Personal versus interpersonal contributions to depressive symptoms among Hong Kong adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross‐cultural theory proposes that an essential distinction between cultures lies in the extent to which individual members see themselves as either independent agents preferentially valuing agency and efficacy, or as embedded within a social context preferentially valuing interpersonal relationships. A nonreferred sample of 605 boys and 503 girls from Hong Kong provided information regarding: (1) perceptions of their personal self‐efficacy or beliefs regarding their own ability to master challenges they face; (2) the degree of harmony in their interpersonal (peer and family) relationships; and (3) depressive symptoms as an assessment of their mood. Cognitive theories of emotions propose that both the individual's assessment of his/her self‐efficacy and of his/her relationships influence mood. Hypotheses, based on cross‐cultural theory, were that in this collective culture, interpersonal evaluations would predict more of the variance in mood than would personal self‐efficacy. Contrary to Western sex‐differences literature, it was predicted that the effect of interpersonal harmony on mood would be equally pronounced for girls and for boys. Structural equation modelling was used to test causal models. Consistent with findings from the West, evaluations of personal self‐efficacy as well as interpersonal relationship harmony were significantly associated with depressed mood. Consistent with cultural theory, interpersonal relationship harmony was more strongly associated with mood than was personal self‐efficacy for the entire sample of adolescents. In contrast to findings of sex differences in the salience of relationships in the West, the prediction of interpersonal relationships to mood was equal for boys and girls in Hong Kong. This preliminary study extends models of cognitive concomitants of mood disruption to a non‐Western culture, and provides a framework to understand relative contnbutors to mood in adolescence. The findings tentatively suggest that treatment for depressive mood in Chinese populations should prioritize enhancement of the perceived quality of interpersonal relationships over increasing a sense of mastery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".