Technology Behaviours and Attitudes in Youth: Correlates with Cognitive and Real-World Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology use, which has become ubiquitous in the lives of adolescents, has both positive and negative aspects. In the judgment and decision-making literature, the Cognitive Reflection Test is a measure of the tendency to override an incorrect response and to engage in further reflection that leads to the correct response (Toplak et al., 2014a). Navigating optimal technology use often requires resisting miserly tendencies, as measured by the Cognitive Reflection Test. The purpose of the current project was to examine technology behaviours and attitudes that are either adaptive or maladaptive through the lens of judgment and decision-making and cognitive reflection in a set of two studies with community samples of adolescents. The associations between these technology behaviours and cognitive reflection, cognitive ability, and real-life outcomes of antisocial behaviours and academic achievement were examined. Study 1 (in-person sample) served as a pilot study, demonstrating that several technology behaviours were measurable in adolescents and were significantly correlated with antisocial behaviours and academic achievement. The purpose of Study 2 (online sample) involved creating several additional items of technology behaviours and attitudes, and used exploratory factor analyses (EFA) to understand the associations among these behaviours and attitudes, and examined gender differences among these behaviours and attitudes. Both cognitive reflection and cognitive ability had small to moderate positive correlations with several technology behaviour factors. Cognitive ability significantly predicted some of the maladaptive technology behaviour factors. While cognitive reflection significantly predicted the adaptive technology attitude factor related to practical managing of technology use, suggesting a potentially important relationship between these attitudes and cognitive reflection. Furthermore, several technology factors significantly predicted antisocial behaviours and academic achievement. The results are further discussed along with implications and future directions for studying technology use by 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".