The role of self-concept in cross-cultural communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical evidence supports the notion that communication behaviors in intercultural encounters are effectively extensions of cultural values as well as epistemologies. Study 1 established communication behaviors of Asians and New Zealanders (NZs) as consistent with vertical collectivism and horizontal individualism, respectively. In particular, argumentativeness is positively related to independent self-construal (SC) and negatively related to interdependent SC. This supports Markus and Kitayama’s SC theory. Study 2 showed that NZs exhibited more idiocentric and argumentative behavior, while Asians displayed more sociocentric and less argumentative behavior during two actual interactions; specifically, participants diverged in their communication styles to be more consistent with their cultural values during intercultural interactions. Analyses of decision outcomes provide support that culture moderates cognitive consistency behaviors such that NZs exhibited more inconsistency-reduction behaviors, which is rooted in adherence to noncontradiction. In contrast, Asians exhibited more inconsistency-support behaviors, suggesting that naive dialecticism rooted in acceptance of contradiction is customary in Asian social interaction.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".