Development of competitive behavior as a function of culture, age, and social comparison.

Abstract

The choice behavior of second-, fourth-, and sixth-grade children from five different cultural backgrounds was observed in the Maximizing Difference Game, an outcome interdependence task where individualistic and cooperative motives were placed in opposition to competitive ones. In four of the cultures, boys received either social comparison feedback or only information concerning their own cumulative scores. As predicted, the level of competitive responding increased as a function of age, social comparison information, and number of trials. Further, there were systematic cultural differences. A newly developed covariation analysis revealed that individual dyad variation accounted for more covariation than the main effects noted above. Hence, several types of withindyad analyses were performed. Finally, cultures were classified in terms of the characteristic play by dyad members and the results compared with a classification developed by Mead, in which she ordered the cooperative, competitive, and individualistic orientations of members of 13 "primitive" societies.A significant part of human action takes place in settings of outcome interdependence, namely, under conditions where the outcomes experienced by two or more actors are simultaneously dependent upon their own and others' behavior. Through experience in

Inspired by Hope, Motivated by Envy: Comparing the Effects of Discrete Emotions in the Process of Social Comparison to Media Figures

“…Yet, emotional arousal alone is less interesting than the role that emotional arousal may play in mediating subsequent behavior. Although the studies described above did not link discussion of emotion to overt behavior, the psychology literature generally does suggest that social comparisons can lead to specific behavioral outcomes in both children (Santrock, Smith, & Bourbeau, 1976;Steinbeis & Singer, 2013;Toda, Shinotsuka, McClintock, & Stech, 1978) and adults (Darley, 1966;Johnson & Stapel, 2007;Karlsson, Garling, Dellgran, & Klingander, 2005;Klein, 2003;Lam, Van der Vegt, Walter, & Huang, 2011;Shipley, 2008;Williams & Geller, 2000). But how, if at all, are behavioral outcomes mediated by discrete emotions evoked through social comparison processes?…”

Cooperation and Competition

“…With increasing age, children learn competitive and cooperative choice rules that serve to maximize their long -term gains when used appropriately in relation to the setting. Learning to forgo one ' s own gain for a cooperative outcome in a setting where long -term individual gain is dependent upon maximizing joint gain begins only at 6 -7 years old (McClintock, Moskowitz, & McClintock, 1977 ;Toda, Shinotsuka, McClintock, & Stech, 1978 ).…”

“…In real -life school settings, preference for competitive learning also increases with age (Graves & Graves, 1984 ;Owens & Barnes, 1982 ). Toda et al (1978) examined Anglo -American, Japanese, Belgian, Greek, and Mexican American children using a game they devised. The age effect was stronger than any cultural effect.…”

Notes toward an Interactionist-Motivational Theory of the Determinants and Development of (Pro)Social Behavior

“…As their motives develop, the manner in which children shape their environment is likely to take different directions or forms. Children who initiate competition receive competitive reactions (Toda et al, 1978), as do adults (Kelly & Stahleski, 1970). Aggression by children induces aggressive responses to them (Rausch, 1965).…”

“…Recent work on how differences in the quality of infants' attachment to the mother relate to their later social experiences and later characteristics is relevant (Sroufe, 1979), although the focus of this work has been more on continuity than on the specification of how individual characteristics and social influence join in affecting development. Children with different characteristics, for example, with differences in their already existing motives or goals, will both process events differently, and by what they do shape their environment and create different experiences for themselves, which in turn affect the further development of their goals (Rausch, 1965;Toda, Shinotsuka, McClintock, & Stech, 1978).…”