Competitiveness and Individualism-Collectivism in Bali and the U.S.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Competitiveness is an important personality characteristic that influences behavior across an array of social environments. While researchers have explored competitive behavior in several social contexts, including sports (Gill & Deeter, 1988; Houston, Carter, & Smither, 1997), work (Helmreich, Swain, & Carsud, 1986), and school (Griffin-Pierson, 1990), relatively little research has focused on cross-cultural aspects of competitiveness. This study investigated the relationship between different aspects of competitiveness and collectivism-individualism in Bali and the U.S. Research on competitiveness spans more than a century, beginning with the work of Triplett (1897) on competitive efforts in sports. Later, the neo-Freudian Karen Horney (1937) stressed the unhealthy aspect of extreme competitiveness by linking to neurosis. According to Horney (1937) hypercompetitiveness represents an indiscriminant need for individuals to compete at any cost in order to maintain or increase feelings of self-worth. Following a different theoretical framework based on achievement motivation research, Helmreich and Spence (1978) defined competitiveness in more general terms as the desire to win against others. Accordingly, general competitiveness is a potentially adaptive trait across a range of occupational domains, including business, law, and sports (Houston, Carter, & Smither, 1997). However, in contexts involving cooperative activities, such as driving, general competitiveness can be socially dysfunctional (Houston, Harris, & Norman, 2003). More recently, Ryckman, Hammer, Kaczor, and Gold (1996) argue that competitive attitudes that focus on self-discovery and personal development represent a psychologically healthy form of competitiveness. Consequently, three aspects of competitiveness have emerged: general competitiveness, hypercompetitiveness , and healthy competitiveness. While all three forms of competitiveness involve a common desire to succeed on social tasks requiring skill and effort, the underlying motivation for engaging in competitive behavior differs in important ways. Individuals high in general competitiveness express positive attitudes towards competition and enjoy competing against others (Smither & Houston, 1992). However, the attraction of competing with others may be linked to psychologically healthy or unhealthy factors. Thus, Houston, Mclntire, Kinnie, and Terry (2002) found that general competitiveness is positively related to both healthy competitiveness and hypercompetitiveness. In contrast, individuals high in hypercompetitiveness view competition as a way to increase feelings of power, self-worth, and superiority. While opponents in competition are often seen as enemies, people who quit competition are viewed as weak. These attitudes towards competition are linked to distinctly unhealthy psychological traits including hostility (Houston et al., 2003), low self-esteem and high levels of neuroticism (Ryckman et al, 1996). Finally, individuals high in healthy competitiveness view competition as an opportunity for personal development and growth. Since these individuals are not motivated to win at other people's expense, other competitors are seen as instrumental in the self-improvement process. These views on competition are associated with higher psychological health and self-esteem and lower neuroticism and aggressiveness. Over the last twenty years researchers have examined the relationship between competitiveness and culture from a number of perspectives. In a study of work attitudes and rates of economic growth in 43 countries Lynn (1991) found that general competitiveness is positively related to economic growth. Lynn (1993) also investigated sex differences in general competitiveness in university students in 20 countries and found that men scored significantly higher than women in 10 countries, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».