Early‐ and later‐developing shyness in children: An investigation of biological and behavioral correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Early theoretical work by Buss (1986a, 1986b) posited that there is an early‐developing fearful shyness that emerges during toddlerhood, and a later‐developing self‐conscious shyness that emerges during early childhood. It has been theorized that early‐developing shyness is related to fear, rooted in inherited biases, and manifests in contexts of social novelty, whereas later‐developing shyness is related to self‐conscious emotions, may result from social ridicule or poor social skills, and manifests in contexts of social exposure. Despite the hypothesized correlates of these shyness subtypes, this theory has not been empirically tested in children. We tested 96 children aged 5 to 10 years old and classified them into three groups: early‐developing shyness (n = 28; MAgeOnset = 2.4 years), later‐developing shyness (n = 19; MAgeOnset = 4.8 years), and non‐shy (n = 49). Findings revealed that children with later‐developing shyness had the highest relative cortisol responses in the context of self‐presentation, highest levels of embarrassment, and lowest social skills relative to the other groups, while children with early‐developing shyness displayed the highest relative resting right frontal brain asymmetry (a neural correlate of fear) relative to the other groups. These preliminary findings provide partial empirical support for the previously theorized correlates and distinction of early‐developing and later‐developing shyness in childhood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".