Parents’ Views on Child Socialization Goals: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children’s development is shaped by the qualities that parents consider important for them to have, often described as child socialization goals. These goals reflect broader cultural norms, and past research has shown that parents across cultures differ in the qualities they view as important (Bornstein, 2013; Rosenthal & Roer-Strier, 2001). Earlier cross-cultural work highlighted a broad contrast between “Eastern” and “Western” parents, suggesting that East Asian parents value obedience and interdependence in line with collectivist traditions, whereas Western parents prioritize independence and self-expression consistent with individualist norms.(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Chao, 1994; Triandis, 1995). More recent findings suggest that these differences may not be as clear-cut as previously assumed. Using Wave 5 of the World Values Survey (1989–2010), Park et al. (2014) found that parents from East Asian societies (e.g. China, Japan, South Korea) increasingly endorsed independence as an important child socialization goal. This raises the question of whether these patterns have continued in the past decade. The current project examines this question using Wave 7 of the World Values Survey (2017–2022). Consistent with Park et al. (2014), the current study focuses on parents from three East Asian societies (China, Japan, South Korea) and three Western societies (Australia, Canada, United States) and examines how likely parents are to select each of the 11 WVS child socialization goals (e.g., independence, obedience, imagination, thrift) as “especially important.” I expect to find cultural differences consistent with older findings, along with indications that some of these differences have narrowed in more recent years.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".