Portrayals of Pain in Children's Popular Media: Mothers' and Fathers' Beliefs and Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that children's popular media may model maladaptive and distorted experiences of pain to young children. In a recent study, pain depicted in popular media targeting 4-6-year-olds was frequently and unrealistically portrayed, evoked little response or empathy from observing characters, and perpetuated unhelpful gender stereotypes. Parents play a critical role in both children's pain experiences and children's media consumption. Yet, no study to date has examined parents' beliefs and attitudes regarding how pain is portrayed in media for young children. The present study aimed to fill this gap by examining how parents perceive and appraise painful instances depicted in children's popular media. Sixty parents (48% fathers) of children aged 4 to 6 years completed a semi-structured interview to assess their general beliefs and attitudes toward how pain is portrayed in children's media. Inductive reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to identify and analyze key patterns in the data. Qualitative analyses generated two major themes representing parental beliefs regarding pain that is portrayed in children's media: "entertaining pain" and "valuable lessons". Findings reveal that parents believe that pain portrayed in popular media serves either a function of entertaining and amusing children or can provide valuable lessons about appropriate emotional responses and empathic reactions. Further, pain portrayals could also instill valuable lessons and provide children with a point of reference and language for their own painful experiences. Parents serve as a primary socialization agent for young children; thus, it is important that parents remain aware of underlying messages about how pain is portrayed in children's popular media so that they can optimally discuss these portrayals, promote their children's pain education and understanding and positively impact future pain experiences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".