Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40753515›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025

Selecting learning partners: memory for participation and competence.

Oktay Ülker, Daniel Bodemer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Oktay ÜlkerResearch Methods in Psychology-Technology, Learning, Collaboration, University of Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstraße 65, 47057, Duisburg, Germany. oktay.uelker@uni-due.de.ORCID 0000-0001-9463-4618
Daniel BodemerResearch Methods in Psychology-Technology, Learning, Collaboration, University of Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstraße 65, 47057, Duisburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2515-683X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remembering information about others is important but challenging in various social contexts. For instance, in long-term collaborative educational settings, students often need to choose peers for academic support. In different contexts, the selection process can depend on group awareness, i.e., the state of being informed about relevant social or cognitive characteristics of (potential) learning partners, like their participation or competence. However, selection can also depend on memory for different group awareness information on peers, which is not always accurate. An experimental study (N = 85) examined how type (participation vs. competence) and level (high vs. medium vs. low) of presented group awareness information influence learning partner selection in two phases (when information is present and when it is remembered). Higher levels were associated with higher selection probabilities, regardless of information type. Social comparison tendencies were associated with avoiding low participation partners. Moreover, we analyzed memory for group awareness information with multinomial processing tree model-based analyses: high and low participation levels were remembered better than medium levels, whereas high competence was remembered better than medium and low competence. Findings suggest that learners use different approach and avoidance strategies for choosing learning partners based on the type of given information.

Indexed as

AwarenessGroup ProcessesLearningPeer GroupAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAcademic help-seekingGroup awarenessMemory for social informationMultinomial processing tree modelPartner modelingSocial comparison orientation

Identifiers

PMID40753515
PMCPMC12318891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.