Competitive goal orientations, friendship quality, and friendship stability in gifted and nongifted adolescent friendships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the friendships between gifted and regular adolescents to determine if competition was related to the quality and stability of their friendship. Sullivan (1953) had predicted that competition harmed friendship, but this has not been tested empirically. Thirty-eight gifted and 38 regular friendship dyads from grades seven and eight were recruited from two high schools in Quebec and one in Ontario. Competition was defined in terms of competitive goal orientation. Students who competed in order to improve their performance on a task were rated as more task-oriented. Those who competed in order to show superiority over others were rated as more other-referenced. Competitive goal orientation differed for gifted and regular students. Classroom teachers, physical education teachers, and peers rated gifted students as being more task-oriented and regular students as being more other-referenced in their competitive styles across both scholastic and athletic domains. Being more task-oriented was related to having less negative friendship quality (i.e., fewer conflicts), more friendly competition, and for gifted students only, more friendship stability. Conversely, being more other-referenced was related to more negative friendship qualities and, for gifted students only, unstable friendships. Additionally, friends who reported positive friendship qualities at the end of the school year remained friends over the summer more so than friends who reported negative friendship qualities. However, during the school year, when friends saw each other regularly, the quality of their friendship was not related to whether or not they remained friends. Surprisingly, the friendships of regular adolescents had more positive qualities (companionship, help, security, closeness) than the friendships of gifted adolescents. No difference in friendship stability was found between the groups. Practical implications for teachers include avoiding forms
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".