CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN PROSOCIAL AND SELF-EXPRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR WITH FRIENDS AND UNFAMILIAR PEERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine, in Chinese and Canadian\nchildren, how the context (friend, non-friends vs. mixed playmates) interacts with culture to shape the exhibition of prosocial and self-expressive behaviour in children’s peer interactions. Specifically, the three main objectives of this study were to examine (1) whether there were cultural differences in the levels of prosocial and self-expressive behaviour during free play peer interactions, (2) whether the context of peers affected the specific behaviours displayed and (3) whether gender differences existed in prosocial and self-expressive behaviour demonstrated to friends, non-friends and mixed playmates in Chinese and Canadian children. Same-gender quartets of children at 11- years of age\nfrom London, Canada and Beijing, China were observed in laboratory free-play settings. The results revealed a series of main effect and interactions involving gender, culture and context. In general, regarding cultural differences, Chinese children (mainly boys in interactions with mixed playmates and girls in interactions with friend) displayed more prosocial behaviour than Canadian children. Canadian children displayed more self- expressive behaviours than Chinese children, but mainly in interactions with mixed playmates. Regarding gender differences, girls displayed more prosocial and self- expressive behaviour than boys in interactions with friend, whereas boys displayed more prosocial scores than girls in interactions with mixed playmates. The results indicate that multiple contextual and personal factors may be involved in determining individual social behaviour in peer interactions
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".