to not knowing enough about one’s partner, 48.1% of participants and 72.2% of couples expressed that they did not know enough about the realities or stages of marriage after participating in the program. Of these couples, 38.5% of partners agreed. These comments included surprise that their partners changed over the course of the marriage, as well as trouble facing new problems when they emerged (e.g., lack of attraction/connection, decreases in commitment and satisfaction, and new abuse problems).

“Premarital counseling teaches you how you get along, and that you should communicate, but it doesn’t really talk about the phases of a marriage over time.”

“[I wish I had learned] that the biggest area in life in an ongoing relationship is knowing that things are going to come up that aren’t perfect. That after the wedding day, and the build up to the wedding day, real life is going to kick in and you have to really have some tools to deal with it.”


Journal of Economic Psychology

Author instructions

Useful links

Check submitted paper

Track accepted paper

Once production of your article has started, you can track the status of your article via Track Your Accepted Article.

  • CiteScore: 3.4CiteScore:
    2020: 3.4
    CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2017-20) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2017 – 20): Scopus source data, 2021
  • Impact Factor: 1.718Impact Factor:
    2019: 1.718
    The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years.
    Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2020)
  • 5-Year Impact Factor: 2.451Five-Year Impact Factor:
    2019: 2.451
    To calculate the five year Impact Factor, citations are counted in 2019 to the previous five years and divided by the source items published in the previous five years.
    Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2020)
  • Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.375Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):
    2020: 1.375
    SNIP measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field.
  • SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 1.114SCImago Journal Rank (SJR):
    2020: 1.114
    SJR is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. SJR uses a similar algorithm as the Google page rank it provides a quantitative and a qualitative measure of the journal’s impact.
  • View More on Journal Insights

  • 29% woman
  • 64% man
  • 0% non-binary or gender diverse
  • 7% prefer not to disclose
  • 24% woman
  • 75% man
  • 0% non-binary or gender diverse
  • 1% prefer not to disclose

Affiliated with the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology

The Journal aims to present research that will improve understanding of behavioral, in particular psychological, aspects of economic decisions and processes. It is published under the auspices of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (http://www.iarep.org), whose aim is to.

The Journal aims to present research that will improve understanding of behavioral, in particular psychological, aspects of economic decisions and processes. It is published under the auspices of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (http://www.iarep.org), whose aim is to promote interdisciplinary work relating to economic behavior.

The Journal seeks to be a channel for the increased interest in using behavioral science methods for the study of economic behavior, and so to contribute to better solutions of societal problems, by stimulating new approaches and new theorizing about economic affairs. Economic psychology as a discipline studies the psychological mechanisms that underlie economic behavior. It deals with decisions (individual or interactive), preferences, judgments, and factors influencing these, as well as the consequences of judgments and decisions for economics and society. Studies in economic psychology usually relate to the individual decision maker's level, though sometimes also address household or group behavior.

Historically, economic psychology has developed as a branch of psychology, while behavioral economics has risen as a sub-field of economics. Consequentially, for example, rationality assumptions have been traditionally avoided in economic psychology. Lately, however these differences are disappearing. We welcome any behavioral economics study to the journal of economic psychology. We also explicitly welcome studies in related domains including neuroeconomics, consumer psychology, voter psychology, and behavioral game theory, as long as they make a strong contribution to the understanding of psychological processes implicated in economic behavior and decisions.

Additionally, we welcome submissions from traditional areas of economic psychology, including psychological aspects associated with inflation, unemployment, poverty, taxation, economic development, economic literacy, personal finance, and market behavior.


Can’t find your papers?

  • Modified past papers are listed separately and are only available for some subjects. Search for modified papers.
  • We only publish question papers and mark schemes for some current specifications, in the year following the exam. See what's available when for more information.
  • Some question papers and mark schemes are no longer available after three years, due to copyright restrictions (except for Maths and Science).

Teachers can get past papers earlier, from 10 days after the exam, in the secure key materials (SKM) area of our extranet, e-AQA.


ACM Journals

Collective Intelligence is a transdisciplinary journal devoted to advancing the theoretical and empirical understanding of group performance in diverse systems, from adaptive matter to cellular and neural systems to animal societies to all types of human organizations to hybrid AI-human teams and nanobot swarms.

