scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Rui Mata

Bio: Rui Mata is an academic researcher from University of Basel. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cognition & Psychology. The author has an hindex of 28, co-authored 78 publications receiving 3741 citations. Previous affiliations of Rui Mata include University of Lisbon & University of Michigan.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
David P. Schmitt1, Jüri Allik2, Robert R. McCrae3, Verónica Benet-Martínez4, Lidia Alcalay5, Lara Ault6, Ivars Austers7, Kevin Bennett8, Gabriel Bianchi9, Fredric Boholst10, Mary Ann Borg Cunen11, Johan Braeckman12, Edwin G. Brainerd13, Leo Gerard A. Caral10, Gabrielle Caron14, María Martina Casullo15, Michael Cunningham6, Ikuo Daibo16, Charlotte J. S. De Backer12, Eros De Souza17, Rolando Díaz-Loving18, Glaucia Ribeiro Starling Diniz19, Kevin Durkin20, Marcela Echegaray21, Ekin Eremsoy22, Harald A. Euler23, Ruth Falzon11, Maryanne L. Fisher24, Dolores Foley25, Douglas P. Fry26, Sirspa Fry26, M. Arif Ghayur27, Debra L. Golden28, Karl Grammer, Liria Grimaldi29, Jamin Halberstadt30, Shamsul Haque31, Dora Herrera21, Janine Hertel32, Heather Hoffmann33, Danica Hooper25, Zuzana Hradilekova34, Jasna Hudek-Kene-Evi35, Jas Laile Suzana Binti Jaafar36, Margarita Jankauskaite37, Heidi Kabangu-Stahel, Igor Kardum35, Brigitte Khoury38, Hayrran Kwon39, Kaia Laidra5, Anton Laireiter40, Dustin Lakerveld41, Ada Lampert, Mary Anne Lauri11, Marguerite Lavallée14, Suk Jae Lee42, Luk Chung Leung43, Kenneth D. Locke44, Vance Locke20, Ivan Lukšík9, Ishmael Magaisa45, Dalia Marcinkeviciene37, André Mata46, Rui Mata46, Barry Mccarthy47, Michael E. Mills48, Nhlanhla Mkhize49, João Manuel Moreira46, Sérgio Moreira46, Miguel Moya50, M. Munyae51, Patricia Noller25, Adrian Opre52, Alexia Panayiotou53, Nebojša Petrović54, Karolien Poels12, Miroslav Popper9, Maria Poulimenou55, Volodymyr P'yatokh, Michel Raymond56, Ulf-Dietrich Reips57, Susan E. Reneau58, Sofía Rivera-Aragón18, Wade C. Rowatt59, Willibald Ruch60, Velko S. Rus61, Marilyn P. Safir62, Sonia Salas63, Fabio Sambataro29, Kenneth Sandnabba26, Marion K. Schulmeyer, Astrid Schütz32, Tullio Scrimali29, Todd K. Shackelford64, Phillip R. Shaver65, Francis J Sichona66, Franco Simonetti2, Tilahun Sineshaw67, Tom Speelman12, Spyros Spyrou68, H. Canan Sümer69, Nebi Sümer69, Marianna Supekova9, Tomasz Szlendak70, Robin Taylor71, Bert Timmermans72, William Tooke73, Ioannis Tsaousis74, F. S.K. Tungaraza66, Griet Vandermassen12, Tim Vanhoomissen72, Frank Van Overwalle72, Ine Vanwesenbeeck, Paul L. Vasey75, João Veríssimo46, Martin Voracek76, Wendy W.N. Wan77, Ta Wei Wang78, Peter Weiss79, Andik Wijaya, Liesbeth Woertman41, Gahyun Youn80, Agata Zupanèiè61, Mithila B. Sharan81 
Bradley University1, University of Tartu2, National Institutes of Health3, University of California4, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile5, University of Louisville6, University of Latvia7, Pennsylvania State University8, Slovak Academy of Sciences9, University of San Carlos10, University of Malta11, Ghent University12, Clemson University13, Laval University14, University of Buenos Aires15, Osaka University16, Illinois State University17, National Autonomous University of Mexico18, University of Brasília19, University of Western Australia20, University of Lima21, Boğaziçi University22, University of Kassel23, York University24, University of Queensland25, Åbo Akademi University26, Al Akhawayn University27, University of Hawaii at Manoa28, University of Catania29, University of Otago30, University of Dhaka31, Chemnitz University of Technology32, Knox College33, Comenius University in Bratislava34, University of Rijeka35, University of Malaya36, Vilnius University37, American University of Beirut38, Kwangju Health College39, University of Salzburg40, Utrecht University41, National Computerization Agency42, City University of Hong Kong43, University of Idaho44, University of Zimbabwe45, University of Lisbon46, University of Central Lancashire47, Loyola Marymount University48, University of KwaZulu-Natal49, University of Granada50, University of Botswana51, Babeș-Bolyai University52, University of Cyprus53, University of Belgrade54, KPMG55, University of Montpellier56, University of Zurich57, University of Alabama58, Baylor University59, Queen's University Belfast60, University of Ljubljana61, University of Haifa62, University of La Serena63, Florida Atlantic University64, University of California, Davis65, University of Dar es Salaam66, Ramapo College67, Cyprus College68, Middle East Technical University69, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń70, University of the South Pacific71, Vrije Universiteit Brussel72, University at Albany, SUNY73, University of the Aegean74, University of Lethbridge75, University of Vienna76, University of Hong Kong77, Yuan Ze University78, Charles University in Prague79, Chonnam National University80, Indian Institutes of Technology81
TL;DR: The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a self-report measure designed to assess the high-order personality traits of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a self-report measure designed to assess the high-order personality traits of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness. As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, the BFI was translated from English into 28 languages and administered to 17,837 individuals from 56 nations. The resulting cross-cultural data set was used to address three main questions: Does the factor structure of the English BFI fully replicate across cultures? How valid are the BFI trait profiles of individual nations? And how are personality traits distributed throughout the world? The five-dimensional structure was robust across major regions of the world. Trait levels were related in predictable ways to self-esteem, sociosexuality, and national personality profiles. People from the geographic regions of South America and East Asia were significantly different in openness from those inhabiting other world regions. The discussion focuses on limitations of t...

