MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126192123 · doi:10.1002/acp.3119

Recency Tendency: Responses to Forced‐Choice Questions

2015· article· en· W2126192123 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi B. Mehrani, Carole Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Cognitive Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTwo-alternative forced choicePsychologySuggestibilitySet (abstract data type)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The present study was conducted to investigate whether forced‐choice questions would lead to any particular tendency in young children's responses. Two experiments were conducted in which 3‐ to 5‐year‐olds children were shown a short animation and then were asked a set of two‐option, forced‐choice questions. Consistent findings were obtained: (i) Forced‐choice questions influenced children's responses; (ii) Children displayed a consistent ‘recency tendency.’ That is, they tended to choose the second option in forced‐choice questions; (iii) This tendency grew weaker as children aged. The findings suggest that forced‐choice questions carry some suggestibility load and can bias children's responses. Copyright © 2015 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Cognitive PsychologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207