Cross-Cultural Differences in Competition Among Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature and levels of competition in which children and adolescents engage have important social and educational consequences and may be linked to their social competence and interpersonal relations. In the social-psychological literature, competition is typically viewed as producing negative outcomes at both the individual and group levels (e.g., Sparkes, 1991; Thomas, 1978; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Competition, as either a goal or behavior, is frequently portrayed as detrimental to group cohesion and as negatively affecting friendships and other relations. However, it is often viewed, with some reluctance, as also necessary for individual achievement and success (e.g., Domino, 1992, 2000; Thomas, 1978). Cooperation, on the other hand, is described as necessary for the maintenance of friendships and for the successful attainment of group goals (e.g., Foster, 1984; Gelb & Jacobsen, 1988; Thomas, 1978). In some cultures, however, competition is considered by some to be an essential part of a child's development and necessary for the acquisition of a variety of social skills (LeTendre, 1996; Richard et al., 2002). This chapter begins with a selective examination of contemporary definitions of competition. Recently, more complex views of competition and cooperation have emerged that consider the terms as existing on a variety of levels that are context-specific, interwoven with cognitive and biological factors, and culturally mediated. These definitions will be introduced later and may eventually help revise the image of competition as either totally evil or healthy and also add nuance to the characterization of cultures as either competitive or noncompetitive.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".