Intercultural Relationship, Prejudice and Ethnocentrism in a Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC): A Time-Series Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigated the effects of relationship types (intracultural versus intercultural conditions) on relational development in computer-mediated communications (CMC) and face-to-face settings by controlling for the effect of prejudice and ethnocentrism. A total of 140 participants were involved in the experiment, and they were randomly assigned to the face-to-face, synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated channels. Within each group, they were assigned to intracultural versus intercultural conditions and were required to interact in pairs with their zero-history partners. All participants underwent four experimental sessions.. The results exhibited a significant main effect of relationship types on relational progression in face-to-face and asynchronous CMC groups. No significant main effect of relationship types was observed in the synchronous CMC group. The results showed no significant effects of prejudice and ethnocentrism on relational development in all groups. The findings of the study provide partial support for the “equalization” view of CMC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".