876 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors found that age-related differences in risk taking were a function of decreased learning performance: older adults were more risk seeking compared to younger adults when learning led to risk-avoidant behavior, but were risk averse when learning resulted in risk-seeking behavior.
Abstract: vs. losses). The results suggest that age-related differences vary considerably as a function of task characteristics, in particular the learning requirements of the task. In decisions from experience, age-related differences in risk taking were a function of decreased learning performance: older adults were more risk seeking compared to younger adults when learning led to risk-avoidant behavior, but were more risk averse when learning led to risk-seeking behavior. In decisions from description, younger adults and older adults showed similar risk-taking behavior for the majority of the tasks, and there were no clear age-related differences as a function of gain/loss framing. We discuss limitations and strengths of past research and provide suggestions for future work on age-related differences in risk taking.

337 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Both young and older adults seem to be equally adapted decision makers in that they adjust their information search and strategy selection as a function of environment structure, suggesting that the aging decision maker is an adaptive one.
Abstract: Are older adults' decision abilities fundamentally compromised by age-related cognitive decline? Or can they adaptively select decision strategies? One study (N = 163) investigated the impact of cognitive aging on the ability to select decision strategies as a function of environment structure. Participants made decisions in either an environment that favored the use of information-intensive strategies or one favoring the use of simple, information-frugal strategies. Older adults tended to (a) look up less information and take longer to process it and (b) use simpler, less cognitively demanding strategies. In accordance with the idea that age-related cognitive decline leads to reliance on simpler strategies, measures of fluid intelligence explained age-related differences in information search and strategy selection. Nevertheless, both young and older adults seem to be equally adapted decision makers in that they adjust their information search and strategy selection as a function of environment structure, suggesting that the aging decision maker is an adaptive one.

