The socializing role of logical consequences, mild punishments, and reasoning in rule‐breaking contexts involving multifaceted issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Experimental studies focusing on the socialization role of parental authority exertion in persistent rule‐breaking contexts involving non‐personal issues have recently shown the advantages of using logical consequences over alternative strategies (mild punishments, reasoning, and no‐authority). Using an experimental vignette approach and a sample of 214 adolescents (Mage = 15.28 years), the present study extended these findings by comparing the same parental interventions in a rule‐breaking setting involving a multifaceted issue. Specifically, and based on research anchored in social domain theory, we evaluated how adolescents' perceptions of the issue underlying the multifaceted transgression (personal vs. non‐personal) moderated the effects of authority exertion strategies on socialization indicators. When adolescents perceived the transgression as a non‐personal issue, past results were replicated and enhanced. Adolescents rated the logical consequence as at least as effective as the mild punishment to prevent future transgressions (i.e., more so than reasoning and no‐authority) and as the most acceptable strategy. Furthermore, contrary to the mild punishment, they did not perceive the logical consequence as more autonomy‐thwarting than reasoning. In contrast, adolescents who categorized the transgression as a personal matter rated the logical consequence less favorably, leaving reasoning as a preferred form of intervention. Implications for optimal parenting are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".