Personal values and life domain satisfaction predict global life satisfaction differently across cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study tests two competing theoretical perspectives on the relationship between personal values and global life satisfaction, and the mediation of life domain satisfaction, contributing with novel empirical data across three countries and continents: United States ( N = 497), North America; Mozambique ( N = 544), Africa; and Portugal ( N = 541), Europe. Structural equation modelling showed that personal values and life domain satisfaction associated in both ways differently and similarly with global life satisfaction across countries. Global life satisfaction significantly associated with benevolence in the three samples; with stimulation in the U.S. and Mozambique, but not in Portugal; with tradition in Mozambique and Portugal, but not in the US; and with achievement only in Portugal. The two theoretical perspectives received partial support from the data, suggesting that each may explain part of the phenomena. Life domain satisfaction mediated the relationship between personal values and global life satisfaction. However, the person-environment congruency values perspective received the most support from the data, showing that personal values differ in how they predict global life satisfaction across samples. The differences found suggest a possible connection with individualism-collectivism and the developmental level in each country, but also with other dominant cultural values such as uncertainty avoidance and indulgence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".