Children's Acquisition of Values within the Fmily: Domains of Socialization Assessed with Autobiographical Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transmission and internalization of values are the primary processes that occur during socialization. A recent approach integrates existing theories and research findings into a comprehensive model of socialization. According to the domains of socialization approach, there is no general principle governing socialization but rather it occurs in different domains of caregiver-child interactions. Grusec and Davidov (2010) outlined five socialization domains, which involve controlling children’s behaviour by external means (control domain), protecting children from harm and relieving their distress (protection domain), teaching children information or skills outside of the discipline or distress setting (guided-learning domain), managing children’s environment to increase desirable role models (group participation domain), and accommodating each other’s wishes (mutual reciprocity domain). Previous work demonstrated the utility of the domains of socialization approach for the study and understanding of value acquisition (Vinik, Johnston, Grusec, & Farrell, 2013). The present study expanded on this work by focusing on processes within the family. A modified narrative methodology was used to explore aspects of the value acquisition process. Autobiographical narratives of 294 emerging adults about a time they learned an important value from a caregiver were analyzed. The sample included participants from four ethnic backgrounds. Findings provided further support for the usefulness of the domains of socialization approach to the study of value development, as events recalled in narratives were categorized into all domains but reciprocity. Values learned in the control domain were most frequently reported but were associated with the lowest levels of internalization. The highest level of value internalization was found to occur in the group participation domain, drawing attention to the importance of observing the behaviour of others. Socialization domains were associated with particular types of lesson content. The guided learning and group participation domains were associated with more positive and less negative emotional valence compared to the other domains. In turn, absence of negative valence was significantly related to better confidence in accuracy of memory reported in narratives, indicative of quality of information processing and learning. Most effects were not moderated by demographic variables providing support to the universal applicability of the domains of socialization approach.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".