Csur ACM Computing Surveys

These comprehensive, readable surveys and tutorial papers give guided tours through the literature and explain topics to those who seek to learn the basics of areas outside their specialties in an accessible way. The carefully planned and presented introductions in Computing Surveys (CSUR) are also an excellent way for researchers and professionals to develop perspectives on, and identify trends in complex technologies. Contributions which bridge existing and emerging technologies (such as machine learning) with a variety of science and engineering domains in a novel and interesting way are also welcomed.

Contributions are intended to be accessible to a broad audience, featuring clear exposition, a lively tutorial style, and pointers to the literature for further study.

Dgov Digital Government: Research and Practice

Digital Government: Research and Practice (DGOV) is an interdisciplinary Gold Open Access journal that focuses on the potential and impact of technology on governance innovations and its transformation of public institutions. It promotes applied and empirical research from academics, practitioners, designers, and technologists, using political, policy, social, computer, and data sciences methodologies.

Dtrap Digital Threats: Research and Practice

Health ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare

Imwut Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies

Jacm Journal of the ACM

Jdiq Journal of Data and Information Quality

JDIQ's mission is to publish high quality articles that make a significant and novel contribution to the field of data and information quality. JDIQ welcomes research contributions on the following areas, but not limited to: Information Quality in the Enterprise Context Database related technical solutions for Information Quality Information Quality in the context of Computer Science and Information Technology Information Curation.

JDIQ accepts research conducted using a wide variety of methods ranging from positivists to interpretive methods, systems building descriptions, and database theory, as well as statistical analysis, mathematical modeling, quasi experimental methods, hermeneutics, action research, and case study. JDIQ accepts diverse research methods that are customary in different research backgrounds and traditions, both quantitative and qualitative. Research papers need to demonstrate the use of a rigorous method or methods. Research papers also need to provide valuable and relevant implications for applying their findings and solutions in practice.

Jea ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics

Jetc ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems

The ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems (JETC) invites submissions of original technical papers describing research and development in emerging technologies in computing systems. Major economic and technical challenges are expected to impede the continued scaling of semiconductor devices. This has resulted in the search for alternate mechanical, biological/biochemical, nanoscale electronic, asynchronous and quantum computing, and sensor technologies. As the underlying nanotechnologies continue to evolve in the labs of chemists, physicists, and biologists, it has become imperative for computer scientists and engineers to translate the potential of the basic building blocks (analogous to the transistor) emerging from these labs into information systems. Their design will face multiple challenges ranging from the inherent (un)reliability due to the self-assembly nature of the fabrication processes for nanotechnologies, from the complexity due to the sheer volume of nanodevices that will have to be integrated for complex functionality, and from the need to integrate these new nanotechnologies with silicon devices in the same system. The journal provides comprehensive coverage of innovative work in the specification, design analysis, simulation, verification, testing, and evaluation of computing systems constructed out of emerging technologies and advanced semiconductors. Also of interest are innovations in system design for green and sustainable computing, and computing-driven solutions to emerging areas in biotechnology. Topics include, but are not limited to:


Results

Reasons for Divorce

Table 1 presents the “major contributors for divorce” list. Overall, the results indicate that the most often cited reasons for divorce at the individual level were lack of commitment (75.0%), infidelity (59.6%), and too much conflict and arguing (57.7%), followed by marrying too young (45.1%), financial problems (36.7%), substance abuse (34.6%), and domestic violence (23.5%). Other problems, such as religious differences, were endorsed less than 20% of the time. The order of these rankings was essentially identical at the couple level, although rates of endorsement increased because both partners were reporting. The following provides qualitative elaborations by participants on these specific reasons for divorce.

Commitment

Results indicated that the most common major contributing factor to divorce reported by participants was lack of commitment, reported by 75% of individuals and by at least one person in 94.4% of couples. Of the couples in which at least one partner mentioned commitment as a problem, 70.6% represented couples in which both partners agreed that lack of commitment was a major reason for divorce. Some participants reported that commitment within their relationships gradually eroded until there was not enough commitment to sustain the relationship, while others reported more drastic drops in commitment in response to negative events, such as infidelity.

“I realized it was the lack of commitment on my part because I didn’t really feel romantic towards him. I always had felt more still like he was a friend to me.”

“It became insurmountable. It got to a point where it seemed like he was no longer really willing to work [on the relationship]. All of the stresses together and then what seemed to me to be an unwillingness to work through it any longer was the last straw for me.”

