Loneliness and life satisfaction among three cultural groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Studies into loneliness and life satisfaction have rarely assessed the role of culture in moderating the relationship between these variables. The present study examined the relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction using data from three nonstudent samples collected from Italian, Anglo‐Canadian and Chinese‐Canadian populations. A total of 206 respondents completed the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Two contrasting hypotheses were compared: one, a “postmodern” hypothesis, predicting that the relationship between life satisfaction and loneliness would be stronger in our individualist sample of Anglo‐Canadians, and a second, “relational” hypothesis predicting this association to be strongest in our collectivist, Chinese‐Canadian sample. Our findings demonstrated that culture has a small but significant impact on the relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction, and, consistent with the relational hypothesis, the relationship between the two concepts was strongest among our Chinese‐Canadian respondents and weakest among our Anglo‐Canadian participants This finding is discussed in the context of the strong expectations of social cohesion in collectivist societies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".