Structure of Sociotropy and Autonomy and Their Correlation with Psychological Adjustment in a Korean University Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging research emphasizes cultural influences on personality and psychopathology. In the present study, it was hypothesized that Sociotropy and Autonomy, the most well-known personality styles which make people vulnerable to depression, reflect cultural values and may have different effects in different cultures. The factor structures of Sociotropy and Autonomy were investigated in relation to psychological adjustment in Korea. Three hundred and five university students completed the Personality Style Inventory (PSI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS). As the results, both Sociotropy and Autonomy correlated positively with the measures of depression and social anxiety. Factor analysis of the PSI showed that Autonomy, consistent with previous western studies, consists of two subfactors of ‘Being in Control of One’s Plans’ and ‘Defensive Separation’. However, Sociotropy showed different subfactors from previous western studies, and the subfactor ‘Trying Not to Offend Others’ correlated more strongly with the BDI and SIAS than the subfactor ‘Fear of Being Separated from Others’. Unlike previous western findings in which the second subfactor of Sociotropy was named ‘Dependency’ and was related with psychological maladjustment, it was newly interpreted that such maladaptive effect is attenuated in Korea which emphasizes maintaining relationships with others. On the contrary, it was suggested that the implicit social standard that one should behave in the way that meets others’ expectations may function as a psychological pressure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".