Culture, Attention, and Mental Health: Recent Empirical Findings on Visual Scenes and Its Influence on Culture-Bound Syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Under the rubric of interdependent versus independent social orientation and holistic versus analytic cognition, cultural psychologists have demonstrated that there are substantial cultural variations in social cognition. Empirical evidence converges to demonstrate that, in a society where interdependent social orientation and holistic cognition have historically developed, people are more prone to attend to target information, while being sensitive to the context, relationship, and situation that surround the target (context-oriented attention). However, in a society where independent social orientation and analytic cognition have historically developed, people are more prone to attend to what they think is the most salient and important information, while paying little attention to its context, relationship, and situation (object-oriented attention). Until recently, the applications of these findings in the field of mental health science have not been fully discussed. This chapter begins by reviewing the theoretical framework and the cognitive and neural empirical evidence that demonstrate cultural variations in attention. It then introduces a series of studies that examine cross-cultural variations in stress perception between people in independent versus interdependent social orientation. Finally, it reviews a strand of research that could be considered one of many important candidates to further advance basic research on attention to more applied research in the field of mental health, which includes taijinkyofusho (TKS), hikikomori (social withdrawal)/NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) common in Japan, versus social phobia common in North America. The chapter ends with a discussion of a possible collaboration between cultural neuroscience and mental health science.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".