Temperamental Differences and Classroom Incivility: Exploring the Role of Individual Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incivility involves rude, discourteous, and disrespectful attitudes and behaviours. The present study examined how various temperament traits were related to beliefs of classroom incivility among adolescents. The sample comprised of 222 adolescents (120 boys) between the ages of 12 and 17 ( M age = 14.07, SD = 1.54) who were recruited from various extracurricular clubs and sports teams in Southern Ontario. Both intentional and unintentional incivility were examined through separate hierarchical multiple regressions. Lower Effortful Control and lower Frustration significantly predicted unintentional incivility. In addition, lower Affiliation and lower Effortful Control significantly predicted intentional incivility. The results are discussed highlighting practical implications in educational settings, as well as suggestions for future research on incivility, given its potential associations with more negative antisocial behaviours. The results suggest that although there may be shared temperament traits of adolescents who take part in classroom incivility, a disposition for specific subtypes may differ based on the specific temperament characteristics of adolescents.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".