Moral identity in cultural context: Differences between Canadian and Chinese university students
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".