Cultural and individual differences in self‐rating behavior: an extension and refinement of the cultural relativity hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined the relationships between culture, individual attributes, and self‐rating behavior among 1,786 university students in Canada, Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland China, and Japan, and in doing so extended and refined the cultural relativity hypothesis. It explored the difference between vertical and horizontal individualists in self‐rating behavior, and examined the mediating effects of two individual attributes, self‐enhancement propensity and general self‐efficacy in the relationship between individualism and self‐rating behavior. The results confirmed that individualism is the cultural driver for self‐rating leniency, and that the individual‐level assessment of individualism is a stronger predictor of self‐rating leniency than are culture‐level differences. Vertical individualism was found to be positively related to self‐enhancement propensity, which in turn was positively related to self‐rating. Whereas, horizontal individualism was positively related to general self‐efficacy, which in turn had a positive relationship with self‐rating. We discuss the implications of the results for academic research and practical management. Copyright © 2006 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".