Conflict resolution strategies of children with depressive symptomalology in hypothetical and observational peer conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with depressive symptomatology are at a higher risk for experiencing social functioning difficulties (Stark et al., 1996). The research reviewed suggests a connection between type of social problem-solving strategies employed by children and levels of depressive symptomatology. Participants were grade four, five, and six students (n = 315), who were divided into a depressive symptomatology (DS) group (n = 57) and a nondepressed (NONDEP) group (n = 57). Using Felner, Lease, and Phillips' (1990) quadripartite model of social competence as a theoretical guide, the present study was conducted to compare children with and without depressive symptomatology on: (a) strategies and goals as assessed in hypothetical conflict situations; (b) types of conflict resolution strategies employed in observed conflict situations; (c) peer rated social behaviours (aggressive, isolated, sociable); (d) self-perceptions of social conflict resolution efficacy; and (e) strategies and goals as assessed in both hypothetical and actual conflict situations by gender. Results indicated that the two groups differed on the types of conflict resolution strategies but not conflict goals chosen in hypothetical situations. The two groups did not differ in the amount of solutions generated to conflict situations, but in the type of solutions, and in the effectiveness of solutions generated. In observed dyadic exchanges, the DS group employed more destructive strategies than the NONDEP group. Boys and girls differed in the types of strategies and goals chosen in response to hypothetical conflict. Significant interactions between DS group and gender emerged. Implications for assessment and interventions are discussed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".