MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138124356 · doi:10.1002/per.715

Why do Westerners self‐enhance more than East Asians?

2009· article· en· W2138124356 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Personality · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFeelingSocial psychologyTest (biology)Implicit-association testEast AsiaSelfMeasure (data warehouse)Developmental psychologyChinaGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much research finds that Westerners self‐enhance more than East Asians, with the exception of studies using the implicit associations test for self‐esteem (IATSE). We contrasted Japanese and Canadians on a new measure of self‐enhancement under low‐ and high‐attentional load to assess whether cultural differences vary across controlled and automatic processes. Participants also completed measures of relational mobility and the IATSE. Results indicated that Japanese and Asian‐Canadians were more self‐critical than Euro‐Canadians, both under high‐ and low‐attentional load. This cultural difference was partially mediated by relational mobility. The IATSE showed no cultural differences, but this measure did not positively correlate with any of the other measures in the study, suggesting that it is not a valid measure of ‘true’ self‐feelings. Copyright © 2009 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it