Global trends in cross-cultural endorsement of social mobility: Evidence from 167 countries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Dream-the perception that upward social mobility depends on effort-is a central cultural ethos in the United States. The belief in upward social mobility is not unique to Americans, and cultural groups across the world endorse it to varying degrees. The current study aims to examine cross-cultural trends in perceived mobility and to test possible mechanisms that may explain changes in perceived mobility. Using a dataset of over 1.4 million participants across 167 countries from 2005 to 2019, we comprehensively document cultural variations in perceived mobility. Citizens in Bhutan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan reported the highest levels of perceived mobility, and the United States ranked 107. We further examined the trajectories of perceived mobility across a 15-year timespan and found rapid declines in perceived mobility in countries experiencing sociopolitical crises (e.g., in Syria and Hong Kong). Multilevel analyses revealed high-income individuals are 32% (95% confidence interval, CI [24%, 39%]) more likely to perceive mobility than low-income individuals, and the level of disparity did not decrease over time. Preregistered time-series analyses showed education privatization and economic condition Granger-cause perceived mobility, but these temporal associations showed heterogeneity across countries. Overall, we performed the world's largest global monitor of perceived mobility and discussed how the cultural value of perceived mobility unfolds in social, economic, and political contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".