Understanding Solitude: Young Children's Attitudes and Responses Toward Hypothetical Socially Withdrawn Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The goal of the present study was to explore young children's attitudes and responses to different forms of social withdrawal by eliciting responses to hypothetical vignettes. Participants included 137 children (49 boys, 88 girls) in kindergarten and grade 1 classes (Mage = 75.94 months, SD = 9.03) in Ottawa, Canada. Parents rated child characteristics, including shyness, unsociability and aggression. Children were also interviewed individually and presented with a series of hypothetical vignettes describing the behaviors of shy, unsociable, aggressive and socially competent children. In response to each vignette, children were asked a series of questions designed to assess their perceptions, attitudes and responses toward each child behavior. Results suggested that young children made surprisingly sophisticated distinctions between shyness and unsociability, demonstrating differences in terms of attributions of behavioral intent, liking and sympathetic responses. In addition, unsociable children evidenced a distinct pattern of responses to hypothetical peers. These findings add to the growing body of research distinguishing different forms of social withdrawal, and shed some light as to why unsociability in early childhood may not be so benign.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".