Infidelity

The next most often cited major contributing factor to divorce was infidelity, endorsed by 59.6% of individuals and by at least one partner in 88.8% of couples. Of those couples who had a least one partner report infidelity as a reason for divorce, only 31.3% represented couples in which both partners agreed that infidelity was a major contributor to the dissolution of their marriage. Thus, the majority of couples with apparent infidelity in their relationships only had one partner mention it as a contributing factor to their divorce. Overall, infidelity was often cited as a critical turning point in a deteriorating relationship.

“It was the final straw when he actually admitted to cheating on me. I kind of had a feeling about it, but, you know, I guess we all deny [because] we never think that the person you are married to or care about would do that to us.”

“He cheated on me […] Then I met somebody else and did the same thing. […] And when he found out about it we both essentially agreed that it wasn’t worth trying to make it work anymore because it just hurt too bad.”

Conflict and arguing

Too much conflict and arguing was endorsed by 57.7% of individuals and 72.2% of couples had at least one partner report that was a major contributor to divorce. Of these couples, 53.8% of couples agreed that too much conflict and arguing was a contributor to divorce. Overall, participants indicated that conflicts were not generally resolved calmly or effectively. Respondents also reported that such communication problems increased in frequency and intensity throughout their marriages, which at times, seemed to coincide with lost feelings of positive connections and mutual support. By the end of the marriage, these respondents indicated that there was a significant lack of effective communication.

“I got frustrated of arguing too much.”

“We𠆝 have an argument over something really simple and it would turn into just huge, huge fights […] and so our arguments never got better they only ever got worse.”

Marrying too young

Getting married too young was reported as a major contributing factor to divorce by 45.1% of individuals and by at least one partner from 61.1% of couples. Both partners mentioned this reason in 27.3% of these couples. Participants who endorsed this item were an average of 23.3 years old at the time of marriage (SD = 5.5) and participants who did not endorse this item were 29.2 (SD = 6.7). In commenting about this issue, some participants reported that they had only known their partners for short periods of time before their marriage and/or that they wished they had dated their partners longer in order to either gain a better perspective on the relationship or to make a more rational decision as to whom they should marry. Additional comments about this issue included reports that participants were too young to make mature objective decisions regarding their marriage decisions.

“The main reason [we divorced] was because of our age. I think that being 19 at the time we got married, it just didn’t take. I think that we didn’t take anything as seriously as we should have.”

“I wish that we wouldn’t have […] gotten married so young. I wish we would have waited a little bit longer before we actually got married.”

Financial problems

Financial problems were cited as a major contributor to divorce by 36.7% of participants and by at least one partner from 55.6% of couples. Of couples who had at least one partner endorse financial problems as a contributor to divorce, 50% represented couples in which both partners agreed that financial problems were a major reason for divorce. In elaborating about this issue, some participants indicated that financial difficulties were not the most pertinent reason for their divorce, but instead contributed to increased stress and tension within the relationship. Other participants also expressed that some financial difficulties were linked to other problems (e.g., health problems, substance abuse).

“I had a severe illness for almost a year and I was the only employed person [before that] so obviously money ran very short.”

“The stress of trying to figure out the finances became a wedge that was really insurmountable.”

Substance abuse

Substance abuse was reported as a major contributing factor to divorce by 34.6% of participants, and by at least one partner in 50% of couples. Of these couples, only 33.3% of partners agreed that substance abuse was a major contributing factor to divorce. Thus, similar to reports of infidelity, the majority of couples who listed substance abuse as a reason for divorce had only one partner cite this reason. Generally, participants expressed that the severity of the substance abuse problem in their relationship was either minimized over the duration of the relationship, or if attempts to address the problem were made, the partner with the substance abuse problem would not improve and/or seek help. After several attempts to address the problem, the relationship finally ended.

“I said �solutely no more bars’ and as soon as I found out he was back in them, I asked for [a divorce].”

“He never admitted that he even drank. It wasn’t me against him. It was me against him and the disease.”

Domestic violence

Domestic violence was cited as a contributing factor to divorce by 23.5% of participants and by at least one partner from 27.8% of couples. Of those couples in which one partner listed domestic abuse a major contributor to divorce, 40.0% of partners agreed that it was a major contributor to divorce. Elaborations of this item included descriptions of both physical and emotional abuse. Participants often expressed how the abuse in their relationship developed gradually, with intensified cycles of abuse and contrition, until the severity of the abuse intensified to insurmountable levels.

“[There was] continuous sexual abuse and emotional trauma which only got worse over time.”

