English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I propose two suggestions on Stojcic et al.’s (2020) Study 3, which examined ethnic differences in individualism between Chinese Mongolian and Han Chinese cultures in China. The authors analyzed the names of all residents in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China and found that the percentages of common names among Chinese Mongolians were smaller than those among Han Chinese. The authors concluded that Chinese Mongolians are more independent than Han Chinese. However, two questions remain unanswered. First, although the authors analyzed the names of people in all age groups together and did not analyze the names by birth year, how was the effect of time controlled? Second, although the authors treated name indices, which have been used as group-level indicators in previous research, as individual-level indicators, how did the authors confirm whether name indices can be used as individual-level indicators? Addressing these two questions would contribute to a better understanding of ethnic differences in individualism in China.

Ethnic differences in names in China: A comparison between Chinese Mongolian and Han Chinese cultures in Inner Mongolia