Jumping to conclusions predicts truncated searches even in uncongenial contexts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jumping to conclusions (JTC) is the tendency to reach a conclusion after reviewing only minimal evidence. However, research on the ways in which this individual difference functions in motivated and unmotivated contexts is mixed. In the present research, we investigated whether JTC would predict evidence search in a context where defensive motivated processing is likely to emerge. In Study 1 participants (N = 383) completed a JTC measure then engaged in an iterative search for information to evaluate a gun-control non-profit. In Study 2 we conceptually replicated Study 1 with Democrat and Republican non-profits. Both studies found main effects of defensive processing and JTC but no interaction between predictors, suggesting that JTC is not due to lack of motivation. Defensive motivation increases search length for those high in JTC; however motivation is not sufficient to close the gap between high and low JTC individuals.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it