Rethinking Culture and Self-Construal: China as a Middle Land
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amid criticisms of current paper-and-pencil type questionnaires measuring self-construal across cultural groups, the authors used a graphic representation scale to examine whether Anglo Canadians (N = 220) were more independent than Mainland Chinese (N = 196) and Indians (N = 212) in construing their relationships with closest family member, family members, closest friend, friends, (other) relatives, colleagues, and neighbors. Data generated 5 intriguing findings: (a) Chinese were more interdependent than Canadians but less so than Indians, indicating that Chinese culture has become more individualistic. (b) Canadians were more independent than Chinese in 6 relationship dimensions but were as interdependent as Chinese in self-closest-friend connectedness, somewhat contradicting 1 assumption of theories of independent-interdependent self-construal and individualism-collectivism (I-C). (c) Canadians were more independent than Indians in all relationship dimensions, supporting theories of independent-interdependent self-construal and I-C. (d) Chinese were as interdependent as Indians in self-closest-family-member, self-close-family-members, and self-relatives connectedness but more independent than Indians in the other categories of self-other relationships. (e) Participants' age did not have strong correlations with variables measuring self-construal in any sample, indicating that a person's attachment style may not change greatly over a lifespan. The authors discussed theoretical and methodological implications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".