438 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29494200)
21. ENHANCE: Evidence for the efficacy of a comprehensive intervention program to promote subjective well-being.
Heintzelman SJ; Kushlev K; Lutes LD; Wirtz D; Kanippayoor JM; Leitner D; Oishi S; Diener E
J Exp Psychol Appl; 2020 Jun; 26(2):360-383. PubMed ID: 31657590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. When election expectations fail: Polarized perceptions of election legitimacy increase with accumulating evidence of election outcomes and with polarized media.
Grant MD; Flores A; Pedersen EJ; Sherman DK; Van Boven L
PLoS One; 2021; 16(12):e0259473. PubMed ID: 34851979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders.
Brady WJ; Wills JA; Burkart D; Jost JT; Van Bavel JJ
J Exp Psychol Gen; 2019 Oct; 148(10):1802-1813. PubMed ID: 30589291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Cognitive Reflection and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
Pennycook G; Rand DG
Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2019 Feb; 45(2):224-239. PubMed ID: 29985107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Demographic change and the 2016 presidential election.
Maggio C
Soc Sci Res; 2021 Mar; 95():102459. PubMed ID: 33653583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review.
Tan JJX; Kraus MW; Carpenter NC; Adler NE
Psychol Bull; 2020 Nov; 146(11):970-1020. PubMed ID: 33090862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Speaking two "Languages" in America: A semantic space analysis of how presidential candidates and their supporters represent abstract political concepts differently.
Li P; Schloss B; Follmer DJ
Behav Res Methods; 2017 Oct; 49(5):1668-1685. PubMed ID: 28718087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Touching the base: heart-warming ads from the 2016 U.S. election moved viewers to partisan tears.
Seibt B; Schubert TW; Zickfeld JH; Fiske AP
Cogn Emot; 2019 Mar; 33(2):197-212. PubMed ID: 29510656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. When a lack of passion intertwines with thought and action: Neutral feelings about COVID-19 are associated with U.S. presidential candidate attitudes and voting behavior.
Park HJ; Hu D; Haynes E; Gasper K
Emotion; 2021 Dec; 21(8):1796-1800. PubMed ID: 34843303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Remembering facts versus feelings in the wake of political events.
Levine LJ; Murphy G; Lench HC; Greene CM; Loftus EF; Tinti C; Schmidt S; Muzzulini B; Grady RH; Stark SM; Stark CEL
Cogn Emot; 2021 Aug; 35(5):936-955. PubMed ID: 33829942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Young adults' psychological and physiological reactions to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Hoyt LT; Zeiders KH; Chaku N; Toomey RB; Nair RL
Psychoneuroendocrinology; 2018 Jun; 92():162-169. PubMed ID: 29606376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Age differences in affective forecasting accuracy.
Barber SJ; Kausar H; Udry J
Psychol Aging; 2023 Aug; 38(5):357-373. PubMed ID: 36701521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life.
Diener E; Oishi S; Lucas RE
Annu Rev Psychol; 2003; 54():403-25. PubMed ID: 12172000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Underlying socio-political processes behind the 2016 US election.
Bryden J; Silverman E
PLoS One; 2019; 14(4):e0214854. PubMed ID: 30964900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Sexual Disgust Trumps Pathogen Disgust in Predicting Voter Behavior During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
Billingsley J; Lieberman D; Tybur JM
Evol Psychol; 2018; 16(2):1474704918764170. PubMed ID: 29911419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. How perceived polarization predicts attitude moralization (and vice versa): A four-wave longitudinal study during the 2020 U.S. election.
D'Amore C; van Zomeren M; Koudenburg N
J Pers Soc Psychol; 2024 Apr; 126(4):624-642. PubMed ID: 38386365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. When the tables are turned: The effects of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election on in-group favoritism and out-group hostility.
Oc B; Moore C; Bashshur MR
PLoS One; 2018; 13(5):e0197848. PubMed ID: 29795642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. How suspense and surprise enhance subsequent memory: the case of the 2016 United States Presidential Election.
Congleton AR; Berntsen D
Memory; 2022 Mar; 30(3):317-329. PubMed ID: 34965840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. No wink of sleep: Population sleep characteristics in response to the brexit poll and the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Anýž J; Bakštein E; Dudysová D; Veldová K; Kliková M; Fárková E; Kopřivová J; Španiel F
Soc Sci Med; 2019 Feb; 222():112-121. PubMed ID: 30623796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The multidimensional politics of inequality: taking stock of identity politics in the U.S. Presidential election of 2016.
McCall L; Orloff AS
Br J Sociol; 2017 Nov; 68 Suppl 1():S34-S56. PubMed ID: 29114864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
