Siblings at home: Moderating influence of sibling presence and composition on the relation between problem behaviors and Theory of Mind in early childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The impact of problem behaviors on children’s ToM skills are not well understood. • Social protective factors at home (e.g., siblings) may clarify these relations. • Children with siblings at home exhibited higher ToM than children without siblings. • In children without siblings, externalizing behaviors negatively predicted ToM. • In children with relatively fewer siblings, externalizing behaviors negatively predicted ToM. • Siblings may have protective utility in context of children’s social cognition. Despite the prevalence of internalizing and externalizing difficulties in children, the impact of these problem behaviors on the development of important social cognitive skills, such as Theory of Mind (ToM), is not well-understood. Indeed, many studies that have explored relations between problem behaviors and ToM report inconsistent findings. A possible reason for these disparities may be a lack of accounting for social protective factors within the home, such as the presence and number of siblings. Here, we explored the moderating influence of sibling presence and number on the relation between problem behaviors (i.e., internalizing and externalizing) and ToM. A total of 184 children (88 boys; M age = 64.6 months, SD = 10.39) completed six well-validated ToM tasks while mothers reported on their children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Children who had siblings living in the same home exhibited higher ToM than children without siblings. In addition, both sibling presence and number of siblings moderated the relation between children’s externalizing behaviors and ToM, such that in children without siblings externalizing behaviors were negatively associated with ToM. In contrast, children with siblings had similar ToM regardless of externalizing behaviors. As well, children with relatively fewer siblings and higher externalizing behaviors displayed lower ToM than children with relatively more siblings and higher externalizing behaviors. We did not detect a moderating effect of sibling presence or number on the relation between internalizing behaviors and ToM. These findings provide support for siblings’ protective utility within the context of children’s social cognition.
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 | 0.001 | 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".