Friendship understanding in socially accepted, rejected, and neglected children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether children with poor peer relations display a developmental lag in their conceptions of friendship. The social-cognitive level of friendship understanding, as outlined in Selman's Theory of Interpersonal Understanding, was compared in a sample of 31 second-grade and 40 seventh-grade children who were identified as being accepted, rejected, or neglected by peers, according to a peer sociometric nomination measure. As expected, results indicated that conceptions of friendship held by grade 7 children represented higher stages of social-cognitive development than conceptions held by grade 2 children. Results also indicated there was no difference among accepted, rejected, and neglected children in their general intellectual abilities, as measured by the Vocabulary and Block Design subtests of the WISC-R. However, contrary to experimental predictions, when compared with their socially accepted classmates, rejected and neglected children did not show a developmental lag in their understanding of friendship. If the social effectiveness of social isolates from normal school populations is not limited by immature conceptions of interpersonal relations, as has been found in clinic populations, then intervention programs for these children may need to target other social-cognitive (e.g., interpersonal problem solving skills) or behavioral skills (e.g., prosocial behavior) or affective difficulties (e.g., social anxiety) as primary therapeutic goals. The possibility that an interpersonal reasoning enrichment component of a treatment package focusing on one or more of these other aspects of social competence needs to be empirically evaluated.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".