MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2132150668

Is Equality Perceived as a Solution to Societal Problems

2013· article· en· W2132150668 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Matthew Montoya, Mu-Qing Huang, Bridget P. Lynch, Cassondra M. Faiella

Notice bibliographique

RevueNorth American journal of psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCultural Differences and Values
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIndividualismCollectivismHofstede's cultural dimensions theorySocial psychologyIndividualistic cultureSociologyValue (mathematics)Horizontal and verticalWorld Values SurveyEgalitarianismConformityPsychologyGender studiesPositive economicsPolitical scienceLawPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Do individualists and collectivists agree that equality is the answer to society's problems? Would they also agree that equality between individuals is just as important as equality between groups? The virtues and benefits of equality have long been known to researchers (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pittinsky & Montoya, 2009) and social issue advocates (e.g., Carrier, 1999; White, 2007). However, it may be that the populaces from different cultural orientations do not hold such values or differ in the degree to which they value equality (Hofstede, 1980) and the extent to which equality is seen as important in a functioning society (Kim, 1994). In this research, we explored cross-cultural views on equality and the degree to which equality was viewed as beneficial for society. Research has made a distinction between individualistic and collectivistic societies. According to Hofstede (1991), individualistic societies are defined by their orientation toward the individual as a unique entity with loose connections to the group. Individualists base their identity on autonomy and personal accomplishment (Hofstede, 1980), and tend to be found in Western cultures (e.g., Canada, United Kingdom, United States; Hofstede, 2001). Distinctions within individualistic cultures provide a clearer picture of the values held by such societies, as individualistic cultures can be categorized by their vertical versus horizontal orientations. In vertical, individualist societies (e.g., United States, Canada, United Kingdom), individuals focus on improving their social status via competition and achievement. In contrast, in horizontal, individualist societies (e.g., Sweden, Australia), individuals are oriented toward perceiving themselves as equal to others. In such societies, rather than being motivated by competition, individuals are concerned with their ability to be self-reliant (Triandis & Singelis, 1998). Alternatively, collectivism stresses an individual's place in a structured relational network and the interpersonal bonds within that network. Such societies are marked by an orientation toward the in-group in which group members share common goals and values with other group members (Oyserman, 1993; Schwartz, 1990; Triandis, 1995). Collectivistic cultures tend to be found in Eastern countries (e.g., China, Japan, South Korea; Hofstede, 2001). In support of this distinction, research has found that collectivistic cultures depict in-groups as a complex network of interrelated individual members (Ho, 1993; Hwang, 1999; Lebra, 1976), whereas individualistic cultures emphasize the group's depersonalized nature (Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994). As with individualists, collectivists can be understood based on their horizontal, versus vertical orientations. In a vertical collectivist society (e.g., China, Japan), individuals focus on the preeminence of collective interests relative to the costs of personal interests. Chen, Meindl, and Hui (1998), for example, found that individuals with a vertical collectivist orientation selected allocation systems that adversely affected themselves, but only did so if it supported group interests. In contrast, in horizontal, collectivist societies (e.g., Israeli kibbutz), individuals emphasize an interdependence with other ingroup members and orient toward equality with other in-group members (Erez & Earley, 1987). In line with this, Chen et al. (1998) found that those with a horizontal-collectivistic orientation in China preferred a reward system that created interpersonal interdependence. Is Equality Good for Society? Collectivists. The aforementioned cultural differences point to the notion that some cultures may value equality more than others. Research notes that collectivists emphasize equality (equal output for each individual regardless of any individual's input) with in-group members, but emphasize equity (outputs are proportional to inputs) in dealings with out-group members. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,506
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,113
Tête enseignante GPT0,425
Écart entre enseignants0,312 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations14
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNorth American journal of psychologyMême sujetCultural Differences and ValuesTravaux en français237 207