Caregivers’ Grit Moderates the Relationship Between Children’s Executive Function and Aggression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown that the impairment of executive function is positively related to aggression in children and adolescents. What is worth investigating is the moderator of such a relationship so that aggressive behavior can be reduced effectively in those who have executive function problems. The present study examined the association between executive function and two major subtypes of aggression (proactive and reactive aggression) and whether their caregivers' grit (perseverance) moderated such relationship. METHOD: Executive function and reactive and proactive aggression were assessed in 254 children and adolescents aged 8-19 years old, and their caregivers' grit was measured. RESULTS: Results show that caregivers' grit plays a significant role in moderating the relationship between children's executive function and proactive aggression after controlling for the covariates including the children's age, gender, and family income. Specifically, children's executive function became more negatively associated with proactive aggression when caregivers' grit was high while the association was positive when it was low. On the other hand, the association between children's executive function and reactive aggression did not vary across different levels of caregivers' grit. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that proactive aggression may be reduced in those who have better executive function by enhancing their caregivers' grit, which inform the design of interventions in adjunct with the current approach (e.g., executive function training) to reduce aggression in children and adolescents in the community.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".