MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892167733 · doi:10.1002/acp.3452

The influence of mindfulness on young adolescents' eyewitness memory and suggestibility

2018· article· en· W2892167733 on OpenAlexafffund
Hongyuan Qi, Huan Huan Zhang, Lerna Hanceroglu, Julia Caggianiello, Kim P. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Cognitive Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersCanadian Psychological AssociationWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsSuggestibilityMindfulnessPsychologySocioemotional selectivity theoryDevelopmental psychologyFalse memoryAffect (linguistics)Clinical psychologyCognitive psychologyRecall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent research has linked mindfulness to adults' false memory formation. This study investigated the effects of mindfulness on adolescents' event memory and suggestibility by using an “extensive” 8‐week mindfulness program, an active control group, and a participatory to‐be‐remembered event. Students aged 13 to 14 were randomly assigned to a mindfulness or active control condition (socioemotional learning). After the seventh week, students participated in a target event and were immediately interviewed during which misleading information was presented. A week later, those in the mindfulness condition incorrectly reported more false information compared with those in the control group. Mindful practice did not affect memory encoding but had a negative effect during retention and retrieval. These findings suggest that adolescents who are exposed to mindfulness exercises may be susceptible to memory intrusions. Professionals should therefore be especially careful to avoid using suggestive and leading questions during investigative interviews with mindful adolescents.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.298 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Cognitive PsychologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207