Psychological Bulletin (PSYCHOL BULL)

Publisher: American Psychological Association; American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association

Journal description

Psychological Bulletin publishes evaluative and integrative research reviews and interpretations of issues in scientific psychology. Primary research is reported only for illustrative purposes. Integrative reviews or research syntheses focus on empirical studies and seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments of (a) the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest, (b) critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research, and (c) important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information. Both cumulative and historical approaches (i.e., ones that organize a research literature by highlighting temporally unfolding developments in a field) can be used. Integrative research reviews that develop connections between areas of research are particularly valuable. Manuscripts dealing with topics at the interface of psychological sciences and society are welcome, as are evaluations of applied psychological therapies, programs, and interventions. Expository articles may be published if they are deemed accurate, broad, clear, and pertinent. Methodological articles that previously were submitted to Psychological Bulletin should now be submitted to Psychological Methods. Original theoretical articles should be submitted to Psychological Review, even when they include summaries of research. Research syntheses should be submitted to Psychological Bulletin even when they develop integrated theoretical statements.

Current impact factor: 14.76

Impact Factor Rankings

2016 Impact Factor Available summer 2017
2014 / 2015 Impact Factor 14.756
2013 Impact Factor 14.392
2012 Impact Factor 15.575
2011 Impact Factor 14.457
2010 Impact Factor 11.975
2009 Impact Factor 12.854
2008 Impact Factor 12.568
2007 Impact Factor 10.905
2006 Impact Factor 12.725
2005 Impact Factor 9.746
2004 Impact Factor 7.701
2003 Impact Factor 8.405
2002 Impact Factor 7.011
2001 Impact Factor 6.807
2000 Impact Factor 6.913
1999 Impact Factor 7.79
1998 Impact Factor 6.346
1997 Impact Factor 6.038
1996 Impact Factor 6.591
1995 Impact Factor 6.966
1994 Impact Factor 6.697
1993 Impact Factor 5.197
1992 Impact Factor 4.958

Impact factor over time

Impact factor
Year

Additional details

5-year impact 22.16
Cited half-life >10.0
Immediacy index 3.28
Eigenfactor 0.03
Article influence 10.08
Website Psychological Bulletin website
Other titles Psychological bulletin
ISSN 0033-2909
OCLC 1681351
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

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
    green

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A meta-analysis assessed the behavioral impact of and psychological processes associated with presenting words connected to an action or a goal representation. The average and distribution of 352 effect sizes (analyzed using fixed-effects and random-effects models) was obtained from 133 studies (84 reports) in which word primes were incidentally presented to participants, with a nonopposite control group, before measuring a behavioral dependent variable. Findings revealed a small behavioral priming effect ( dFE = 0.332, dRE = 0.352), which was robust across methodological procedures and only minimally biased by the publication of positive (vs. negative) results. Theory testing analyses indicated that more valued behavior or goal concepts (e.g., associated with important outcomes or values) were associated with stronger priming effects than were less valued behaviors. Furthermore, there was some evidence of persistence of goal effects over time. These results support the notion that goal activation contributes over and above perception-behavior in explaining priming effects. In summary, theorizing about the role of value and satisfaction in goal activation pointed to stronger effects of a behavior or goal concept on overt action. There was no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated priming effects. (PsycINFO Database Record
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Psychological Bulletin
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cross-cultural research has traditionally emphasized predicting adjustment, treating it as a level to be achieved more than a change process to be understood and controlled. The lack of focus on process integration has inhibited our understanding of precisely why and how adjustment processes unfold and ultimately cause (dys)functional change in criteria. In response, we review the motives and processes of cross-cultural adjustment and integrate these into a theoretical framework, examining the discrete episode of expatriate-host national interaction as the focal vehicle for change. First, we synthesize the general causal sequence within an interaction episode. We then summarize state inputs that condition processing. Next, we describe identity management and learning processing in depth. Then, we discuss key interactions among the motive and processing categories. Finally, we orient the cross-cultural interaction episode within the nomological network of cross-cultural adjustment predictors and criteria. This framework prescribes that an expatriate should initially reduce acculturative stress through repeated, functional identity management and learning processing of novelty encountered in cross-cultural interaction episodes. To do so, one must avoid inhibitory input states and the many potential processing failures identified here. If the expatriate experiences enough such functional interaction episodes, a "Stage 2" is reached where the motive to reduce stress has been largely overcome, and thereafter, interaction episode processing proceeds more functionally in general. (PsycINFO Database Record
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Psychological Bulletin
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A new understanding of the mechanisms of memory retrieval and reconsolidation holds the potential for improving exposure-based treatments. Basic research indicates that following fear extinction, safety and fear memories may compete, raising the possibility of return of fear. One possible solution is to modify original fear memories through reconsolidation interference, reducing the likelihood of return of fear. Postretrieval extinction is a behavioral method of reconsolidation interference that has been explored in the context of conditioned fear and appetitive memory paradigms. This meta-analysis examines the magnitude of postretrieval extinction effects and potential moderators of these effects. A PubMed and PsycINFO search was conducted through June 2014. Sixty-three comparisons examining postretrieval extinction for preventing the return of fear or appetitive responses in animals or humans met inclusion criteria. Postretrieval extinction demonstrated a significant, small-to-moderate effect (g = .40) for further reducing the return of fear in humans and a significant, large effect (g = 0.89) for preventing the return of appetitive responses in animals relative to standard extinction. For fear outcomes in animals, effects were small (g = 0.21) and nonsignificant, but moderated by the number of animals housed together and the duration of time between postretrieval extinction/extinction and test. Across paradigms, these findings support the efficacy of this preclinical strategy for preventing the return of conditioned fear and appetitive responses. Overall, findings to date support the continued translation of postretrieval extinction research to human and clinical applications, with particular application to the treatment of anxiety, traumatic stress, and substance use disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Psychological Bulletin