Are need for affect and cognition culture dependent? Implications for global public health campaigns: a cross-sectional study

Zhang, Min; Zhu, Bei; Yuan, Chunlan; Zhao, Chao; Wang, Jiaofeng; Ruan, Qingwei; Han, Chao; Bao, Zhijun; Chen, Jie; Arceneaux, Kevin ( Vin); Wielen, Ryan Vander; Siegle, Greg J.

doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10689-w

Table 5 The mean, standard deviation, sample size of NFA average subscale scores and NFC total scores in multinational samples, and the effect size indices of the scores comparisons across cultures

From: Are need for affect and cognition culture dependent? Implications for global public health campaigns: a cross-sectional study

	Two samples being compared	Mean ± SD (N)	Cohen’s d	Hedges’ g	SEg	95% CI Lower limit	95% CI Upper limit
Approach	CA vs. AA	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. .91 ± .92 (980)	−0.28	− 0.28	0.04	− 0.36	−0.19
	CA vs. GAS	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. 1.28 ± .96 (1160)	−0.57	−0.57	0.04	−0.65	− 0.48
	CA vs. GA	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. 1.29 ± .92 (627)	−0.54	−0.54	0.05	−0.64	− 0.45
	CA vs. AC	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. 1.15 ± 1.07 (126)	−0.40	−0.40	0.09	−0.58	− 0.22
	CA vs. UKA	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. 1.02 ± 1.0 (236)	−0.32	−0.32	0.07	−0.46	− 0.18
	AA vs. GAS	.91 ± .92 (980) vs. 1.28 ± .96 (1160)	−0.39	−0.39	0.04	−0.48	− 0.31
	AA vs. GA	.91 ± .92 (980) vs. 1.29 ± .92 (627)	−0.41	−0.41	0.05	−0.51	− 0.31
	AA vs. AC	.91 ± .92 (980) vs. 1.15 ± 1.07 (126)	−0.26	−0.26	0.09	−0.44	− 0.07
	AA vs. UKA	.91 ± .92 (980) vs. 1.02 ± 1.0 (236)	−0.12	−0.12	0.07	−0.26	0.02
Avoidance	CA vs. AA	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -.91 ± 1.15 (980)	0.70	0.70	0.04	0.61	0.79
	CA vs. GAS	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -1.39 ± 1.12 (1160)	1.11	1.11	0.04	1.02	1.19
	CA vs. GA	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -1.06 ± 1.18 (627)	0.81	0.81	0.05	0.71	0.91
	CA vs. AC	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -1.5 ± 1.07 (126)	1.14	1.14	0.10	0.95	1.33
	CA vs. UKA	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -.55 ± 1.2 (236)	0.39	0.39	0.07	0.25	0.53
	AA vs. GAS	−.91 ± 1.15 (980) vs. -1.39 ± 1.12 (1160)	0.42	0.42	0.04	0.34	0.51
	AA vs. GA	−.91 ± 1.15 (980) vs. -1.06 ± 1.18 (627)	0.13	0.13	0.05	0.03	0.23
	AA vs. AC	−.91 ± 1.15 (980) vs. -1.5 ± 1.07 (126)	0.52	0.52	0.10	0.33	0.70
	AA vs. UKA	−.91 ± 1.15 (980) vs. -.55 ± 1.2 (236)	−0.31	−0.31	0.07	−0.45	−0.17
NFC	CA vs. AA	44.90 ± 11.7 (1186) vs. 55.28 ± 11.87 (980)	−0.88	− 0.88	0.05	− 0.97	−0.79

Note: CA Chinese adults, AA American adults, GAS German/Austria students, GA German adults, AC Austria couples, UKA UK adults
Sample CA and AA were from the current study, other samples were from Appel et al. [22]

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcpublichealth@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Public Health

Contact us