Can Questions Lead to Change? An Analogue Experiment
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
Many non-traditional therapies treat questions as an influential therapeutic technique, but there is little research on this assumption. The goal of the present study was to test the effects of questions in an analogue experiment, that is, a lab experiment that used forms of questions drawn from psychotherapy. The experimenter used contrasting sets of questions to interview undergraduate volunteers about a difficult task they had just done. The broad research question was whether these interviews on the same topic but with a different focus could affect the interviewee, producing different viewpoints and even different behaviors. As predicted, the interviewees' spontaneous explanations of their task performance was congruent with the focus of questioning in their interview—both immediately afterward and one week later. Also as predicted, one kind of questioning improved task performance one week later. Clinical examples throughout illustrate the implications of this research for practice, training, and supervision.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it