Shyness and empathy in early childhood: Examining links between feelings of empathy and empathetic behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although shy children have been described as less empathetic than their more sociable peers, this may be due to a performance rather than a competence deficit. The aim of this study was to explore the moderating role of shyness in the association between empathic feelings and empathic‐related reactions. Participants were 212 preschoolers ( M age = 58.32 months, SD = 10.72). Children provided self‐reports of empathetic feelings, parents rated child shyness and empathic behaviours (e.g., reparative behaviours), and teachers assessed indices of socio‐emotional functioning (e.g., prosocial behaviours). Results revealed interaction effects between empathic feelings and shyness in the prediction of outcome variables. Among children with lower levels of shyness, empathy rated by children was positively related to empathetic and reparative behaviours (rated by parents) and prosocial behaviours (rated by teachers). At higher levels of shyness, these relations were attenuated. These results can be interpreted to suggest that although shy children may not differ from their more sociable counterparts in experiencing empathy, they seem to be less likely to act empathically.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".