Children's Resource Acquisition Behaviors in the Situation of Potential Conflict: A Cross-cultural Study of Chinese and Canadian 7 Years Old Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resources are usually limited, how can children acquire resources successfully and avoid conflict with their peer in peer interaction is an interesting and important topic in developmental psychology. It's a pity that there is little research on children's resource acquisition in either China or other countries. Cross-cultural research is even less. In the present study, we attempted to investigate resource acquisition behaviors of 7-year-old children, and compare the differences between Chinese and Canadian children on these behaviors. One hundred and sixty Chinese children and one hundred and thirty three Canadian children took part in this study. At 7 years old, 4 children who were not familiar with each other were invited to the laboratory, and the child's resource acquisition behaviors were observed as they played with a single novel toy. Statistical analyses revealed the following results:(1) Chinese children exhibited more adult seeking and spontaneous giving behaviors than Canadian children. The percentages of unsuccessful resource acquisition behaviors and resource acquisition for self of Canadian children were significantly higher than Chinese children.(2) Boys exhibited more assertive behaviors and turn taking rule behaviors than girls, and girls exhibited more spontaneous giving, leadership/organization and resource acquisition for others than boys.(3) Turn taking rule was an important non-strategy resource acquisition method.(4) Chinese children exhibited more leadership/ organization than Canadian children in group level.(5) Assertive behavior and turn taking rule were all effective resource acquisition method but not for polite verbal request.(7) Adult seeking was an effective method for Chinese boys, but not for girls and Canadian children.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".