“There were times that I felt very physically threatened. There was a time that there was a bit of shoving. I got an elbow to my nose and I got a nose bleed. Then there was another time that he literally just slid me along the floor. […]We𠆝 work on it. It would happen again.”

Final Straw

After assessing participant major reasons for divorce, we were interested to see if participants indicated a single event or reason that constituted a 𠇏inal straw” in the process of their marriage dissolution. Overall, 68.6% of participants and at least one partner in 88.9% of couples reported that there was a final straw leading to the end of their marriage. General themes of final straw issues where generated through qualitative methods for participants who reported a final straw. Of the individuals who indicated that there was a final straw involved in ending their marriages, the most common cited reason was infidelity, which was reported by 24% of these participants, followed by domestic violence (21.2%) and substance abuse (12.1%). At the couple level, no couples (0%) had both partners report the same reason for the final straw. Participants expressed that although these final straw events may not have been the first incident of their kind (e.g., the first time they realized their partner had a substance abuse problem) an event involving these behaviors led to the final decision for their relationship to end. Also, there were some situations in which individuals expressed that these three issues may have interacted with one another or other relationship issues.

“[My ex-husband] and I both had substance abuse problems which led to infidelity […] which also led to domestic violence”.

𠇊long with him having alcohol and drug issues as well as infidelity issues [and] the stress, came the physical and verbal abuse.”

Who is to Blame?

Considering that infidelity, domestic violence, and substance abuse were the most often endorsed 𠇏inal straw” reasons for divorce, we were interested in deciphering which member of the relationship participants saw as responsible for these behaviors. In examining participants’ elaborations of infidelity, substance abuse, and domestic violence, we found that 76.9%, 72.2%, and 77.8%, respectively, described these events in terms of their partner engaging in these negative behaviors, and only 11.5%, 11.1%, and 0%, respectively, volunteered that they engaged in the behavior themselves.

Furthermore, when participants were asked if their partner should have worked harder to save their marriages, 65.8% of men and 73.8% of women believe that their ex-spouse should have worked harder to save their marriages. Conversely, when participants were asked if they, personally, should have worked harder to save their marriages, only 31.6% of men and 33.3% of women expressed that they, personally, should have worked harder. Further, at the couple level, 70.6% of couples showed a pattern in which the women believed their ex-husbands should have worked harder to save their relationships while their ex-husbands did not believe they, themselves, should have worked harder. Only 11.7% agreed that the husband should have worked harder and 11.7% had the husband endorse that he should have worked harder with the wife disagreeing. Conversely, only 35.3% of couples displayed the pattern in which the men blamed their ex-wives for not working harder while their ex-wives, themselves, denied that they should have worked harder. Only 11.7% agreed that the wife should have worked harder and 17.7% had the wife endorsed that she should have worked harder with her husband disagreeing. Further, 35.3% of couples agreed that the wife had not needed to work harder to save the marriage, while only 5.9% of couples agreed that the husband had not needed to work harder. Thus, most participants believed their ex-partners should have worked harder, but at the couple level, there were more couples in which both partners agreed that the wife did not need to work harder than there were couples in which both partners agreed the husband did not need to work harder. When asked who filed for the divorce, 63.5% of participants indicated that the woman filed for divorce and only 25% participants indicated that the man filed for divorce.

Feedback on PREP

Next, we provide the findings on the most commonly cited qualitative feedback reported by participants regarding how to improve premarital education. The following results and percentages refer to counts of qualitative codes created by the research team based on common themes in the interviews.

Learning more about one’s partner

Results show that 42.3% of participants and 77.8% of couples expressed that they wished they had known more about their ex-spouse before they were married. Of these couples, 28.6% of partners agreed. These statements included desires to understand their partner better in order to improve their communication and better prepare for the marriage, or conversely, information that would have led them to never marry one’s partner in the first place. Indeed, 30.8% of participants specifically mentioned that they wished they had recognized “red flags” to leave the relationship before they entered their marriage.

“I think the only information that could have [helped] would’ve been information that might have led me to not marry him.”

“I probably wish that we would have had more premarital counseling and had somebody tell us we should not be getting married.”

Participating in the program before constraints to marry

Twenty-five percent (25.0%) of participants specifically reported that they were influenced by constraints to stay in the relationship already in place during the program. Example constraints included having become engaged, set a wedding date, sent out invitations, or purchased a dress, which made it difficult for participants to objectively reconsider if they were marrying the right person through the educational experience. Thus, a large portion of participants expressed that receiving PREP just before marriage made it difficult for them to seriously considered delaying their wedding plans in order to make more objective decisions about the relationship.

