The Differences in Attitude Toward Mental Health Services Between Japanese and American College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the different patterns in utilization of psychological services between Japanese and American college students, a total of 316 American students (122 men and 194 women) and 362 Japanese students (147 men and 215 women) participated in this study. We used the following psychological instruments: Attitude Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help scale, Interpersonal Openness (openness regarding professional psychological help) and Confidence Self-construal scale, Sex Role Inventory, and Recognition of Psychological Help. This study concluded that collectivism is a significant predictor of recognizing the need for mental health services in the U.S., while it is not in Japan. Compared to American and female participants, Japanese and male participants feel greater stigmas toward mental health professionals. Openness to psychological help collectivism was a significant predictor for openness among the American sample, while it was not in the Japanese sample. Collectivism was a significant predictor for openness among the American sample, while it was not in the Japanese sample. Individualism was a significant predictor for confidence in America, but it was not in Japan. As predicted, Japanese participants feel greater stigma and less recognition, openness, and confidence toward mental health services than Americans. It is important for mental health professionals to educate college students that individual who seek help have high masculine traits to ameliorate the negative attitude toward mental health professionals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".