Young children's perceptions and beliefs about hypothetical shy, unsociable, and socially avoidant peers at school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to explore young children's perceptions, beliefs, and anticipated outcomes about different types of social withdrawal (shyness, unsociability, social avoidance). Participants were N = 212 children (n = 110 boys) aged 2.55–6.37 years (M = 4.86, SD = 0.89) recruited from three preschools and kindergartens in Italy. Children were interviewed individually and asked about hypothetical peers displaying different types of social withdrawal (i.e., shy, unsociable, socially avoidant) and for comparison purposes, aggressive and socially competent behaviors were also assessed. Among the three vignettes depicting types of withdrawn children, children rated the hypothetical shy peer as having the highest social motivations, the unsociable peer as receiving the least sympathy from others, and the avoidant peer as being the least intelligent and least liked by the teacher. In addition, girls reported wanting to play more with the shy peer than boys, and kindergarteners reported a higher affiliative preference for all subtypes of socially withdrawn peers than preschoolers. These findings suggest that Italian young children have a quite sophisticated ability to differentiate among the different social motivations and emotions that may underlie social withdrawal.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".