Metamotivational Beliefs in Middle Childhood: Evaluating Children's Understanding of Task‐Motivation Fit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Self‐regulation—the monitoring and control of thoughts, feelings, and behavior—plays a central role in guiding healthy social development. While the bulk of the literature examining children's self‐regulation has focused on how much or how well children can regulate specific cognitive functions or behaviors (e.g., emotion control, delay of gratification), recent adult research demonstrates the role of metamotivation—the monitoring and control of motivational states—in self‐regulation. Metamotivation is guided by metamotivational beliefs, including beliefs about which motivational state best fits the task at hand (beliefs about task‐motivation fit). Research with adults demonstrates that having normatively accurate beliefs about task‐motivation fit supports both individual achievement and social/occupational success. However, research has yet to investigate children's metamotivational beliefs. The current research addresses this gap by assessing children's beliefs about task‐motivation fit. In Study 1, participants in middle childhood (N = 66; Mage = 7.7 years) rated how well they would expect to perform on expansive‐eager tasks (tasks optimally performed with eagerness or expansion) and contractive‐vigilant tasks (tasks optimally performed with vigilance or contraction) with eagerness (vs. vigilance) and expansion (vs. contraction). Study 2 was a direct replication of Study 1 with adult participants (N = 210; Mage = 39.3 years). Across both studies, participants had a general preference for vigilance over eagerness. While both children and adults reported some normatively accurate metamotivational beliefs about task‐motivation fit, adults demonstrated these normatively accurate beliefs to a greater extent. These findings are discussed in terms of the importance of incorporating metamotivational beliefs into developmental models of self‐regulation with the goal of supporting positive socialization and social developmental outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".