Peer contagion dynamics in the friendships of children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Friendships in middle childhood carry high developmental significance. The majority of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have few friendships, unstable friendships, or poor relationship quality in any friendships they have. The current study used time-window sequential analysis to map the dynamics within the friendships of children with ADHD, specifically the peer contagion processes of dyadic mutuality and coercive joining. METHODS: Participants were 164 dyads consisting of a target child with ADHD and peer problems (age 6-11 years; 68% male; and 73% white) and a reciprocated friend. Dyads were observed in the lab during a cooperative task eliciting verbal negotiation processes to decide how to share a limited resource and during a fast-paced, engrossing, and competitive task. Both tasks were designed to mirror the real-world interactions of friends. Sequences of dyadic mutuality (i.e., reciprocity of positive affect and positive behaviors) and coercive joining (i.e., reciprocity of aggressive, controlling, and rule-breaking behaviors) between target children and friends were coded. RESULTS: Regarding dyadic mutuality, target children reciprocated their friends' positive affect in both tasks. They also reciprocated their friends' positive behaviors but only in the cooperative task. In contrast, they only reciprocated their friends' coercive joining behaviors in the competitive task. Medium to large reciprocity effects was found for 36%-53% (dyadic mutuality) and 38%-55% (coercive joining) of target children. CONCLUSIONS: These results extend findings of peer contagion processes to the friendships of children with ADHD and suggest that contagion may vary according to interaction context (i.e., competition vs. cooperation). Understanding the spread of peer contagion may illuminate how children with ADHD and their friends influence each other's adjustment over time and may guide friendship-focused psychosocial interventions for this population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".