Emotion Recognition and Perceived Social Support in Young People Who Offend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young people who offend appear stuck in a cycle of adverse experiences, low levels of social support and emotional skill deficits. Yet these factors have not been extensively researched with young people who offend. The current study aimed to develop the understanding of emotion recognition ability and perceived social support in young people who offend and to explore the relationship between these variables. A total of 50 young people who offend were recruited through three Youth Offending Teams and 50 age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and academically matched young people without a known offending history were recruited from a college and youth service in the same geographical area. All participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, a Facial Emotion Recognition Task, a Verbal Emotional Prosody Recognition Task and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Failing to support the hypotheses, statistical analyses failed to show that, relative to the controls, young people who offend had significantly higher levels of alexithymia, lower levels of perceived social support or lower ability to recognise others’ emotions. However, relative to the controls, young people who offend did show significantly lower ability to recognise fear through verbal prosody. Of particular interest, looked after status, which was more commonly reported among young people who offend (38%) than controls (4%), was the predominant factor associated with all outcome variables. Thus looked after status, rather than offending status in isolation, is more associated with difficulties in identifying and describing feelings, ability to recognise others’ emotions and levels of perceived social support. In addition, significant correlations were found between (1) alexithymia and perceived social support, (2) the ability to recognise others’ emotions and perceived social support and (3) the ability to recognise emotions from facial expressions and verbal prosody. Theoretical and clinical implications of the study findings are discussed and areas for future research are suggested.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".