Moral identity in cultural context: Differences between Canadian and Chinese university students
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Albeit the moral identity construct has gained a pivotal status in moral psychology, previous research largely neglected cultural differences. The present study investigated moral identity from a cross-cultural perspective by comparing Western (Canadian) and Eastern (Chinese) cultures in three different contexts: family, school and community/society. The sample included 185 young adults from Canada and 148 from China. A modified version of the moral identity interview was administrated in each culture. All participants were asked to select 12–15 attributes describing a high moral person from a culturally inclusive list. They were then asked to rate the self-importance of the chosen attributes in the contexts of family, school and community/society. Overall, participants from both cultures viewed attributes reflecting benevolence and universality central to their moral identity. However, Chinese participants included a broader range of value domains in the definition of their moral identity. Moreover, Chinese participants scored higher on moral identity in the context of community/society than Canadians. The results indicate cultural similarity of moral identity with regard to some attributes. At the same time, there is meaningful cultural variability in individuals’ moral identities across contexts.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it