Sex and contextual effects on children's use of interference competition.

Roy, Rosanne; Benenson, Joyce F.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.306

Cited by 27 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sutter and Rutzler (2010) confirmed that gender differences in competitive behaviors are determined in the early years of life. Roy and Benenson (2002) found that females interfere in competitive interactions only when the resources are very few and limited whilemales are used to this kind of competition. But according to Ericsson et al, (2009) there is no significant difference between boys and girls in demands of competitive environment.The result of present study is consistent with research of Pajares&Kranzle (2002) and Akrami (1999),which test-anxiety is higher in girls than boys.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Self-efficacy, Test Anxiety and Competitiveness between Students of Top Private Schools and Public Schools

Tehrani¹,

Majd²,

Ghamari³

2014

MJSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the self-efficacy, test anxiety and competitiveness in top private 1 (Muris, 2001), to measurethe test anxiety, it was used, Test anxiety inventory (Tai, 1992) and to measure the competitiveness it was used, Winning, mastery and performance questionnaire (Franken, 1994).The results showed that general self-efficacy, test anxiety and competitiveness were higher in TPS students (emotional and academic self-efficacy were higher and there was no significant difference for social self-efficacy). Compare to boys and girls, in terms of competitiveness and self-efficacy; boys earn higher scores and in test anxiety girls had higher grades (in terms of academic and social self-efficacy, there were no significant differences between them but in emotional selfefficacy boys were at a higher level). It can be said that: both strategies and management practices were efficient in selfefficacy, test anxiety and competitiveness of students and also the students are attracted to these schools that have these features more.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Self-efficacy, Test Anxiety and Competitiveness between Students of Top Private Schools and Public Schools

Tehrani¹,

Majd²,

Ghamari³

2014

MJSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimentally, when 10-year-old children played interference and non-interference versions of the same game in groups of four same-sex peers, compared with boys, girls avoided interfering with another's goals [155]. Girls physically removed another child's tokens, only when it was necessary to win a prize, and then they averted their gaze.…”

Section: (I) Avoid Interference Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of human female competition: allies and adversaries

Benenson

2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout their lives, women provide for their own and their children's and grandchildren's needs and thus must minimize their risk of incurring physical harm. Alliances with individuals who will assist them in attaining these goals increase their probability of survival and reproductive success. High status in the community enhances access to physical resources and valuable allies. Kin, a mate, and affines share a mother's genetic interests, whereas unrelated women constitute primary competitors. From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls' competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl's goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

show abstract

“…Females, in contrast, use more indirect and mitigated speech forms in which they attempt to satisfy both their own and another's needs (Leaper, 1991;Sachs, 1987;Sheldon, 1990). In studies of nonverbal behavior, males engage in more direct competition in their play and activities, whereas females are more likely to avoid direct interpersonal competition (DiPietro, 1981;Knight & Kagan, 1981;Lever, 1976Lever, , 1978Roy & Benenson, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Children from grades 3 and 4 were chosen to participate in the study, because a task that generated interpersonal conflict had been developed for use with children this age and could be adapted easily for the current study Roy & Benenson, 2002). Unlike past studies on the influence of group size, in the current study the probability of receiving rewards was identical in the group and dyadic contexts, so that group size effects could not be ascribed to the smaller probability of an individual's receiving a reward in the groups than in the dyads.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Size Regulates Self–Assertive versus Self–Deprecating Responses to Interpersonal Competition

et al. 2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined the hypothesis that group size can influence whether children display self-assertive versus self-deprecating responses to interpersonal competition, especially under stress. Twenty same-sex play-groups (N = 120) of 9- to 10-year-old children played a competitive game in groups and in dyads. Stress was induced by causing some of the children to lose the game and watch as their opponents received psychological and material rewards. Results demonstrated that both the dynamics of the game and individual reactions to stress varied consistently as a function of the social context. Individuals displayed more assertive behaviors in groups than in dyads. In contrast, individuals exhibited more self-deprecating behaviors in dyads than in groups. Given that under naturalistic conditions males are more likely than are females to interact in groups and females are more likely than are males to interact in dyads, group size provides one possible mechanism for the development of sex differences in self-assertive versus self-deprecating behaviors.

show abstract

Sex and contextual effects on children's use of interference competition.

Cited by 27 publications

References 32 publications

Comparison of Self-efficacy, Test Anxiety and Competitiveness between Students of Top Private Schools and Public Schools

Comparison of Self-efficacy, Test Anxiety and Competitiveness between Students of Top Private Schools and Public Schools

The development of human female competition: allies and adversaries

Group Size Regulates Self–Assertive versus Self–Deprecating Responses to Interpersonal Competition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About