MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382537293 · doi:10.1177/10693971231187470

Online Prosocial Behaviour Predicts Well-Being in Different Cultures: A Daily Diary Study of Facebook Users

2023· article· en· W4382537293 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tara C. Marshall, Jennifer Chavanovanich, Lu Huang, Jie Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-Cultural Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsocial behaviorBelongingnessCollectivismPsychologyThaisSocial psychologyLife satisfactionAffect (linguistics)IndividualismSociologyDemographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost two billion people use Facebook every day, but relatively few studies have examined the ways that culture shapes its use, and in turn, its associations with well-being. Our 1-week daily diary study sought to extend this literature by comparing prosocial uses of Facebook in a collectivist culture, Thailand ( N = 169), and in an individualist culture, Canada ( N = 131). We found that, relative to Thais, Canadians more frequently engaged in knowledge-sharing prosocial Facebook behaviour (i.e., providing useful information to Facebook friends), which was mediated by their more independent self-construal, stronger motivation to use Facebook for spreading information, and weaker motivation to use it for belongingness. Only Canadians reported higher life satisfaction on days they engaged in more prosocial knowledge-sharing. However, Thais and Canadians were equally likely to engage in emotionally-supportive prosocial Facebook behavior, which was associated with higher positive affect and life satisfaction in both groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-Cultural ResearchSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207