Children's Communicative Decisions Are Influenced by Gender, Shyness, and Peer Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined how school-age children's communicative decisions are influenced by the situation, their social partner, and their own characteristics (gender, shyness levels, and history of peer relationships). Children (8–12 years old, N = 246) imagined themselves in social scenarios (depicted through comics) and indicated the likelihood of using particular communicative options (e.g., truth, lie, sarcasm, or prosocial response). They also completed measures of shyness and past social experiences with peers. Findings revealed gender differences: Boys were more likely to tell the truth when their social partner blundered, and boys demonstrated increased willingness to use sarcasm. Girls, particularly shy girls, reported increased likelihood of responding with prosocial communicative strategies. Children with a history of peer victimization endorsed using more critical comments, whereas those with positive social experiences (particularly girls) reported more prosocial responses. Together the findings provide insight as to how interpersonal and intrapersonal characteristics and contextual factors affect children's communicative choices.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".