Family members' helping behavior: Alliance formations during naturalistic polyadic conflicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study investigated the role of alliances in naturalistic polyadic conflicts, which involved at least three family members, through a comparative analysis of parent–child‐ and sibling‐originated conflicts. Thirty‐nine families with two children (aged 4 and 6 years) were observed in the home setting. Transcripts of six 90‐min observational sessions per family resulted in identifying 306 polyadic family sequences; conflict initiators, topic, and resolution, as well as additional party roles (e.g., ally, judge, additional combatant, and mediator), were coded. Findings reveal that despite all family members being involved in polyadic conflicts, children tended to be initiators, while parents were more involved as additional parties. Alliances occurred more often than the other types of additional party roles. Alliance partnerships were most evident between mothers and fathers in parent–child‐originated conflicts, and mothers were more likely to ally with the younger child in sibling‐originated conflicts. Finally, submission was the most common resolution of polyadic conflicts; however, allies were more likely to win conflicts than to compromise or lose. This study highlights the dynamic nature of family conflict at home and is discussed in terms of links between relationships with family members, as well as informal learning of conflict behaviors. Highlights Conflicts involving three or more family members occurs quite often at home. Alliances are a common role that family members assume in conflict, as they try to achieve a favourable outcome for their side. Children's involvement both as initiators and additional parties highlight their learning of various complex conflict behaviours in childhood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".