“It was one of those things where you’re like, ‘Well, I already have the dress. We’re already getting married. We already have all the people. Everything is already set up and we bought the house.’ And you just kind of think, ‘Well you know I’m sure things will get better.’ You see the red flags but you kind of ignore them.”

“I just didn’t have the guts to say, ‘You know what, I understand the dresses have been paid for. The churches have been booked. The invitations have gone out. But I don’t think I want to do this.’”

Improved support for ongoing implementation

Thirty-one percent (30.8%) of individuals and 38.9% of couples had at least one partner express that, although they found PREP skills helpful during the duration of the program, they had difficulty using these skills in their daily lives outside of their premarital education classes. Of these couples, 42.9% of partners agreed that they had difficulty implementing program skills in their marriage. In general, these participants expressed that, in the heat of the moment, it was hard to utilize their communication skills, such as staying calm, actively listening, working toward the problem as a team, or taking “time outs” as suggested in PREP. Other participants simply expressed that it was hard to remember and perfect their skills after the program ended because they did not practice them regularly.

“I think that the techniques […] were helpful. I just think it mattered if you were going to apply the principles or not. And I don’t think a lot of them were applied.”

“It helped with discussion and listening tools. I think, it’s just the follow through, you know. We didn’t remember those things when it came down to it.”

“He tried to use it at the beginning, but it was just the continual using of the techniques that were given to us.”

Education regarding the realities of marriage

In addition to not knowing enough about one’s partner, 48.1% of participants and 72.2% of couples expressed that they did not know enough about the realities or stages of marriage after participating in the program. Of these couples, 38.5% of partners agreed. These comments included surprise that their partners changed over the course of the marriage, as well as trouble facing new problems when they emerged (e.g., lack of attraction/connection, decreases in commitment and satisfaction, and new abuse problems).

“Premarital counseling teaches you how you get along, and that you should communicate, but it doesn’t really talk about the phases of a marriage over time.”

“[I wish I had learned] that the biggest area in life in an ongoing relationship is knowing that things are going to come up that aren’t perfect. That after the wedding day, and the build up to the wedding day, real life is going to kick in and you have to really have some tools to deal with it.”


Infant Mental Health Journal

The Infant Mental Health Journal, the World Association for Infant Mental Health, and the Alliance for the Advancement of Infant Mental Health extend our well wishes for families and communities around the world in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Like you, we are deeply concerned about the serious impacts on physical wellness as well as the repercussions of the outbreak for emotional well-being, access to basic resources, and the economic impacts for families and communities. At this time, caring for the well-being of yourselves and your communities is most pressing. Here you will find resources that may be helpful during this time.

While the journal will continue to operate on an as-normal-a-basis as possible, we ask for your patience during what may be delayed review processes due to the pandemic.

About This Journal

Infant Mental Health Journal—Promoting social-emotional health prenatal - 5 yearpublishes peer-reviewed research articles, review articles, brief reports (including clinical case studies and novel pilot studies) and thematic collections that focus on early relationship development and other early relational contexts, such as attachment relationships and early relationships within parenting, family, and caregiving systems, impacting the social and emotional development of very young children, prenatal-5 years of age. All work published in IMHJ reflects robust infant and early childhood mental health frameworks.


How do I evaluate Holism in Psychology, AQA Paper 3?

You can compare holism to reductionism to get AO3 marks too.

Holism is limited as it is not a feasible option. If psychologists were to study all factors that affect a person in depth it would be very complex hence holism is not a practical approach to take.

Holism is useful as it uses different levels of explanation to come to a conclusion. This is appropriate as it provides a complete and realistic understanding of human behaviour.

Holism is limited due to the incapability to establish cause and effect. Holism does not study people in operationalised variables, measured and manipulated hence can be seen as unscientific.

Try using the Tutor2u Article on Holism and Reductionism!

(Original post by Pearlfection1)
You can compare holism to reductionism to get AO3 marks too.

Holism is limited as it is not a feasible option. If psychologists were to study all factors that affect a person in depth it would be very complex hence holism is not a practical approach to take.

Holism is useful as it uses different levels of explanation to come to a conclusion. This is appropriate as it provides a complete and realistic understanding of human behaviour.

