It's all metacognitive: The relationship between informal learning and self-regulated learning in the workplace.

Informal workplace learning accounts for a large extent of employees' learning. Informal learning activities such as reflection or keeping up-to-date resemble self-regulated learning strategies that indicate the ability to plan, monitor, and regulate one's learning. However, little is known about the relationship between informal learning behaviors and self-regulated learning strategies. Structural equation modeling with data from 248 employees revealed that the informal learning behaviors of reflection, keeping up-to-date, feedback-seeking, and knowledge-sharing are strongly related to the metacognitive self-regulated learning strategies of monitoring and regulation. However, informal learning behaviors lack the deep-processing strategies of elaboration and organization, and the resource strategies of help-seeking and effort regulation. Only innovative behavior is strongly related to effort regulation. These results suggest a potential deficit in employees' strategy use. Employees should consider further resources to increase their learning effectiveness in the workplace. The results are discussed, and practical implications are outlined.

Sty in the Mind's Eye: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Nomological Network and Internal Consistency of the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" Test.

The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is the most popular adult measure of individual differences in theory of mind. We present a meta-analytic investigation of the test's psychometric properties (k = 119 effect sizes, 61 studies, ntotal = 8,611 persons). Using random effects models, we found the internal consistency of the test was acceptable (α = .73). However, the RMET was more strongly related with emotion perception (r = .33, ρ = .48) relative to alternative theory of mind measures (r = .29, ρ = .39), and weakly to moderately related with vocabulary (r = .25, ρ = .32), cognitive empathy (r = .14, ρ = .20), and affective empathy (r = .13, ρ = .19). Overall, we conclude that the RMET operates rather as emotion perception measure than as theory of mind measure, challenging the interpretation of RMET results.