Attention bias to reward predicts behavioral problems and moderates early risk to externalizing and attention problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study had three goals. First, we replicated recent evidence that suggests a concurrent relation between attention bias to reward and externalizing and attention problems at age 7. Second, we extended these findings by examining the relations between attention and behavioral measures of early exuberance (3 years), early effortful control (4 years), and concurrent effortful control (7 years), as well as later behavioral problems (9 years). Third, we evaluated the role of attention to reward in the longitudinal pathways between early exuberance and early effortful control to predict externalizing and attention problems. Results revealed that attention bias to reward was associated concurrently and longitudinally with behavioral problems. Moreover, greater reward bias was concurrently associated with lower levels of parent-reported effortful control. Finally, attention bias to reward moderated the longitudinal relations between early risk factors for behavioral problems (gender, exuberance, and effortful control) and later externalizing and attention problems, such that these early risk factors were most predictive of behavioral problems for males with a large attention bias to reward. These findings suggest that attention bias to reward may act as a moderator of early risk, aiding the identification of children at the highest risk for later behavioral problems.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".