Holism is limited due to the incapability to establish cause and effect. Holism does not study people in operationalised variables, measured and manipulated hence can be seen as unscientific.


ACM Journals

Collective Intelligence is a transdisciplinary journal devoted to advancing the theoretical and empirical understanding of group performance in diverse systems, from adaptive matter to cellular and neural systems to animal societies to all types of human organizations to hybrid AI-human teams and nanobot swarms.

Csur ACM Computing Surveys

These comprehensive, readable surveys and tutorial papers give guided tours through the literature and explain topics to those who seek to learn the basics of areas outside their specialties in an accessible way. The carefully planned and presented introductions in Computing Surveys (CSUR) are also an excellent way for researchers and professionals to develop perspectives on, and identify trends in complex technologies. Contributions which bridge existing and emerging technologies (such as machine learning) with a variety of science and engineering domains in a novel and interesting way are also welcomed.

Contributions are intended to be accessible to a broad audience, featuring clear exposition, a lively tutorial style, and pointers to the literature for further study.

Dgov Digital Government: Research and Practice

Digital Government: Research and Practice (DGOV) is an interdisciplinary Gold Open Access journal that focuses on the potential and impact of technology on governance innovations and its transformation of public institutions. It promotes applied and empirical research from academics, practitioners, designers, and technologists, using political, policy, social, computer, and data sciences methodologies.

Dtrap Digital Threats: Research and Practice

Health ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare

Imwut Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies

Jacm Journal of the ACM

Jdiq Journal of Data and Information Quality

JDIQ's mission is to publish high quality articles that make a significant and novel contribution to the field of data and information quality. JDIQ welcomes research contributions on the following areas, but not limited to: Information Quality in the Enterprise Context Database related technical solutions for Information Quality Information Quality in the context of Computer Science and Information Technology Information Curation.

JDIQ accepts research conducted using a wide variety of methods ranging from positivists to interpretive methods, systems building descriptions, and database theory, as well as statistical analysis, mathematical modeling, quasi experimental methods, hermeneutics, action research, and case study. JDIQ accepts diverse research methods that are customary in different research backgrounds and traditions, both quantitative and qualitative. Research papers need to demonstrate the use of a rigorous method or methods. Research papers also need to provide valuable and relevant implications for applying their findings and solutions in practice.

Jea ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics

Jetc ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems

The ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems (JETC) invites submissions of original technical papers describing research and development in emerging technologies in computing systems. Major economic and technical challenges are expected to impede the continued scaling of semiconductor devices. This has resulted in the search for alternate mechanical, biological/biochemical, nanoscale electronic, asynchronous and quantum computing, and sensor technologies. As the underlying nanotechnologies continue to evolve in the labs of chemists, physicists, and biologists, it has become imperative for computer scientists and engineers to translate the potential of the basic building blocks (analogous to the transistor) emerging from these labs into information systems. Their design will face multiple challenges ranging from the inherent (un)reliability due to the self-assembly nature of the fabrication processes for nanotechnologies, from the complexity due to the sheer volume of nanodevices that will have to be integrated for complex functionality, and from the need to integrate these new nanotechnologies with silicon devices in the same system. The journal provides comprehensive coverage of innovative work in the specification, design analysis, simulation, verification, testing, and evaluation of computing systems constructed out of emerging technologies and advanced semiconductors. Also of interest are innovations in system design for green and sustainable computing, and computing-driven solutions to emerging areas in biotechnology. Topics include, but are not limited to:


Offical studies/papers of relationship evaluation in mobile apps - Psychology

WES’ mission-driven initiatives identify where progress is needed most, while our self-funding revenue model allows us to reinvest in programs, policies, and philanthropic ventures that reflect our values.

As the industry leader in credential evaluations, WES works directly with more than 48,000 global Higher Education Institutions in more than 200 countries, enabling life-changing outcomes for their students and alumni.

WES publishes original data-driven research, case studies, surveys, policy papers, and articles that reflect WES’ expertise and mission WES’ publications focus on international education, global mobility, economic opportunity, the future of work, and more.

Get your credential evaluation in three simple steps!

Submit your application and receive your WES reference number.

Read our document requirements and send in your documents.

We verify your credentials, create your report, and deliver it to your recipients.

The WES Mariam Assefa Fund

The WES Mariam Assefa Fund is the only philanthropic initiative focused exclusively on economic inclusion and mobility for immigrants and refugees in North America. The fund fosters collaboration, experimentation, and innovation, awarding grants for projects that empower immigrant leaders, improve employer practices, enhance worker skills, and build more inclusive economies.

