Competitiveness and Individualism-Collectivism in Bali and the U.S.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".