The Psychology of Referencing in Psychology Journal Articles

ABSTRACT— Citation statistics can affect major professional decisions, but little is known about how important a particular reference is to the citing document. We asked 49 psychologists to rate the importance of every reference in their own empirical paper and to indicate the primary citation reason. References cited for conceptual ideas or to justify methods and data analyses were regarded as more important than references cited for general background, limitations, or future research. The location, frequency, and length of a citation predicted its importance, but such relationships were weaker for self-citations. We make suggestions about referencing for authors, editors, and bibliographic database designers.     

Comparing Journal of Consumer Psychology and Journal of Consumer Research

The Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) was created in 1992 partly in response to what was interpreted by some as a shift in the methodological focus of the Journal of Consumer Research (JCR). JCR began to increase its accommodation of postmodern approaches, compared to more positivistic approaches. JCP's mission was thus perceived by some to be more methodologically homogeneous, with a greater focus on traditional experimental psychology in the domain of consumer behavior. Is JCR really more methodologically diverse than JCP? In what other ways are the two journals similar or different? This article attempts to answer these questions with an in‐depth analysis of the articles published in both journals from 1992 to 1998. The articles are reviewed in terms of overall output, authorship, content, research design, and data analysis. Conclusions and implications are included.     

Founder of the Journal of Genetic Psychology

Fifteen college-level readers (2 men and 13 women) were given 34 passages from the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) for reading. During reading, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from the midline sites (Fz, Cz, and Pz) of the participants' scalps. The first 17 passages were read by the participants at their own natural rate (self-paced condition). The second 17 passages were read at a fast-paced rate determined by the fastest reading rate recorded on an adequately comprehended trial from the preceding passages. Results indicated that accelerating reading rate increased the readers' comprehension. Additionally, the increase in reading rate and improvement in comprehension were reflected in the ERP measures. This finding confirms this study's assumption that there is a disparity between reading ability and routine performance, and that this disparity is manifested in measures of neurocognitive functioning as reflected by the ERPs. Specifically, the ERP waveforms discriminated not only reading rate (specifically manifested by differences in speed of processing), but also the level of comprehension attained by the participants.