Sociability across Eastern–Western cultures: Is it the same underlying construct?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined cross-cultural differences in sociability, a core personality facet of the higher order extraversion trait, which has been reported at lower levels in Eastern versus Western cultures several decades ago. Up until now, however, East-West cultural comparisons on the Western-defined construct of sociability have been limited, despite the extensive research published on extraversion indicating that this personality dimension is globally relevant across cultures. Following current practices, we first assessed for measurement invariance (MI) on the Cheek and Buss sociability scale between Chinese (n = 816, 47.2% male, M = 18.51 years, SD = 1.26 years) and Canadian (n = 995, 30.8% male, M = 19.62 years, SD = 1.25 years) young adult samples to ensure any comparisons would be valid and meaningful. Results from a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (exact invariance) showed that there was measurement non-invariance at the scalar level in the sociability construct across country and country by sex, and the newer alignment method (approximate invariance) confirmed these results, suggesting that mean level comparisons of sociability were biased and noninformative. Our findings indicated that although a few of the higher-level personality dimensions such as extraversion are considered universal, the facets underlying their meaning, like sociability, are not as clearly delineated between cultures. Alongside the present-day pursuit of understanding personality across cultures through an indigenous measurement lens in tandem with the notion of universality, researchers should also consider narrowing their focus onto lower-level facets, each of which is likely to be uniquely embedded into a cultural context.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".