Children’s Future-Oriented Cognition and Family Characteristics: How Similar are Children’s and Parents’ Future-Oriented Cognition?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Future-oriented cognition involves several domains that are critical to daily functioning, such as planning, prospective memory, episodic foresight, saving, and delay of gratification. The current study investigated the role of family characteristics in the development of future-oriented cognition, specifically whether parents’ future-oriented cognition (i.e. planning, prospective memory, episodic foresight, saving, and delay of gratification) and socioeconomic status were related to their child’s future-oriented cognition. In Study 1, 146 parents of 3- to 5-year-olds completed several measures assessing their own and their child’s future-oriented cognition, cognitive skills, and behavioral tendencies. Parents’ future-oriented cognition, parent education, and family income were related to children’s future-oriented cognition. However, only parents’ saving, prospective memory, and episodic foresight (but not planning or delay of gratification) were related to the corresponding domains of children’s future-oriented cognition after controlling for children’s age, executive function, delay aversion, delay discounting, and future orientation. Study 2 focused on prospective memory as a specific domain of future-oriented cognition: Parents of 2- to 6-year-olds (N = 179) completed measures of their own and their child’s prospective memory and executive function. Family income, parents’ prospective memory, and their executive function were related to children’s prospective memory. However, none of these relations remained significant after controlling for children’s age and executive function. Children’s family characteristics seem to influence the development of future-oriented cognition in early childhood alongside age and cognitive abilities.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".