Entity versus incremental theories predict older adults’ memory performance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined whether older adults' implicit theories regarding the modifiability of memory in particular (Studies 1 and 3) and abilities in general (Study 2) would predict memory performance. In Study 1, individual differences in older adults' endorsement of the "entity theory" (a belief that one's ability is fixed) or "incremental theory" (a belief that one's ability is malleable) of memory were measured using a version of the Implicit Theories Measure (Dweck, 1999). Memory performance was assessed with a free-recall task. Results indicated that the higher the endorsement of the incremental theory, the better the free recall. In Study 2, older and younger adults' theories were measured using a more general version of the Implicit Theories Measure that focused on the modifiability of abilities in general. Again, for older adults, the higher the incremental endorsement, the better the free recall. Moreover, as predicted, implicit theories did not predict younger adults' memory performance. In Study 3, participants read mock news articles reporting evidence in favor of either the entity or incremental theory. Those in the incremental condition outperformed those in the entity condition on reading span and free-recall tasks. These effects were mediated by pretask worry such that, for those in the entity condition, higher worry was associated with lower performance. Taken together, these studies suggest that variation in entity versus incremental endorsement represents a key predictor of older adults' memory performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".