MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214590544 · doi:10.1177/01461672211070360

Cultural Differences in the Perception of Daily Stress Between European Canadian and Japanese Undergraduate Students

2022· article· en· W4214590544 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hajin Lee, Takahiko Masuda, Keiko Ishii, Yuto Yasuda, Yohsuke Ohtsubo

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInterpersonal communicationPerceptionSocial psychologySituational ethicsStress (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Interpersonal relationshipSocial perceptionInterpersonal perceptionDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research examines cross-cultural differences in people's daily stress experiences and the role of social orientations in explaining their experiences. Using a situation sampling method, Study 1 collected European Canadian and Japanese undergraduates' examples of stressful interpersonal and non-interpersonal situations they experienced, measuring participants' perception of the intensity and frequency of each type of situation. Studies 2 and 3 examined the effects of culture on participants' reports of stress symptoms under the situations. Study 3 assessed the mediating effects of independence and interdependence between culture and perceived stress. These studies indicated that the situational context moderates the effect of culture on perceptions of stress, showing a different amount of stress from interpersonal situations between Japanese and European Canadian undergraduates. Mediational analyses revealed that independent orientation partially explains the relationship between culture and stress from interpersonal situations. The implications of these results for culture and daily stress are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207