The Differential Effects of Written and Spoken Presentation for the Modification of Interpretation and Judgmental Bias in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interpretation training programs, in which individuals are trained to interpret ambiguous scenarios in either a negative or benign way, have proven effective in altering anxiety-related cognitive biases in both children and adults. AIMS: The current study investigated whether the effects of the interpretation training procedure in children are differentiated according to the mode of presentation of the training. METHOD: Ninety-four primary school children (aged 10-12 years) scoring above the mean on a social anxiety scale were randomly allocated to four groups, in which they were trained using written or spoken presentation of training materials in either the negative or benign direction. RESULTS: For the negative training, children who heard the training material spoken aloud (spoken presentation) made more negative interpretations of ambiguous social events, compared to children who read the training material (written presentation). However, for the benign training, there was less clear evidence for a differentiation of the effects between the two modes of presentation, although children in the spoken presentation group performed better in a stressful task and showed a trend to rate their mood as more positive after the task than children in the written presentation group. CONCLUSIONS: These results not only forward our understanding of the mechanism of the genesis of cognitive bias in children, but also highlight the need for further investigation of how to optimize the effectiveness of interpretation training in children.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".