Developmental Trajectories of Sympathy, Moral Emotion Attributions, and Moral Reasoning: The Role of Parental Support
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
Abstract We examined the role of parental support to children's sympathy, moral emotion attribution, and moral reasoning trajectories in a three‐wave longitudinal study of Swiss children at 6 years of age ( N = 175; Time 1), 7 years of age (Time 2), and 9 years of age (Time 3). Sympathy was assessed with self‐report measures. Moral emotion attributions and moral reasoning were measured with children's responses to hypothetical moral transgressions. Parental support was assessed at all assessment points with primary caregiver and child reports. Three trajectory classes of sympathy were identified: high‐stable, average‐increasing, and low‐stable. Moral emotion attributions exhibited high‐stable, increasing, and decreasing trajectories. Moral reasoning displayed high‐stable, increasing, and low‐stable trajectories. Children who were in the high‐stable sympathy group had higher self‐reported support than children in the increasing and low‐stable trajectory groups. Children who were in the high‐stable moral emotion attribution group or the high‐stable moral reasoning group had higher primary caregiver‐reported support than children in the corresponding increasing trajectory groups. Furthermore, children who were members of the high‐stable group in all three moral development variables (i.e., sympathy, moral emotion attribution, and moral reasoning) displayed higher levels of self‐reported parental support than children who were not.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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