Tokyo University of Science, Tokyo, Japan.
F1000Res. 2022 Jan 18;11:55. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.76837.1. eCollection 2022.
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.
我对 Stojcic 等人（2020）的研究 3 提出了两点建议，该研究考察了中国蒙古族和汉族文化中个体主义的种族差异。作者分析了中国内蒙古自治区所有居民的名字，发现蒙古族常见名字的比例小于汉族。作者得出结论，蒙古族比汉族更独立。然而，有两个问题仍未得到解答。首先，尽管作者一起分析了所有年龄段人群的名字，而没有按出生年份进行分析，但如何控制时间的影响？其次，尽管作者将在先前研究中被用作群体水平指标的名字指数作为个体水平指标来处理，但作者如何确认名字指数是否可以用作个体水平指标？解决这两个问题将有助于更好地理解中国个体主义的种族差异。
