Online testing in developmental science: A guide to design and implementation

Crossing the Boundary: No Catastrophic Limits on Infants' Capacity to Represent Linguistic Sequences

The boundary effect, namely the infants' failures to compare small and large numerosities, is well documented in studies using visual stimuli. The prevailing explanation is that the numerical system used to process sets up to 3 is incompatible with the system employed for numbers >3. This study investigates the boundary effect in 10-month-old infants presented with linguistic sequences. In Condition 1 (2 vs. 3), infants can differentiate small syllable sequences (2 vs. 3), with better performance for the 2-syllable sequence, which imposes a lower memory load. Condition 2 (2 vs. 4) revealed that infants are capable of discriminating across bounds, with relatively higher performance for the 4-syllable sequence, possibly encoded as one large ensemble. This study offers evidence that, when processing linguistic sounds, infants flexibly deal with small and large numerical representations with no boundaries or incompatibilities between them. Simultaneously encoding units of different magnitudes might aid early speech processing beyond memory limits.

Conducting Developmental Research Online vs. In-Person: A Meta-Analysis

An increasing number of psychological experiments with children are being conducted using online platforms, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Individual replications have compared the findings of particular experiments online and in-person, but the general effect of data collection method on data collected from children is still unknown. Therefore, the goal of the current meta-analysis is to estimate the average difference in effect size for developmental studies conducted online compared to the same studies conducted in-person. Our pre-registered analysis includes 211 effect sizes calculated from 30 papers with 3282 children, ranging in age from four months to six years. The estimated effect size for studies conducted online was slightly smaller than for their counterparts conducted in-person, a difference of d = -.05, but this difference was not significant, 95% CI = [-.17, .07]. We examined several potential moderators of the effect of online testing, including the role of dependent measure (looking vs verbal), online study method (moderated vs unmoderated), and age, but none of these were significant. The literature to date thus suggests-on average-small differences in results between in-person and online experimentation.

Ostracism modulates children's recognition of emotional facial expressions

Ostracism has been shown to induce considerable physiological, behavioral and cognitive changes in adults. Previous research demonstrated its effects on children's cognitive and behavioral abilities, but less is known about its impact on their capacity to recognize subtle variations in social cues. The present study aimed at investigating whether social manipulations of inclusion and ostracism modulate emotion recognition abilities in children, and whether this modulation varies across childhood. To do so, 5- and 10-year-old children participated in a computer-based ball tossing game called Cyberball during which they were either included or ostracized. Then, they completed a facial emotion recognition task in which they were required to identify neutral facial expressions, or varying levels of intensity of angry and fearful facial expressions. Results indicated lower misidentification rates for children who were previously ostracized as compared to children who were previously included, both at 5 and 10 years of age. Moreover, when looking at children's accuracy and sensitivity to facial expressions, 5-year-olds' decoding abilities were affected by the social manipulation, while no difference between included and ostracized participants was observed for 10-year-olds. In particular, included and ostracized 10-year-old children as well as ostracized 5-year-olds showed higher accuracy and sensitivity for expressions of fear as compared to anger, while no such difference was observed for included 5-year-olds. Overall, the current study presents evidence that Cyberball-induced inclusion and ostracism modulate children's recognition of emotional faces.

Why do we share aggressive online content? Testing a short cycle model

The present study aimed to observe the impacts of aggressive online content exposure and personality on aggressive content sharing, considering the mediating role of positive and negative affects. A total of 302 Brazilians, equally divided into two groups, participated in a social network simulation, being exposed to aggressive (experimental group) or neutral (control group) posts and choosing what they would like to share on this site (among aggressive or nonaggressive material). A factorial MANOVA showed a significant difference for positive and negative affects and aggressive content sharing (Wilks' Λ = 0.936; F[3, 298] = 6.812; p = .001; η²  = 0.064). Through structural equation modeling, an explanatory model was also tested, in which this behavior was directly predicted by aggressive online content exposure and suffered indirect effects from openness, conscientiousness, and extroversion, mediated by positive affects (goodness-of-fit index = 0.997, comparative fit-index = 0.998, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.996, SRMR = 0.028, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.035, CI = 0.003-0.054). It is possible to conclude that the objectives are met, highlighting the contribution to understanding aggressive online behavior through the proximal processes described in the general aggression model.