Children’s trust and the development of prosocial behavior
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".