The social behaviours of inhibited children in and out of preschool

The goal of the present study was to explore the social behaviours of inhibited children in familiar social contexts, including: (1) free play with peers at preschool and (2) social activities at home and in the community. The initial participants were N =248 preschool children between the ages of 42 and 66 months. From this initial data, two smaller groups of inhibited (N =12) and uninhibited comparison (N =12) children were identified. These children were observed during free play at preschool and parents completed daily logs of children's social activities outside of school. Among the findings, inhibited children were observed to display more reticent (on looking, unoccupied) and anxious behaviours during free play preschool than uninhibited children. As well, inhibited children participated less in structured social activities outside school and were more likely to engage in dyadic play at home with a single friend as compared to their uninhibited counterparts.     

Modeling Serial Arguments in Close Relationships: The Serial Argument Process Model

Though an emerging research area, serial argumentation has yet to be cohesively explored from a theoretical lens. The current project thus extends and updates Trapp and Hoff’s (1985) original serial argument model by explicating and testing a theoretical process an individual goes through immediately before, during, and after a serial argument episode. Specifically, perceived resolvability, serial argument goal importance, conflict tactics, rumination, and motivation to achieve goals are examined across romantic and family relationships in the serial argument process model. The proposed paths emerged generally as predicted and the model fit the data. The serial argument process model thus allows for a preliminary theoretical depiction of a serial argument episode enacted in a variety of close relationship contexts.     

Content in Context Improves Deception Detection Accuracy

Past research has shown that people are only slightly better than chance at distinguishing truths from lies. Higher accuracy rates, however, are possible when contextual knowledge is used to judge the veracity of situated message content. The utility of content in context was shown in a series of experiments with students (N = 26, 45, 51, 25, 127) and experts (N = 66). Across studies, average accuracy was 75% in the content in context groups compared with 57% in the controls. These results demonstrate the importance of situating judges within a meaningful context and have important implications for deception theory.