MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105916523 · doi:10.1002/bdm.2214

Resistance to cognitive biases: Longitudinal trajectories and associations with cognitive abilities and academic achievement across development

2020· article· en· W3105916523 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioral Decision Making · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionSophisticationDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive biasCognitive development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cognitive failures on several reasoning and judgment tasks can be explained by miserly information processing tendencies. These tasks have been examined in child and youth samples, and we extend this work by examining the developmental trajectory of performance on these cognitive bias tasks and their association with other markers of cognitive sophistication. A longitudinal design was used to examine the development of resistance to cognitive biases in a sample of 204 typically developing children and youth. These youth were 8–14 years of age at first assessment and were assessed at three measurement occasions separated by 3 years. Resistance to cognitive biases as represented by performance on five reasoning and judgment tasks, including ratio bias, belief‐bias syllogisms, attribute framing problems, base‐rate sensitivity, and temporal discounting. The developmental trajectory of resistance to cognitive biases was examined. We also estimated associations between trajectories of resistance to cognitive biases and measures of cognitive abilities, actively open‐minded thinking, and superstitious thinking to examine how individual differences in other measures of cognitive sophistication were associated with the development of resistance to cognitive biases. Cognitive ability measures included intelligence (verbal and nonverbal) and executive function tasks (interference control and set‐shifting). Growth modeling results showed that resistance to cognitive biases increased linearly from 8 to 15 years of age, followed by a flat mean trajectory up to age 20. Cognitive ability, actively open‐minded thinking, and superstitious thinking predicted individual differences in resistance to cognitive biases, but not changes in resistance to cognitive biases. Performance on resistance to cognitive biases tasks was positively correlated with self‐ and parent‐reported academic achievement.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.211 · 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