Making sense of positive self‐evaluations in China: The role of sociocultural change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent research points to Chinese people's elevated tendency to make positive self‐evaluations, despite the general claim that East Asians do not self‐enhance. We present three studies in support of a novel prediction that sociocultural change in China plays an important role in augmenting self‐enhancement. We operationalized self‐enhancement primarily in terms of the better‐than‐average effect (BTAE) and accounted for trait desirability or importance. We found that: (i) compared with Chinese Canadians, Chinese showed a stronger BTAE; (ii) within the Chinese, identification with contemporary Chinese culture uniquely predicted a stronger BTAE; and (iii) priming contemporary (vs. traditional) Chinese culture led to a stronger BTAE. Finally, we provided further evidence that motivation, in part, underlies the rising Chinese BTAE. We conclude by discussing the importance of both socioeconomic and cultural perspectives for understanding how and when of self‐enhancement in contemporary China and other societies undergoing social change.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".