Loneliness and life satisfaction amongst three cultural groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \nStudies into loneliness and life satisfaction have rarely assessed the role of culture in moderating the \nrelationship between these variables. The present study examined the relationship between loneliness and life \nsatisfaction using data from three nonstudent samples collected from Italian, Anglo-Canadian and \nChinese-Canadian populations. A total of 206 respondents completed the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale \n(Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, \n1985). Two contrasting hypotheses were compared: one, a “postmodern” hypothesis, predicting that the \nrelationship between life satisfaction and loneliness would be stronger in our individualist sample of \nAnglo-Canadians, and a second, “relational” hypothesis predicting this association to be strongest in our \ncollectivist, Chinese-Canadian sample. Our findings demonstrated that culture has a small but significant \nimpact on the relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction, and, consistent with the relational \nhypothesis, the relationship between the two concepts was strongest among our Chinese-Canadian \nrespondents and weakest among our Anglo-Canadian participants This finding is discussed in the context \nof the strong expectations of social cohesion in collectivist societies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".