Exploring the effects of prosocial behaviour priming on preschooler's accent comprehension, selective word learning, and preferences towards unfamiliar accented speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preschoolers prefer prosocial individuals and members of their language in-group. In adults, priming positive vs. negative facts about an out-group impacts listeners’ perception of their accent. In a synchronous, online study, 4–6-year-olds were introduced to a novel social group that spoke with an unfamiliar accent. In a between subject’s design, participants heard either prosocial, antisocial, or neutral facts about the group. Participant’s accent comprehension, selective learning, and affiliation preferences were assessed. Preliminary analyses (N=39) suggest that exposure to antisocial information was associated with greater accent comprehension than neutral and prosocial information, that both prosocial and antisocial information were associated with greater selective learning than neutral, and that preschoolers preferred prosocial and neutral individuals over antisocial ones. This suggests that how preschoolers think about groups and process their speech can be influenced by the information they receive about them, which has implications for how representations of groups can impact communication.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".