Development of the forgiveness schema among young children and adolescents: A multinational comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies on the development of forgiveness involved young children and adolescents, and very few involved samples from non-western countries. This study focused on the development of willingness to forgive a particular transgression in participants aged 4 to 12 years and from two different cultures: a South African culture (Mozambique) and a Western European culture (France). Overall, 153 pupils from Mozambique and 107 pupils from France were presented with eight vignettes depicting a situation where a young child, intentionally or accidentally, dropped a small radio that they borrowed from another young child. These vignettes were composed by applying an orthogonal Intent × Consequences × Apologies, 2 × 2 × 2, design. Participants expressed what their willingness to forgive would be in each case on a continuous response scale. Through cluster analysis, four main positions were identified. They were labeled: Almost never forgive (11% of participants), Depends mainly on consequences (22%), Depends mainly on intent and apologies (57%), and Almost always forgive (2%). The first two positions were typical of 4–7-year olds, and the third one was typical of 8–12-year olds. No significant differences in cluster composition were found between the Mozambican and French participants. Up to the age of four, most children probably do not have access to the notion of forgiveness. From the age of four to seven, this notion begins to appear, in particular through a gradual taking into account of circumstantial factors other than the severity of consequences of a transgression. This development is quite rapid—probably during the 7-year period, from 0 to 7 years. From the age of eight onwards, a forgiveness schema similar to that observed in adults is operational. This developmental trajectory is probably very general. It seems to depend little on the type of culture in which it develops.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".