Individual differences in children's suggestibility: a review and synthesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last decade, there has been a significant growth in the study of individual differences factors predicting children's suggestibility. In this paper, we synthesize the results of 69 studies examining the relationship of demographic factors (socioeconomic status and gender), cognitive factors (intelligence, language, memory, theory of mind, executive functioning, behavioural ratings of distractibility, and creativity), and psycho‐social factors (social engagement, self concept/self‐efficacy, stress/emotional arousal/state anxiety, maternal attachment styles, parent‐child relationship, parenting styles, temperament, and mental health) and children's suggestibility. We found that for cognitive factors, language ability and creativity were fairly consistently related to suggestibility. The highest correlations for psycho‐social factors and suggestibility were obtained for measures of self‐concept/self‐efficacy, maternal attachment, and the parent‐child relationship. Implications for future research and mechanisms underlying children's suggestibility are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it