Handbook of research methods for studying daily life

By Matthias R. Mehl, Tamlin S. Conner. 2012

903 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e3c504b8ba9ddb67b947a1cd63dd2b4af22ca50e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Ambulatory Assessment: New adventures in characterizing dynamic processes (2016, positive): “Much has been written about AA methodology (e.g., Mehl & Conner, 2012; Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2008; Stone, Shiffman, Atienza, & Nebeling, 2007) and a number of reviews summarize AA research in areas of clinical psychology, including anxiety disorders (Walz, Nauta, & aan het Rot, 2014),…”
State mindfulness, self-regulation, and emotional experience in everyday life. (2016, methodology): “Using experience sampling methodology (Mehl & Conner, 2012), we had participants report on their momentary state of mindfulness, how they dealt with experienced desires, and on their corresponding emotional experiences several times a day for 1 week.”
The Smartphone Psychology Manifesto (2012, background): “Rather than exhaustively reviewing this literature (see Kjeldskov & Graham, 2003; Mehl & Conner, 2011), I outline four existing types of studies that give a context for future developments in smartphone research.”
Creative days: A daily diary study of emotion, personality, and everyday creativity. (2015, methodology): “In general, methods for studying everyday life such as experience sampling, daily diaries, and other ecological assessment methods (Mehl & Conner, 2012) are uncommon in creativity research.”
Network Analysis of Depression and Anxiety Symptom Relations in a Psychiatric Sample (2016, background): “Furthermore, cross-sectional edges represent both within- and between-subjects effects that cannot be disentangled (Hamaker, 2012).”
Boundary Management and Work‐Nonwork Balance While Working from Home (2021, background): “Reliability across measurement occasions (Rkf) = .98; generalizability of change (Rc) = .80 (Shrout & Lane, 2012).”
Modeling Affect Dynamics: State of the Art and Future Challenges (2015, background): “However, many of the key ILD publications focus rather strongly on why and how we should gather ILD, but say very little about the analysis of ILD (for exceptions, see Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013; Mehl & Conner, 2012; Walls & Schafer, 2006).”
Personality and Friendship Satisfaction in Daily Life: Do Everyday Social Interactions Account for Individual Differences in Friendship Satisfaction? (2015, neutral): “29: 173–186 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/per approximately real time (Mehl & Conner, 2011).”
Lab And/Or Field? Measuring Personality Processes and Their Social Consequences (2015, background): “Assessments in everyday settings have three main advantages (Mehl & Conner, 2012; Trull & Ebner-Priemer, 2014).”
No Time Like the Present (2017, background): “The advantages of these kind of data—such as reduced recall bias and high ecological validity—have been discussed at length elsewhere (Mehl & Conner, 2012; Trull & Ebner-Priemer, 2014); here, we want to focus on an important but often neglected feature of these data: Intensive longitudinal data…”
Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive (2016, background): “That is, repeated daily measurements were nested hierarchically within participants (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013; Mehl & Conner, 2012).”
Living well by “flowing’ well: The indirect effect of autotelic personality on well-being through flow experience (2020, background): “Given that diary methods demand considerably more resources (e.g. labor, time, monetary costs) than onetime surveys (Mehl & Conner, 2012), we first calculated the desired sample size instead of inviting all Study 1 participants, to improve cost-efficiency.”