Children’s trust and the development of prosocial behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the role of children’s trust beliefs and trustworthiness in the development of prosocial behavior using data from four waves of a longitudinal study in a large, ethnically-diverse sample of children in Switzerland (mean age = 8.11 years at Time 1, N = 1,028). Prosocial behavior directed towards peers was measured at all assessment points by teacher reports. Children’s trust beliefs and their trustworthiness with peers were assessed and calculated by a social relations analysis at the first assessment point using children’s reports of the extent to which classmates kept promises. In addition, teacher reports of children’s trustworthiness were assessed at all four assessment points. Latent growth curve modeling yielded a decrease in prosocial behavior over time. Peer- and teacher-reported trustworthiness predicted higher initial levels of prosocial behavior, and peer-reported trustworthiness predicted less steep decreases in prosocial behavior over time. Autoregressive cross-lagged analysis also revealed bidirectional longitudinal associations between teacher-reported trustworthiness and prosocial behavior. We discuss the implications of the findings for research on the role of trust in the development of children’s prosocial behavior.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it