Promoting Success or Preventing Failure: Cultural Differences in Motivation by Positive and Negative Role Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two studies, cross-cultural differences in reactions to positive and negative role models were examined. The authors predicted that individuals from collectivistic cultures, who have a stronger prevention orientation, would be most motivated by negative role models, who highlight a strategy of avoiding failure; individuals from individualistic cultures, who have a stronger promotion focus, would be most motivated by positive role models, who highlight a strategy of pursuing success. In Study 1, the authors examined participants' reported preferences for positive and negative role models. Asian Canadian participants reported finding negative models more motivating than did European Canadians; self-construals and regulatory focus mediated cultural differences in reactions to role models. In Study 2, the authors examined the impact of role models on the academic motivation of Asian Canadian and European Canadian participants. Asian Canadians were motivated only by a negative model, and European Canadians were motivated only by a positive model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it