Longitudinal patterns of anger reactivity and risk‐taking: The role of peer‐context
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the interplay between children's dispositional anger and susceptibility to peers' influence in increasing children's risk-taking behaviors. Participants in the current study were children from a larger study of temperament and social-emotional development who were followed across 9, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. Dispositional anger was measured using mothers' reports across 9 and 48 months. At 60 months, children played a risk-taking computer game in presence of an unfamiliar peer who watched the child play. The child's risk-taking was assessed during the game as the unfamiliar peers' reactions were coded based on comments that were peer directed, reflective of praising the target child's performance, or object directed, indicative of excitement toward the game. A latent profile analysis revealed three longitudinal anger profiles across infancy to early childhood: high stable, average stable, and low stable anger. Results suggested that as peers' object-directed comments predicted risk-taking independent of children's anger, the association between peer-directed comments and risk-taking was dependent on children's dispositional anger. Specifically, when peers praised the target child's performance, children in the high stable anger profile showed increased risk-taking propensity. Findings are discussed based on the importance of considering both temperamental characteristics and aspects of the peer context in relation to children's risk-taking.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it