Flirting with resistance: children’s expressions of autonomy during middle childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Developmental research suggests that children's early non-compliance can be understood as "resistance", an agentic response to parental control where children express their autonomy within a close relationship context. Research with toddlers and adolescents suggests that children's resistance strategies can be differentiated using the dimensions of assertiveness, social skill, and overt versus covert expression. This study explores children's strategies for expressing resistance during the neglected period of middle childhood. METHOD: Forty children, 9-13 years of age, participated for 1 week in a study focused on children's experiences of socialization and parent-child relationships. Procedures included a 5-day event diary, and a 1-hour semi-structured interview about the rules and expectations in their home and their strategies of resistance. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified a rich repertoire of strategies for resisting unwelcome parental demands. These included overt resistance, such as negotiation, argument, and expressions of non-acceptance and covert resistance such as covert transgressions and cognitive non-acceptance of parental demands when compelled to comply. CONCLUSION: The findings were interpreted as reflecting children's development of assertiveness and social skill as they expressed their autonomy in the interpersonal context of the interdependent but asymmetrical relationship with their parents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".