319 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
David P. Schmitt1, Lidia Alcalay2, Melissa Allensworth1, Jüri Allik3, Lara Ault4, Ivars Austers5, Kevin Bennett6, Gabriel Bianchi7, Fredrick Boholst8, Mary Ann Borg Cunen9, Johan Braeckman10, Edwin G. Brainerd11, Leo Gerard A. Caral8, Gabrielle Caron, María Martina Casullo12, Michael Cunningham4, Ikuo Daibo13, Charlotte J. S. De Backer10, Eros De Souza14, Rolando Díaz-Loving15, Glaucia Ribeiro Starling Diniz16, Kevin Durkin17, Marcela Echegaray18, Ekin Eremsoy19, Harald A. Euler20, Ruth Falzon9, Maryanne L. Fisher21, Dolores Foley22, Robert Fowler1, Douglas P. Fry23, Sirpa Fry23, M. Arif Ghayur24, Vijai N. Giri25, Debra L. Golden26, Karl Grammer, Liria Grimaldi27, Jamin Halberstadt28, Shamsul Haque29, Dora Herrera18, Janine Hertel30, Amanda Hitchell1, Heather Hoffmann31, Danica Hooper22, Zuzana Hradilekova32, Jasna Hudek-Kene-Evi33, Allen I. Huffcutt1, Jas Laile Suzana Binti Jaafar34, Margarita Jankauskaite35, Heidi Kabangu-Stahel, Igor Kardum33, Brigitte Khoury36, Hayrran Kwon37, Kaia Laidra3, Anton Laireiter38, Dustin Lakerveld39, Ada Lampert, Mary Anne Lauri9, Marguerite Lavallée, Suk-Jae Lee40, Luk Chung Leung41, Kenneth D. Locke42, Vance Locke17, Ivan Lukšík7, Ishmael Magaisa43, Dalia Marcinkeviciene35, André Mata44, Rui Mata44, Barry Mccarthy45, Michael E. Mills46, Nhlanhla Mkhize47, João Manuel Moreira44, Sérgio Moreira44, Miguel Moya48, M. Munyae49, Patricia Noller22, Hmoud Olimat50, Adrian Opre51, Alexia Panayiotou52, Nebojša Petrović53, Karolien Poels10, Miroslav Popper7, Maria Poulimenou54, Volodymyr P'Yatokha, Michel Raymond55, Ulf-Dietrich Reips56, Susan E. Reneau57, Sofía Rivera-Aragón15, Wade C. Rowatt58, Willibald Ruch59, Velko S. Rus60, Marilyn P. Safir61, Sonia Salas62, Fabio Sambataro27, Kenneth Sandnabba23, Rachel Schleeter1, Marion K. Schulmeyer, Astrid Schütz30, Tullio Scrimali27, Todd K. Shackelford63, Mithila B. Sharan25, Phillip R. Shaver64, Francis J Sichona65, Franco Simonetti2, Tilahun Sineshaw66, R. Sookdew47, Tom Speelman10, Spyros Spyrou67, H. Canan Sümer, Nebi Sümer68, Marianna Supekova7, Tomasz Szlendak, Robin Taylor69, Bert Timmermans70, William Tooke71, Ioannis Tsaousis72, F. S.K. Tungaraza65, Ashley Turner1, Griet Vandermassen10, Tim Vanhoomissen73, Frank Van Overwalle73, Ine Vanwesenbeeck, Paul L. Vasey74, João Veríssimo44, Martin Voracek75, Wendy W.N. Wan76, Ta-Wei Wang77, Peter Weiss78, Andik Wijaya, Liesbeth Woertman39, Gahyun Youn79, Agata Zupanèiè60 
Bradley University1, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile2, University of Tartu3, University of Louisville4, University of Latvia5, University of New Mexico6, Slovak Academy of Sciences7, University of San Carlos8, University of Malta9, Ghent University10, Clemson University11, University of Buenos Aires12, Osaka University13, Illinois State University14, National Autonomous University of Mexico15, University of Brasília16, University of Western Australia17, University of Lima18, Boğaziçi University19, University of Kassel20, University of York21, University of Queensland22, Åbo Akademi University23, Al Akhawayn University24, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur25, University of Hawaii at Manoa26, University of Catania27, University of Otago28, University of Dhaka29, Chemnitz University of Technology30, Knox College31, Comenius University in Bratislava32, University of Rijeka33, University of Malaya34, Vilnius University35, American University of Beirut36, Kwangju Health College37, University of Salzburg38, Utrecht University39, National Computerization Agency40, City University of Hong Kong41, University of Idaho42, University of Zimbabwe43, University of Lisbon44, University of Central Lancashire45, Loyola Marymount University46, University of Natal47, University of Granada48, University of Botswana49, University of Jordan50, Babeș-Bolyai University51, University of Cyprus52, University of Belgrade53, KPMG54, University of Montpellier55, University of Zurich56, University of Alabama57, Baylor University58, Queen's University Belfast59, University of Ljubljana60, University of Haifa61, University of La Serena62, Florida Atlantic University63, University of California, Davis64, University of Dar es Salaam65, Ramapo College66, Cyprus College67, Middle East Technical University68, University of the South Pacific69, VU University Amsterdam70, State University of New York System71, University of the Aegean72, Vrije Universiteit Brussel73, University of Lethbridge74, University of Vienna75, University of Hong Kong76, Yuan Ze University77, Charles University in Prague78, Chonnam National University79
TL;DR: In the International Sexuality Description Project, a total of 17,804 participants from 62 cultural regions completed the RelationshipQuestionnaire (RQ), a self-report measure of adult romantic attachment as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, a total of 17,804 participants from 62 cultural regions completedthe RelationshipQuestionnaire(RQ), a self-reportmeasure of adult romanticattachment. Correlational analyses within each culture suggested that the Model of Self and the Model of Other scales of the RQ were psychometrically valid within most cultures. Contrary to expectations, the Model of Self and Model of Other dimensions of the RQ did not underlie the four-category model of attachment in the same way across all cultures. Analyses of specific attachment styles revealed that secure romantic attachment was normative in 79% of cultures and that preoccupied romantic attachment was particularly prevalent in East Asian cultures. Finally, the romantic attachment profiles of individual nations were correlated with sociocultural indicators in ways that supported evolutionary theories of romantic attachment and basic human mating strategies.

