Developing appreciation for ambivalence: The understanding of concurrent conflicting desires in 4- to 7-year-old children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current experiment examined the development of children's ability to comprehend concurrent conflicting desires (i.e., both wanting and not wanting something at the same time). Participants were 4- to 7-year-old children and a group of undergraduate students (N = 20 in each age group). Results showed that the 6- and 7-year-old children understood concurrent conflicting desires at levels that were well above chance. There was evidence that even some of the 5-year-olds exhibited an emerging comprehension of conflicting desires. However, the 4-year-old children showed little ability to appreciate conflicting desire states. As such, children showed appreciation for conflicting desires at younger ages than suggested by previous research. In addition, significant relationships were observed between children's concurrent conflicting desire understanding and their theory of mind (ToM) and executive functioning (EF) skills, even after controlling for chronological and verbal age.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".