Assessing psychotherapy as a western healing practice through prediction of help-seeking attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study assessed the ability of six theory-derived variables representing possible signifiers for the Western cultural components of psychotherapy for predicting attitudes towards professional psychological help-seeking. Using data from 377 participants from India, regression analyses were conducted to test six hypotheses derived from Frank’s and Frank common factors model of psychotherapy. Results indicated a positive relationship between European American values and help-seeking attitudes, a negative relationship between Asian values and help-seeking attitudes, a positive relationship between westernization and help-seeking attitudes, and a negative relationship between cultural mistrust and help-seeking attitudes. Assessing a client’s cultural values, endorsement of a Western lifestyle, and level of cultural mistrust may be particularly predictive in determining suitability for and openness to psychotherapy with the single best predictor being European-American values. Those who do not adhere to Western values, who endorse more Asian values, who live a visibly non-Western lifestyle, and who have high mistrust of Western culture may be better suited for more culturally congruent healing methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".