It takes two: examining the dynamic nature of cooperative behavior in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperating with those around us is an important facet of functioning in modern-day society. Forming successful cooperative relationships requires trust, reciprocity, and other interpersonal skills that continue to develop during adolescence. This study examined the dynamic nature of how trust is formed and broken among 248 adolescents (Males = 110, M Age = 15.1 years) throughout an iterative cooperative task (i.e., the Trust Game) and the interindividual differences that alter the success of their relationships. In our study, adolescents from the same classroom were anonymously paired and played a 10-trial version of the Trust Game, which examines trust and reciprocity. We found that trust is formed in the first half of the game and decreases as the threat of defection nears in the last trial. As the game progressed, the relationship between trial number and investments on the subsequent trial was mediated by percent return ( ab = −0.09, 95% CI = [−0.15, −0.02]). Importantly, this relationship was moderated by social skills ( p = 0.003) and impulsivity ( p = 0.001), such that increases in either were associated with decreased percent return and investments on future trials. Overall, we found that cooperation is an adaptive behavior which requires trust and reciprocity, and adolescents need to exhibit both of these behaviors to have fruitful interactions. These findings suggest that interventions to help students think about their partner’s perspective and stress the longer-term nature of interactions with peers would foster successful cooperation in social situations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".