Culture, gender and self–close‐other(s) connectedness in Canadian and Chinese samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Founded upon the theories of Independent–Interdependent Self‐Construal and I–C, the main goal of this study was to test, via an adapted IOS Scale, whether Anglo‐Canadians were more independent than Mainland Chinese in construing their relationship with family members and friends. Strong cultural differences were found in self–family connectedness, but not in self–friends connectedness. Chinese were closer to their family members than Canadians, but Canadians were as close to their friends as Chinese. In both samples, gender difference was found in self–friends connectedness, but not in self–family connectedness. In the Canadian sample, females were closer to their friends than males, while in the Chinese sample, males were closer to their friends than females. In conclusion, this study contributes to the field in three ways. First, the finding that Canadians are as connected as Chinese to their close friends unprecedentedly contests one fundamental assumption of the theories of independent‐interdependent self‐construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991 ) and I–C (Hofstede, 1980 ; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asia & Lucca, 1988 ) that individualists (e.g. Anglo‐Canadians) are more independent than collectivists (e.g. Chinese) on all dimensions of human relations. Second, the proposition (Cross & Madson, 1997 ) that Western males and females differ in the same way individualists and collectivists differ in their self‐construal is not supported. Finally, the adaptation of the IOS Scale proposes a refreshing direction in cross‐cultural research. Graphic representations may be less susceptible to cross‐cultural misconstrual than verbal statements since the former involves little or no translation from one language to another. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".