Co-constructing the Past: Examining Mother- and Father-Child Narratives About Past Events Involving Pain versus Sadness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Parent-child reminiscing about past events creates an influential sociolinguistic context within which children’s development occurs. Parents differ dramatically in their reminiscing styles, whereas some parents are highly elaborative (i.e., they use open-ended detailed questions) and focus on talking about emotions, other parents are repetitive and emphasize factual information. Elaborative reminiscing has been linked to more optimal developmental outcomes. No studies have examined how parent-children reminiscing about past pain compares to other stressful experiences (i.e., sadness, fear), and how parent-children reminiscing about past pain might be linked to children’s socio-emotional skills. This study was the first to examine the association between parent-child reminiscing about past pain and children’s prosocial acts to pain-related distress in others as well as overall children’s socio-emotional functioning. Methods. One hundred and sixteen 4-year old children (54% girls) and their parents (49% mothers) completed a structured narrative elicitation task wherein they reminisced about a unique past event involving pain, fear, and sadness. Children then witnessed a confederate pretending to be in pain (i.e., hurt fingers and a knee). Children’s prosocial responses and parent-child narratives about past pain were coded using established coding schemes based on the developmental psychology literature. Results. Parent-children narratives about pain were characterized by less emotion-laden and more coping and pain-related words as compared to sadness or fearful narratives. Parents, who used open-ended questions, provided new information, and talked about emotions and coping when talking about past events involving pain, had children who exhibited more prosocial acts and concern in response to other’s pain and had higher parent-reported levels of empathy. Discussion. Parent-children reminiscing about past pain differs from reminiscing about other types of distressing events (e.g., involving sadness or fear) and is linked to children’s socio-emotional skills. This highlights a possibility of differential socialization of pain. Parent-child reminiscing is amenable to intervention and offers a promising avenue for pediatric pain management interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".