Cross cultural differences in locus of control, field dependence-independence and uncertainty orientation among Canadians and Chinese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study is a cross cultural study comparing North Americans and Chinese on field dependence-independence, locus of control and uncertainty orientation. The relationships among these constructs and cultural based differences in those relationships were also explored. Chinese were speculated to be more field dependent, external locus of control and certainty-oriented than North Americans. This study was the first exploratory investigation of a suggested model, which provided a perspective of how field dependence-independence, locus of control, uncertainty orientation, moral judgement and learned helplessness interact. The study may also have some contribution to broadening our view on how Chinese express themselves on the three cognitive constructs mentioned above. A sample of 39 Hong Kong Chinese and 41 Canadian college students were selected according to their cultural backgrounds. The results partially supported cultural differences in locus of control and uncertainty orientation. A strong cultural difference was found on the two subscales of the locus of control instrument and the two component measures for uncertainty orientation. Cultural differences for field dependence-independence was not confirmed. Results concerning the interrelationships among these cognitive constructs suggested a moderate association between locus of control and uncertainty orientation for Canadian subjects, but not for Chinese subjects. No other significant correlations among these constructs was obtained in this study. Because of the methodological problems inherent in the instruments, it is difficult to interpret the obtained results unambiguously, especially for the Hong Kong group. Further empirical work should be done before any firm conclusion can be drawn form the current results. Some implications for future cross-cultural studies were also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".