Shy children's understanding of irony: Better comprehension does not always mean better socioemotional functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Childhood shyness is a risk factor for negative socioemotional outcomes including loneliness and depression. Childhood shyness has also been found to relate to various aspects of pragmatic language. For instance, shyer children rate ironic criticisms (i.e., where a speaker's intended meaning is the opposite of what is literally said) as meaner than do less shy children. This study examined whether relations between shyness and socioemotional functioning (i.e., loneliness, depression, and peer experiences) in children (9–12 years old; N = 169) were moderated by irony comprehension ability. Using a series of vignettes and self‐report measures, it was found that shyer children with better irony comprehension skill reported increased loneliness and depression symptoms, as well as fewer prosocial experiences with peers. Similarly, for girls, better comprehension strengthened the relationship between shyness and peer victimization. In contrast, for shy boys, better irony comprehension was associated with a reduction in peer victimization. Thus, for certain vulnerable populations, having better sociocommunicative skills may not be advantageous. Highlights The present work examined whether relations between children's reported shyness and socioemotional functioning were moderated by irony comprehension. Children viewed comic strips of characters interacting and completed measures of shyness, loneliness, depression, and peer victimization. Shy children with better irony comprehension reported increased loneliness and depression. Having greater insight into communicative intentions for others may allow shy children to recognize social shortcomings. For certain vulnerable populations, having better sociocommunicative skills may not be advantageous.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".