Seeing the self through rose-colored glasses: A cross-cultural study of positive illusions using a behavioral approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies on self-enhancement bias used self-report measures to investigate individual and cultural differences in well-being. In the current research, we took a behavioral approach to analyze positive and negative perception tendencies between European Canadians, Asian Canadians and Koreans. In Study 1 and 2, participants were asked to bet on their expectation of success on a given task and then perform the task. The betting behaviors and actual performance were used to quantify positive and negative perception tendencies. In Study 1, we did not find cultural differences in positive and negative illusions. Positive self-perceptions were also not associated with higher self-reported well-being. In Study 2, we employed the same research design as Study 1, and we included a measure of perceived desirability to examine whether perceived desirability of the performance tasks are related to the two illusions indices. The results from Study 2 replicated the findings from Study 1, and perceived desirability did not influence the results. Our findings suggest that North Americans do not always exhibit more positive self-perceptions than Asians, suggesting that North Americans do not always view the self through rose-colored lenses.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".