Preschool Children's Anticipation of Recipients' Emotions Affects Their Resource Allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study investigated the impact of preschoolers' anticipation of recipients' emotions on their resource allocation decisions. Three‐ to six‐year‐old children participated in one of three different scenarios before performing a resource allocation task. In the Other condition, children were led to think about another person's emotions when being shared with or not being shared with. In the Self condition, children were led to think about their own emotion when being shared with or not being shared with. In an epistemic control condition, children were asked to think about another person's knowledge state. The results showed that children were able to attribute different emotions to the respective recipient when being shared with or not being shared with. Children in the Other condition and the Self condition were more likely to allocate resources to the other when decisions were not associated with costs. Moreover, correlational analyses demonstrated that the more negatively children rated the emotion of the recipient when not being shared with the more they were to allocate resources to the recipient. This indicates that children's inclination to allocate resources to another person can be promoted by their awareness of a recipient's negative emotions when not being shared with.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".