Self‐ and other‐evaluative moral emotions in prosocial contexts: A comparison of Chinese and Canadian adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated adolescents' self- and other-evaluative moral emotions in prosocial contexts across cultures (Chinese and Canadian). The sample consisted of 341 adolescents from three age groups: early adolescents (Grade 7-8), middle adolescents (Grade 10-11), and late adolescents (1st-2nd-year university). Approximately equal numbers of participants were recruited across genders, age groups, and cultures. Participants were presented eight different scenarios depicting the self or others in prosocial contexts. Moral emotions were assessed following each scenario by asking participants to rate the intensity of both self-evaluative (pride, satisfaction, guilt, and shame) and other-evaluative (admiration, respect, anger, and contempt) moral emotions. The results indicated that Chinese early adolescents rated more intense other-evaluative emotions than the same age group in Canada. Chinese middle and late adolescents rated less intense self-evaluative emotions than the same age groups in Canada. Overall, the results revealed both cultural differences and similarities in self- and other-evaluative moral emotions. The present study also suggests a cross-cultural investigation of moral emotion from a developmental perspective.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".