Understanding ironic criticism and empathic praise: The role of emotive communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ironic criticism and empathic praise are forms of social communication that influence the affective states of others in a negative or positive way. In a sample of 76 typically developing children and adolescents (mean age = 11 years; 4 months; SD: 2 years; 8 months), we studied how understanding of emotional expression (facial expression of emotion) and emotive communication (affective theory of mind) was related to the ability to understand negatively valenced ironic criticism and positively valenced empathic praise. We modelled comprehension of irony and empathy in school-aged children in relation to age and understanding of emotional expression and emotive communication. As expected, children showed significantly better understanding of emotional expression than emotive communication, which requires understanding why someone might mask their inner emotions. Meditational analyses showed that emotive communication partially mediated the relation between age and understanding ironic criticism and empathic praise. These findings suggest that the development of understanding irony and empathy over the school-age years is associated with affective attributions or affective theory of mind. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Theory of mind has been found to be related to the developmental understanding of social communication. Correct interpretation of facial emotional cues is also important for interpreting social communication. What does this study add? Affective components (i.e., affective theory of mind) also contribute to the development of social communication. Emotive communication, the ability to modulate one's emotional expression according to social display rules may be predictive of social communication competency.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".