Appreciating vs venerating cultural outgroups
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
Purpose Cosmopolitanism and xenocentrism denote distinct individual orientations toward cultural outgroups. The former considers an individual’s openness to cultural diversity and ability to navigate through intercultural environments, whereas the latter describes an individual’s feelings of admiration or preference for specific cultural outgroup(s), over his/her ingroup. Few studies have simultaneously examined these constructs and fewer still have considered these within a nomological framework of key predictors (i.e. basic psychological needs) and practical outcomes (e.g. influentialness and friendships across different groups). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The authors hypothesized a series of relationships of various antecedents and outcomes of cosmopolitanism and xenocentrism, and tested these conjectures using survey data from Canadians ( n =238) and Americans ( n =239). Findings The findings support the psychometric robustness of our tripartite operationalization of xenocentrism, and clearly distinguish this construct from cosmopolitanism. Beyond confirming earlier findings, the authors illuminate several novel relationships (e.g. between basic psychological needs, cosmopolitanism and xenocentrism), and elucidate the role played by a key personality dimension, neuroticism, in mediating the relationships between basic psychological needs and the two outgroup orientations. Research limitations/implications Samples of this study are drawn from North America and a cross-sectional research design is used. Originality/value Whereas for xenocentric consumers admiration of one or more foreign culture(s) displaces customary preferences for one’s own cultural group, cosmopolitan consumers are able to embrace outside cultures without disaffection from their sociocultural ingroup. Given the obvious repercussions of these differences for targeting international consumer segments and for positioning brands across borders, our research has numerous practical applications as well as theoretical implications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 it