Cortisol reactivity and regulation associated with shame responding in early childhood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to characterize cortisol response and regulation associated with shame responding in early childhood and to examine how general the relation between shame and cortisol is. It was predicted that children responding to task failure with shame would show a larger and more prolonged cortisol response than other children. Participants were 214 children (124 boys, 90 girls) ranging from 3.7 to 4.5 years of age (M = 4.14 years, SD = 0.24). Shame responding was assessed from children's emotion-expressive behavior in response to failing 6 performance tasks, 2 preceding (initial) and 4 following (subsequent) assessment of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation. Cortisol response and regulation associated with failure were assessed from saliva sampled before and 15, 20, 25, 30, and 40 min following the first of the 2 initial failures. For boys and for some girls, high initial shame was associated with greater cortisol reactivity and slower regulation of the cortisol response. For boys, high initial shame and relatively slow regulation of the associated cortisol response predicted subsequent shame responding occurring after recovery of the cortisol response. For girls, high initial shame, but not cortisol response, predicted subsequent shame responding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".