Sustained Reductions in Children's Risk Taking from Peer-Communicated Behavioral Safety Norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This research examined whether the positive effects of a peer-communicated social norm that reduces risk-taking behaviors persist over time and if a reminder of this peer-communicated safety message has any impact on this outcome. METHODS: Positive mood in 7- to 9-year olds was induced experimentally and risk taking intentions and behaviors were measured when the child was in a positive and neutral mood state and after they had been exposed to either a safety or neutral peer-communicated social norm message. A few weeks later, half of the participants who experienced the safety social norm message were exposed to a reminder of this message via a slogan and risk-taking measures were taken again when in a heightened positive mood state. RESULTS: Exposure to a safety norm successfully counteracted the increase in risk taking associated with a positive mood state. These effects persisted for several weeks regardless of whether the children were exposed to a reminder. CONCLUSION: Manipulating peer social norms holds promise as an approach to produce reductions in children's risk taking and these effects persist at least over several weeks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".