The Influence of Competition on Resource Allocation in Preschool Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To examine how competition influences resource allocation in 4‐ to 6‐year‐olds, children were assigned to one of two conditions. In the experimental condition children colored a picture for a coloring contest whereas in the control condition they colored a picture to decorate a wall. Subsequently, all children participated in a resource allocation task with another child who was introduced as another participant in the coloring contest or who would also be coloring a picture for the wall. Finally, children were asked how many crayons (out of eight) they wanted to provide to the other child. In the resource allocation task, children made decisions about how to allocate stickers to self and other across four trial types: cost and no cost variations of both advantageous and disadvantageous inequality trials. Children were less prosocial in the experimental condition than in the control condition but only in disadvantageous inequality trials involving a cost. Children in the experimental condition withheld more crayons compared to children in the control condition. These results suggest that competition not only decreases prosocial behavior directly linked to the competition but also decreases generosity when provided with an unrelated resource allocation opportunity.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".