Father– and Mother–Child Reminiscing About Past Pain and Young Children’s Cognitive Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Painful experiences are common, distressing, and salient in childhood. Parent-child reminiscing about past painful experiences is an untapped opportunity to process pain-related distress and, similar to reminiscing about other distressing experiences, promotes children's broader development. Previous research has documented the role of parent-child reminiscing about past pain in children's pain-related cognitions (i.e., memories for pain), but no study to date has examined the association between parent-child reminiscing about past painful experiences and children's broader cognitive skills. Design and Methods One hundred and ten typically developing four-year-old children and one of their parents reminisced about a past painful autobiographical event. Children then completed two tasks from the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery, the Flanker Inhibitory Control & Attention Test and the Picture Sequence Memory Test, to measure their executive function and episodic memory, respectively. Results Results indicated that the relation between parental reminiscing style and children's executive function was moderated by child sex, such that less frequent parental use of yes-no repetition questions was associated with boys' but not girls', greater performance on the executive function task. Children displayed greater episodic memory performance when their parents reminisced using more explanations. Conclusions The current study demonstrates the key role of parent-child reminiscing about pain in children's broader development and supports the merging of developmental and pediatric psychology fields. Future longitudinal research should examine the directionality of the relation between parent-child reminiscing about past pain and children's developmental outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".