When “don't worry” communicates fear: Children's perceptions of parental reassurance and distraction during a painful medical procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's distress during painful medical procedures is strongly influenced by adult behavior. Adult reassurance (e.g., "it's okay") is associated with increased child distress whereas distraction is associated with increased child coping. It is unknown why reassurance shows this counterintuitive relationship with child distress. The present research investigated whether children perceive their parents as fearful when they reassure using complementary observational and experimental methodologies. One hundred children (40 boys, 60 girls) 5-10years old (M=8.02, SD=1.69) and their parents (86 mothers, 14 fathers) participated. First, spontaneous parent-child interactions during pediatric venipuncture were captured and used for a video-mediated recall task in which the children viewed instances of parental reassurance and distraction and rated their parents' fear and happiness. Second, the children were asked to rate the intensity of parental fear and happiness for 12 video vignettes showing an actor posing as a parent during venipuncture. To determine whether the children's perceptions varied with the qualities of the behavior, the vignettes manipulated: facial expression (happy vs. fearful), vocal tone (rising vs. falling), and content (informative reassurance vs. uninformative reassurance vs. distraction). For both tasks, the children provided higher ratings of fear during reassurance than distraction. In response to the vignettes, the children gave higher ratings of parental fear for a fearful facial expression, but the influence of vocal tone differed with the verbal content of the utterance. The results provide insight into the complexity of adult reassurance and highlight the important role of parental facial expression, tone, and verbal content during painful medical procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".