Social Information Processing of Positive and Negative Hypothetical Events in Children With ADHD and Conduct Problems and Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined social information processing (SIP) of events with varied outcomes in children with ADHD and conduct problems (CPs; defined as oppositional defiant disorder [ODD] or conduct disorder [CD]) and controls. METHOD: Participants were 64 children (46 boys, 18 girls) aged 6 to 12, including 39 with ADHD and 25 controls. Vignettes were developed that systematically varied with regard to peer intention (ambiguous, negative, positive) and event outcome (ambiguous, negative, positive), and were used to evaluate participants' SIP abilities (cue encoding, interpretation, and response generation). RESULTS: Results showed that, after controlling for CPs, children with ADHD detected fewer positive, negative, and neutral cues; attributed more negative and less positive intent to peers; focused less on situational outcomes of vignettes; and generated fewer positive responses compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that children with ADHD differ from non-ADHD children, even after controlling for CPs, in how they process positive and negative social experiences.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".