An Investigation of the Relationships Among SelfConstrual, Emotional Intelligence, and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to further investigate the convergent validity of the recently-proposed metapersonal model and measure of self-construal, and to emphasize the discriminant validity of the metapersonal self-construal as a distinct construct, capturing a unique aspect of self-construal separate from either interdependent or independent aspects.The study looked at two questions: (1) Does the metapersonal self-construal predict higher emotional intelligence?(2) Do those who have higher metapersonal self-construal scores also report greater well-being?A group of 212 undergraduate students was assessed using a self-construal scale that includes the new measure of metapersonal self-construal, along with scales measuring emotional intelligence and well-being.The metapersonal self-construal predicted higher emotional intelligence scores and greater well-being than either the independent or interdependent self-construals.S elf-construal refers to how an individual develops and defines information about one's relationship with the self, with others, and between one's self and others (DeCicco & Stroink, 2007;Hardin, Varghese, Tran & Carlson, 2006;Kashima et al., 1995;Markus & Kitayama, 1991;Singelis, 1994).Early research on self-construal outlined two types: the independent and the interdependent self-construal, which arose from cross-cultural research.Markus and Kitayama (1991) found that Western, individualistic cultures tend to create an independent construal of the self, in which the individual values being unique, autonomous, stable, separate, and focuses on internal attributes.In contrast, Eastern, collectivist cultures tend to construe the self as interdependent, where relationships, group harmony, flexibility, belonging, and external features are important in establishing and maintaining the self.However, drawing on Markus and Kitayama's (1991) two-dimensional definition of self-construal, later research found that these two types of self-construal do not encompass the self-view of every individual (DeCicco & Stroink, 2007), and that a multi-dimensional model of self-construal was necessary (Hardin, 2006).Individuals
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".