314 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These findings offer a first step toward a general mapping of the construct risk preference, which encompasses both general and domain-specific components, and have implications for the assessment of risk preference in the laboratory and in the wild.
Abstract: To what extent is there a general factor of risk preference, R, akin to g, the general factor of intelligence? Can risk preference be regarded as a stable psychological trait? These conceptual issues persist because few attempts have been made to integrate multiple risk-taking measures, particularly measures from different and largely unrelated measurement traditions (self-reported propensity measures assessing stated preferences, incentivized behavioral measures eliciting revealed preferences, and frequency measures assessing actual risky activities). Adopting a comprehensive psychometric approach (1507 healthy adults completing 39 risk-taking measures, with a subsample of 109 participants completing a retest session after 6 months), we provide a substantive empirical foundation to address these issues, finding that correlations between propensity and behavioral measures were weak. Yet, a general factor of risk preference, R, emerged from stated preferences and generalized to specific and actual real-world risky activities (for example, smoking). Moreover, R proved to be highly reliable across time, indicative of a stable psychological trait. Our findings offer a first step toward a general mapping of the construct risk preference, which encompasses both general and domain-specific components, and have implications for the assessment of risk preference in the laboratory and in the wild.

277 citations


Cited by
More filters
Proceedings ArticleDOI
22 Jan 2006
TL;DR: Some of the major results in random graphs and some of the more challenging open problems are reviewed, including those related to the WWW.
Abstract: We will review some of the major results in random graphs and some of the more challenging open problems. We will cover algorithmic and structural questions. We will touch on newer models, including those related to the WWW.

7,116 citations

Book
08 Sep 2020
TL;DR: A review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species – frequent outliers.
Abstract: Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.

6,370 citations

01 Jan 1964
TL;DR: In this paper, the notion of a collective unconscious was introduced as a theory of remembering in social psychology, and a study of remembering as a study in Social Psychology was carried out.
Abstract: Part I. Experimental Studies: 2. Experiment in psychology 3. Experiments on perceiving III Experiments on imaging 4-8. Experiments on remembering: (a) The method of description (b) The method of repeated reproduction (c) The method of picture writing (d) The method of serial reproduction (e) The method of serial reproduction picture material 9. Perceiving, recognizing, remembering 10. A theory of remembering 11. Images and their functions 12. Meaning Part II. Remembering as a Study in Social Psychology: 13. Social psychology 14. Social psychology and the matter of recall 15. Social psychology and the manner of recall 16. Conventionalism 17. The notion of a collective unconscious 18. The basis of social recall 19. A summary and some conclusions.

5,690 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Research indicates that individuals and organizations often rely on simple heuristics in an adaptive way, and ignoring part of the information can lead to more accurate judgments than weighting and adding all information, for instance for low predictability and small samples.
Abstract: As reflected in the amount of controversy, few areas in psychology have undergone such dramatic conceptual changes in the past decade as the emerging science of heuristics. Heuristics are efficient cognitive processes, conscious or unconscious, that ignore part of the information. Because using heuristics saves effort, the classical view has been that heuristic decisions imply greater errors than do “rational” decisions as defined by logic or statistical models. However, for many decisions, the assumptions of rational models are not met, and it is an empirical rather than an a priori issue how well cognitive heuristics function in an uncertain world. To answer both the descriptive question (“Which heuristics do people use in which situations?”) and the prescriptive question (“When should people rely on a given heuristic rather than a complex strategy to make better judgments?”), formal models are indispensable. We review research that tests formal models of heuristic inference, including in business organizations, health care, and legal institutions. This research indicates that (a) individuals and organizations often rely on simple heuristics in an adaptive way, and (b) ignoring part of the information can lead to more accurate judgments than weighting and adding all information, for instance for low predictability and small samples. The big future challenge is to develop a systematic theory of the building blocks of heuristics as well as the core capacities and environmental structures these exploit.

2,715 citations