Vigilant or avoidant? Children's temperamental shyness, patterns of gaze, and physiology during social threat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Temperamental shyness is characterized by fear, wariness, and the perception of threat in response to social novelty. Previous work has been inconsistent regarding attentional patterns to social threat among shy children, with evidence for both avoidance and vigilance. We examined relations between children's shyness and gaze aversion during the approach of a stranger (i.e., a context of social novelty), and tested whether these patterns of gaze moderated relations between shyness and autonomic reactivity and recovery. Participants included 152 typically‐developing children ( M age = 7.82 years, SD = 0.44 years) who had their respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) recorded during baseline, social novelty, and recovery. Children's shyness correlated with increases in self‐reported nervousness from baseline to social novelty, providing support for perceived threat. Results revealed that children's proportion of gaze aversion from social novelty was related to shyness in a U‐shape pattern such that both low levels of gaze aversion (i.e., attentional vigilance) and high levels of gaze aversion (i.e., attentional avoidance) were related to higher levels of shyness. Further, we found that children's shyness was directly related to decreases in RSA from baseline to social novelty, whereas quadratic gaze to social novelty moderated the relation between shyness and RSA recovery. Specifically, shyness was related to greater RSA recovery among children who exhibited attentional vigilance during the novel social interaction. Our findings provide support for both avoidance of, and vigilance to, social threat among different shy children, and these gaze strategies may be differentially related to physiological regulation during novel social encounters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".