Fast and friendly: The role of vocal cues in adolescents' responses to and perceptions of peer provocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adolescents self‐report using different strategies to respond to peer provocation. However, we have a limited understanding of how these responses are behaviorally enacted and perceived by peers. This study examined the extent to which adolescents' self‐reported responses to peer provocation (i.e., aggressive, assertive, and withdrawn) predicted how their vocal enactments of standardized responses to peer provocation were perceived by other adolescents. Three vocal cues relevant to the communication of emotional intent—average pitch, average intensity, and speech rate—were explored as moderators of these associations. Adolescent speakers ( n = 39; M age = 12.67; 66.7% girls) completed a self‐report measure of how they would choose to respond to scenarios involving peer provocation; they also enacted standardized vocal responses to hypothetical peer provocation scenarios. Recordings of speakers' vocal responses were presented to a separate sample of adolescent listeners ( n = 129; M age = 12.12; 52.7% girls) in an online listening task. Speakers who self‐reported greater use of assertive response strategies enacted standardized vocal responses that were rated as significantly friendlier by listeners. Vocal responses enacted with faster speech rates were also rated as significantly friendlier by listeners. Speakers' self‐reported use of aggression and withdrawal was not significantly related to listeners' ratings of their standardized vocal responses. These findings suggest that adolescents may be perceived differently by their peers depending on the way in which their response is enacted; specifically, faster speech rate may be perceived as friendlier and thus de‐escalate peer conflict. Future studies should consider not only what youth say and/or do when responding to peer provocation but also how they say it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".