The anger–distress model of temper tantrums: associations with emotional reactivity and emotional competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The goals of this investigation were (a) to assess the structural validity of the anger–distress model of temper tantrums, and (b) to examine the associations among temper tantrums, emotional reactivity and emotional competence in a community sample of preschoolers. A parent‐report measure, the Temper Tantrum Grid, was used to measure the frequency of common tantrum behaviours. Laboratory and parent‐report measures of emotional reactivity and emotional competence were administered. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the proposal that anger and distress are separate but overlapping tantrum processes. Correlation analyses showed that temper tantrum anger and distress were related to emotional reactivity and emotional competence. There was no evidence to support the notion that emotional competence moderated the effect of emotional reactivity on temper tantrums. In contrast, emotional competence was a significant mediator of the association between emotional reactivity and temper tantrums. Overall, the results support the anger–distress model of temper tantrums. The findings suggest that children's temper tantrums are systematically related to the overall organization of emotion and behaviour in preschool children. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".