“Intricate Lettings Out and Lettings In”: Listener Scaffolding of Narrative Identity in Newly Dating Romantic Partners
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
AbstractThe development of narrative identity occurs within storytelling contexts, and the present study examined the role of listener behaviors in this process. Methodology developed within studies of mother–child conversations was used to examine how listener behaviors are associated with the meanings that individuals make of their personal stories in conversations with their romantic partners and in subsequent private reflection. Fifty-two "speakers" shared an important personal memory with their partner. These narratives were coded for meaning-making (self-event connections), and listener turns were coded for scaffolding behaviors (positive responding, new interpretations, negations). Overall, a summary composite score of scaffolding behavior was associated with more meaning produced in the conversation and afterwards. Further analyses showed that scaffolding behavior was particularly important to the production of negative meanings, and specific types of scaffolding behaviors also interacted with each other in predicting meaning production. Results are discussed in terms of the role that listeners play in narrative identity development.Keywords:: Narrative identityConversationsAutobiographical memoryRomantic partners AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Western Washington University for funding to complete this project. We also thank the narrative lab at the University of Toronto for data collection and transcription, and Stephanie Marion, Jessie Dorn, and Rachel Ashleman for coding.Notes1. The term "scaffolding" was originally applied to this coding scheme, as its purpose was to understand how mothers expertly guide and encourage their children's talk about the past. We acknowledge that our use of scaffolding variables in this study transfers this methodology to a sample where conversation partners are equals and no "expert" exists, making the term "scaffolding" a bit of a misnomer. However, we believe it is useful to continue to use the term "scaffolding" when describing variables derived via the Haden et al. (Citation1997) and Bird and Reese (Citation2006) coding scheme, to facilitate comparisons of how the same listener behaviors function at different points of the lifespan and in different relationship contexts. However, we will use the term "scaffolding behavior" to indicate that we refer to the specific behaviors (i.e., a new interpretation) rather than the combined effort to expertly guide a conversation.2. Demographic information was lost for one couple.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it