Developmental exposure to the physical and social world and responses to risk among college students from four cultural contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are the psychological implications of developmental exposure to the physical and social environment of one's community, with its threats and rewards? The cultural shaping of enacted autonomy-or self-reliance in an environment that includes real and perceived threats-has largely been overlooked despite historical changes in this domain. Responses to risk are thought to depend on experience-dependent calibration in teens and young adults. It is unknown whether developmental exposure to enacted autonomy is associated with emotional responses to risk in emerging adults. This questionnaire-based study compared college students from four countries thought to differ in developmental exposure of children to their communities (USA, n = 258, Canada, n = 211, Türkiye, n = 163 and Russia, n = 104). Enacted autonomy was assessed via students' retrospective reports of meeting enacted autonomy milestones (e.g., walking to school by themselves) while growing up. Responses to risk were assessed by: (1) a scale measuring perceived safety of the area where students currently live; and (2) descriptions of recent risky events in the students' lives and their emotional reactions to them. Russian students reported meeting enacted autonomy milestones earlier and Canadian students later, with the US and Türkiye in between. Meeting autonomy milestones later in one's childhood was associated with the tendency to perceive one's college-age environment as less safe and experience less intense positive affect in risky situations. It may be important for researchers studying the cultural shaping of emotions and risk to consider the role of exposure to the physical and social world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".