Publisher: American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association

Current impact factor: 3.88

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 5.24
Cited half-life 4.70
Immediacy index 0.25
Eigenfactor 0.02
Article influence 2.06
Other titles Emotion (Washington, D.C.: Online), Emotion
ISSN 1931-1516
OCLC 48668559
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

American Psychological Association

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Authors' pre-print on a web-site
    • Authors' pre-print must be labeled with date and accompanied with statement that paper has not (yet) been published
    • Copy of authors final peer-reviewed manuscript as accepted for publication
    • Authors' post-print on author's web-site, employers server or institutional repository, after acceptance
    • Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged
    • Must link to APA journal home page or article DOI
    • Article must include the following statement: 'This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.'
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • APA will submit NIH author articles to PubMed Central, after author completion of form
  • Classification

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Memory for feelings is subject to fading and bias over time. In 2 studies, the authors examined whether the magnitude and direction of bias depend on the type of feeling being recalled: emotion or mood. A few days after the U.S. Presidential elections in 2008 and 2012, participants reported how they felt about the election outcome (emotion) and how they felt in general (mood). A month after the elections, participants recalled their feelings. The intensity of past emotion was recalled more accurately than the intensity of past mood. Participants underestimated the intensity of emotion but overestimated the intensity of mood. Participants' appraisals of the importance of the election, which diminished over time, contributed to underestimating the intensity of emotion. In contrast, participants' strong emotional response to the election contributed to overestimating the intensity of mood. These opposing biases have important implications for decision making and clinical assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record
    Emotion 10/2015; DOI:10.1037/emo0000127
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Individuals with high levels of anxiety show preferential processing of threatening information, and this cognitive bias is thought to be an integral component of anxiety disorders. In threat classification tasks, this bias manifests as high-anxiety participants being more likely to classify stimuli as threatening than their low-anxiety counterparts. However, it is unclear which cognitive mechanisms drive this bias in threat classification. To better understand this phenomenon, threat classification data were analyzed with 2 decision models: a signal detection model and a drift-diffusion model. Signal detection models can dissociate measures of discriminability and bias, and diffusion models can further dissociate bias due to response preparation from bias due to stimulus evaluation. Individuals in the study completed a trait anxiety measure and classified threatening and neutral words based on whether they deemed them threatening. Signal detection analysis showed that high-anxiety participants had a bias driven by a weaker threat criterion than low-anxiety participants, but no differences in discriminability. Drift-diffusion analysis further decomposed the threat bias to show that it is driven by both an expectation bias that the threat response was more likely to be correct, and a stimulus bias driven by a weaker criterion for evaluating the stimuli under consideration. These model-based analyses provide valuable insight and show that multiple cognitive mechanisms underlie differential threat processing in anxiety. Implications for theories of anxiety are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
    Emotion 10/2015; DOI:10.1037/emo0000109