Responses to interview questions: A cross‐linguistic study of acquiescence tendency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent theoretical accounts have assumed that children display an acquiescence tendency when answering yes–no questions. The present cross‐linguistic study aimed to test this account via examination of the responses of children to various yes–no questions about 6 familiar and unfamiliar objects. The impacts of age and linguistic background on children's response tendencies were also investigated. The participants were 3 groups of 2‐ to 5‐year‐old children, including 98 Persian, 78 Kurdish, and 43 English speaking children. Results revealed that younger children, regardless of their linguistic background, demonstrate an acquiescence tendency. The findings suggest that acquiescence tendency is a universal phenomenon. However, children's level of acquiescence declines as age increases. Implications regarding the use of yes–no questions with children are discussed. Highlights The effects of age, object familiarity and language on children's responses to yes‐no questions were examined. Regardless of their language, all children displayed an acquiescence tendency, but younger children exhibited a stronger tendency. Children's acquiescence tendency is a universal phenomenon.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".