WES Global Talent Bridge

WES Global Talent Bridge highlights the issue of immigrant and refugee community integration. WES Global Talent Bridge works with policy makers, training providers, social and professional networks, and employers to identify and remove individual and structural barriers that inhibit successful integration.

About WES

World Education Services (WES) is a globally-recognized social enterprise dedicated to helping internationally-educated people find meaningful roles in U.S. and Canadian communities and academic institutions through rigorous credential evaluations, immigrant integration and refugee advocacy, and mission-driven philanthropy.

Our Work in Global Mobility

From credential evaluations and immigrant integration programs, to the WES Gateway Program for refugees who need to recreate missing credentials, WES is committed to helping people move around the world and ahead in their lives, and to helping communities discover and benefit from the skills of their immigrant members.

Digital Innovation

WES’ credential evaluation process is fully digitized we accept and evaluate direct server-to-server files from partner institutions, dramatically improving turn-around times, streamlining tasks for institutions, and creating permanent digital credential portfolios for applicants.


Offical studies/papers of relationship evaluation in mobile apps - Psychology

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - X Social Science (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - X Science (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - X English Language & Literature (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank Chapterwise & Topicwise Solved Papers For Class -XII Physics (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank Chapterwise & Topicwise Solved Papers For Class - XII Mathematics (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank Chapterwise & Topicwise Solved Papers For Class - XII Chemistry (March 2021 Exam)

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - X Mathematics (Standard) (March 2021 Exam)

Pharmaceutical Organic Chemistry - II

Holy Faith Humming Bird Mathematics Primer -A

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank For Class - IX Social Science (For March 2021 Exam)

Shuchita Prakashan CA Foundation Scanner (Green Edition) Paper-3 Business Mathematics, Logical Reasoning And Statistics for May 2020 Exam

उत्तराखंड पशुपालन विभाग पशुधन प्रसार अधिकारी भर्ती परीक्षा

Oswaal CBSE Question Bank Chapterwise & Topicwise Solved Papers For Class - XII English Core (March 2021 Exam)


Can’t find your papers?

  • Modified past papers are listed separately and are only available for some subjects. Search for modified papers.
  • We only publish question papers and mark schemes for some current specifications, in the year following the exam. See what's available when for more information.
  • Some question papers and mark schemes are no longer available after three years, due to copyright restrictions (except for Maths and Science).

Teachers can get past papers earlier, from 10 days after the exam, in the secure key materials (SKM) area of our extranet, e-AQA.


Journal of Economic Psychology

Author instructions

Useful links

Check submitted paper

Track accepted paper

Once production of your article has started, you can track the status of your article via Track Your Accepted Article.

  • CiteScore: 3.4CiteScore:
    2020: 3.4
    CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2017-20) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2017 – 20): Scopus source data, 2021
  • Impact Factor: 1.718Impact Factor:
    2019: 1.718
    The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years.
    Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2020)
  • 5-Year Impact Factor: 2.451Five-Year Impact Factor:
    2019: 2.451
    To calculate the five year Impact Factor, citations are counted in 2019 to the previous five years and divided by the source items published in the previous five years.
    Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2020)
  • Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.375Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):
    2020: 1.375
    SNIP measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field.
  • SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 1.114SCImago Journal Rank (SJR):
    2020: 1.114
    SJR is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. SJR uses a similar algorithm as the Google page rank it provides a quantitative and a qualitative measure of the journal’s impact.
  • View More on Journal Insights

  • 29% woman
  • 64% man
  • 0% non-binary or gender diverse
  • 7% prefer not to disclose
  • 24% woman
  • 75% man
  • 0% non-binary or gender diverse
  • 1% prefer not to disclose

Affiliated with the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology

The Journal aims to present research that will improve understanding of behavioral, in particular psychological, aspects of economic decisions and processes. It is published under the auspices of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (http://www.iarep.org), whose aim is to.

The Journal aims to present research that will improve understanding of behavioral, in particular psychological, aspects of economic decisions and processes. It is published under the auspices of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (http://www.iarep.org), whose aim is to promote interdisciplinary work relating to economic behavior.

