Children and Adults Consider Others' Resources When Inferring Their Emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount of resources someone has can influence their emotional responses to events. Two preregistered experiments investigated whether adults and children consider others' resource quantities when inferring their emotions. Sixty adults (Experiment 1) and 135 8-10-year-olds (Experiment 2) saw stories about people wanting an item but differing in the number of items they have enough money to buy (ranging from 1 to 5). Participants rated how these people felt both when buying the item and when losing it. Both adults and children judged that the fewer resources someone has, the sadder they felt when the item was lost, and the bigger emotional change they experienced (relative to when buying the item). Adults also judged that the impact of resource scarcity on emotion was most significant when the person had depleted all their resources, as opposed to still retaining some to influence the negative outcome, and this pattern is emerging in children. These findings suggest that even when the same negative event occurs, adults and children as young as 8 consider others' available resources when inferring their emotional responses to the event.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".