Mother– and Father–Child Reminiscing About Past Events Involving Pain, Fear, and Sadness: Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pain in childhood is prevalent and is associated with fear, particularly in the context of injuries or procedural pain, and negative emotions (e.g., sadness). Pain and fear share a bidirectional relationship, wherein fear exacerbates the experience of pain and pain increases subsequent anticipatory fear. The existing research has focused primarily on children's immediate experience of pain and fear. Research on how children remember or talk about past painful, fearful, or sad events is lacking. Parent-child reminiscing about past pain has been demonstrated to differ from reminiscing about other past negative emotional events (i.e., those involving sadness, but not fear). The present study aimed to examine differences in how parent-child dyads reminisce about past pain, fear, and sadness. METHODS: One hundred and three 4-year-old children (55% girls) and their parents (52% fathers) engaged in a narrative elicitation task in which they reminisced about unique past events involving pain, fear, and sadness. Parent-child narratives were coded using established coding schemes based on the developmental psychology literature. RESULTS: Parent-child narratives about pain were characterized by fewer emotion-laden words and explanations, as well as more pain-related words compared to sadness or fearful narratives. Mothers and fathers reminisced with sons and daughters in a similar way across all types of events. CONCLUSIONS: Parent-children reminiscing about past painful events differs from reminiscing about other types of distressing events (e.g., involving sadness or fear). This highlights a possibility of differential socialization of pain versus fear. Potential clinical implications of the findings are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".