A dyadic analysis of power in sibling and friend conflict in early childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Power processes in siblings' and friends' conflict interactions are of significance for children's development and socialization. This study conducted a comparative analysis of power behaviours (resources and effectiveness) utilized by dyadic partners in sibling and friend conflict during early childhood when focal children were aged 4. The sample consisted of 65 families and included 347 sibling conflict sequences and 326 friend conflict sequences. Data based upon naturalistic observations were coded for resources of power and power effectiveness. Patterns of findings were identified in the conflict process. Specifically, dyads used simple demands most often, followed by coercive, then elaborated information, and finally questioning power. Despite similarities, sibling dyads used coercive power and negative reward power more often than friends. Regarding power effectiveness, sibling and friend dyads were most effective using coercive power, followed by elaborated, and then questioning power. These findings provide strong support for the importance of taking the dyadic relationship context into account when studying the power process in children's interactions. Highlights How does siblings' and friends' dyadic use of power resources and effectiveness differ in the process and outcome of conflict in early childhood? Data were based upon naturalistic observations of conflict, and findings provide strong support for dyadic analyses when studying the power process in siblings and friends interactions. The findings provide new and novel insights regarding children's agency in conflict, thus highlighting the contributions of children to their own socialization process.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".