Problem Solving, Contention, and Struggle: How Siblings Resolve a Conflict of Interests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a laboratory setting, 48 sibling dyads age 4 and 6 or 6 and 8 years negotiated the division of six toys. Findings revealed that, in general, children reached divisions while using a preponderance of constructive problem-solving strategies, rather than contentious tactics. The degree of conflict of interests and the quality of sibling relationships predicted the children's use of problem-solving and contentious negotiation strategies, and was related to the types of resolutions achieved. Dyads experiencing low conflict of interests resolved their differences quickly. High conflict of interests coupled with positive relationships and constructive negotiation resulted in longer negotiations and creative, agreeable resolutions. High conflict of interests coupled with more negative relationships and destructive negotiations resulted in children's failures to reach agreement. Developmental differences indicated that older siblings within the pairs took the lead in negotiation, and benefited slightly more from the divisions. Furthermore, children in older dyads were more sophisticated and other oriented in their negotiations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".