Self‐ and other‐evaluative moral emotions in prosocial contexts: A comparison of Chinese and Canadian adolescents
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
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it