The Journal seeks to be a channel for the increased interest in using behavioral science methods for the study of economic behavior, and so to contribute to better solutions of societal problems, by stimulating new approaches and new theorizing about economic affairs. Economic psychology as a discipline studies the psychological mechanisms that underlie economic behavior. It deals with decisions (individual or interactive), preferences, judgments, and factors influencing these, as well as the consequences of judgments and decisions for economics and society. Studies in economic psychology usually relate to the individual decision maker's level, though sometimes also address household or group behavior.

Historically, economic psychology has developed as a branch of psychology, while behavioral economics has risen as a sub-field of economics. Consequentially, for example, rationality assumptions have been traditionally avoided in economic psychology. Lately, however these differences are disappearing. We welcome any behavioral economics study to the journal of economic psychology. We also explicitly welcome studies in related domains including neuroeconomics, consumer psychology, voter psychology, and behavioral game theory, as long as they make a strong contribution to the understanding of psychological processes implicated in economic behavior and decisions.

Additionally, we welcome submissions from traditional areas of economic psychology, including psychological aspects associated with inflation, unemployment, poverty, taxation, economic development, economic literacy, personal finance, and market behavior.


Study 1: Item Identification

The purpose of Study 1 was to generate potential survey items based on previous literature and from a qualitative understanding of what makes a good mobile app experience.

Method

The initial set (selected from the literature and expected to apply to a broad range of mobile app categories) included 23 items associated with constructs of utility, usability, intended usage, reasons for deleting (Fakhruddin 2016 Varshneya, 2015), and future usage (Brooke, 1996 Lewis, Utesch, & Mayer, 2013 Ryu & Smith-Jackson, 2005 Sauro, 2016).

A total of 104 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed the Study 1 survey. Participants were located throughout the US, were a mix of gender (60% female), and varied in age (M= 34, 27 to 63) and device experience (59% Android, 41% iOS).

Initial data were collected in June 2016. Participants were paid $1.25 and asked to identify their favorite mobile app and answer the 23 candidate items in an online survey. Participants rated their level of agreement to each item using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5), except for the item “How likely are you to recommend the mobile app to a friend” which used an 11-point scale (Reichheld, 2003).

In addition to the 23 scale items, four free-response questions were asked to determine how participants thought and felt about their favorite mobile app. The questions were the following:

  • Describe what you like most about the app and why.
  • Describe your primary motivation for downloading the app.
  • What features do you frequently use on the app? Please be specific.
  • Under what circumstances do you use the app?

Results

A total of 104 responses were collected account for 59 unique apps. Participants were given an N/A option for the items. A high percentage of N/A responses indicated items that would not work well for a questionnaire designed to target all types of apps (e.g., a questionnaire equally applicable to gaming apps and banking apps). The percent of respondents (out of 104) who selected N/A for each item is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Items Considered in Study 1

Abbreviation

Using the app makes me happy.

It’s exciting to use the app.

I use the app when I am bored.

How likely are you to recommend the app to a friend or colleague?

The app’s capabilities meet my requirements.

The app offers features its mobile website doesn’t.

The app rarely crashes or causes problems on my phone.

The app runs without bugs or errors.

I would like to use the app frequently.

The app does not misuse my information.

I trust the app with my personal information.

I plan to use the app again soon.

It is easy to navigate within the app.

I find the app to be attractive.

The app has a clean and simple presentation.

I like discovering new features on the app.

I can’t live without the app on my phone.

I talk about things I do or learn on the app with my friends.

I am able to connect or communicate with friends directly from the app.

Two items had relatively high N/A rates: “The app offers features its mobile website doesn’t,” with 22% of respondents selecting it as not applicable, and “I am able to connect or communicate with friends directly from the app,” with 9% of respondents selecting it as not applicable.

Both items were flagged for removal from the subsequent studies for the general app assessment, as they only seemed to pertain to a specific type of app (i.e., apps with a corresponding mobile website or apps with a communication component). However, these items may be useful when assessing specific subtypes of mobile applications, though we did not explore this as a possibility in the present research.

Qualitative data from the four free-response questions were coded and summarized by an expert-coding strategy. An analyst read through each of the 104 responses, noting recurring themes to inform future question generation. The primary themes extracted from these responses were as follows: (a) Users liked the way their favorite app integrated with other apps or features on their phone, (b) Users enjoyed apps that allowed them to connect with their friends or colleagues, (c) Users frequently used communication features in their app, (d) Users enjoyed apps with features that integrated with real world products. These insights were used to generate more rating scale items designed specifically to probe the integration and social aspects of mobile app use.