Judgements of learning (JoL) are often used in memory research as a means for assessing an individual’s metacognitive beliefs about their learning. JoL have been shown to reliably predict performance as well as learning behaviours and decisions . Participants may, however, modify their behaviour in response to performing JoL. There has, however, been little consensus as to the reliability and direction of the effect. We report on a meta-analyses that assesses the evidence that memory performance is reactive to JoL. The results indicate that overall providing JoL does not have a significant effect on memory performance (g = 0.054, 95% CI −0.027 to 0.135). However, sub-groups analysis showed that this effect depends on the nature of the stimuli to be recalled, with moderate positive reactivity observed for related word pairs (g = 0.323, 95% CI 0.083 to 0.563) and word lists (g = 0.384, 95% CI 0.146 to 0.622) but no reactivity when pairs were unrelated or a mixture of related and unrelated pairs. These results indicate that researchers should be aware that eliciting JoL may well influence participants’ underlying encoding processes, especially when using related word pairs or word lists.

In cases of repeated victimisation, a complainant’s statement of abuse, and therefore memory, is often critical evidence for forensic investigations and legal proceedings. It is therefore important to understand the functioning of adults’ memory for repeated events. As such, the purpose of this paper was to review the extant literature on adult memory for instances of a repeated event. The results of the review revealed a small number of heterogeneous studies on adult repeated-event memory (N = 12). The literature so far shows that while adults might have difficulty in recalling information specific to instances (narrow accuracy), they are capable of remembering information across multiple instances (broad accuracy). It was also found that several factors may impact recall of instances including age, the number of experienced instances, rehearsing an event, repeated retrieval and event distinctiveness. The discussion highlights the forensic implications of this research and future research directions.

The study of emotional intelligence (EI) and its relationship with the dark triad has emerged as a popular research area. However, the complex nature of the dark triad and EI, including multiple measures for assessment, has led to inconsistent findings. A systematic review was conducted to focus on the multifaceted nature of the dark triad traits. Included studies must have been conducted with adult samples using standardized EI and dark triad measures. Forty-eight studies were identified; all bar one reported overall negative associations between the dark triad and EI. These associations were more complicated than expected. Further examination found these relationships significantly differed when examined at the facet level. Our results highlight that future research requires more than a one-size-fits-all approach.

The emotional experiences you have with a romantic partner shape how satisfied you are in your relationship. Engaging in attempts to make a romantic partner feel better is linked with better relationship outcomes. However, it is not yet clear which specific processes people use to regulate their partners’ emotions, nor which processes are most strongly linked with relationship satisfaction. In the current study of 277 individuals (55% female), we tested the extent to which eight extrinsic emotion regulation processes (expressive suppression, downward social comparison, humor, distraction, direct action, reappraisal, receptive listening, and valuing) predict relationship satisfaction. Six of the eight processes showed significant positive correlations with relationship satisfaction, with the strongest associations for valuing (r = .43), humor (r = .33), and receptive listening (r = .27). Relative weights were significant only for valuing, humor, and receptive listening, suggesting that these are the most important predictors of relationship satisfaction. Results are discussed in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic regulation processes and the potential importance of motives for regulation.

Existing research has linked emotional intelligence (EI) with intrinsic emotion regulation (processes people use to regulate their own emotions). However, there has not yet been an empirical examination of whether EI abilities relate to extrinsic emotion regulation (processes people use to regulate other people’s emotions). This study (N = 178 undergraduates) examines whether ability EI (as measured by the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test) correlates with eight extrinsic regulation processes (as measured by the Regulation of Others’ Emotions Scale, including downward comparison, expressive suppression, humour, distraction, direct action, reappraisal, receptive listening and valuing). Total ability EI score is significantly positively correlated with three high-engagement processes (r = .24, .40, and .16 for reappraisal, receptive listening, and valuing) and negatively correlated with two low-engagement processes (r = −.30 and −.38 for downward comparison and expressive suppression). When all four EI branches predicted each regulation process in multiple regression, only emotion management significantly predicted downward comparison, receptive listening and valuing, and only emotion management and understanding predicted expressive suppression (no significant regression coefficients for reappraisal). We conclude that the drivers of EI/extrinsic regulation associations are engagement with the target’s emotion and the emotion management branch of EI.