Cross‐Cultural Differences on Affective, Cognitive, and Psychiatric Measures: Evidence From a British‐Chinese Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Individuals worldwide share basic affective and cognitive abilities, and receive mental health diagnoses using similar scales. However, these measures have been predominantly developed and validated in Western contexts. Here, we compared British ( N = 187; age 19–73 years) and Chinese participants ( N = 194; age 19–60 years) on behavioral tasks of facial emotion recognition and sustained attention, evaluating affect and cognition, as well as mental health measures of anxiety, depression, obsessive‐compulsive disorder, and impulsivity. Comparing British and Chinese populations is particularly important as they represent distinct cultural traditions in emotional expression, cognitive processing, and mental health conceptualization. We found that British participants were significantly better at recognizing emotions, especially negative ones; while Chinese participants showed higher obsessive‐compulsive symptoms, driven primarily by the number‐meaning item, the tendency to assign significance to numerical information. The groups showed negligible differences in sustained attention and other mental health measures. This study provides novel evidence that culture has a greater influence on affective abilities than cognitive ones, and highlights concerns about cultural biases in established mental health scales. However, these findings may not generalize beyond British and Chinese populations, which calls for broader cross‐cultural research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".