How Might Gyaru-Mind Be Measured: What the Two Existing Scales Leave Out

Two studies have already measured gyaru-mind.

Motode Rino, in 2023, derived four factors from a content analysis of ten magazines and built a scale on 1,487 respondents in total (gyaru-mind-aspiration-scale). Ikegami Momoka and colleagues, between 2025 and 2026, decomposed a single trade book into eight factors and had a large language model rate utterances to produce a score from 0 to 50 (gyaru-mind-operationalization).

Neither number says what sort of person acts how, in which situation.

Not saying it is not a defect. Motode declares from the outset that what is measured is not whether a person holds these values but whether she aspires to them. The problem is that the range of questions these two numbers can answer is narrower than it is taken to be.

The first half of this note examines what the two scales actually measure. The second half is a proposed design for measuring gyaru-mind as a conditional tendency, and is not a verified finding. The literature map of the measurement paradigm itself is in disposition-measurement-literature.

Survey metadata

• Date: 2026-08-15
• Confidence: the figures and procedures of Motode and of Ikegami and colleagues were all taken directly from the texts (the provenance ledger is in source/review/gyaru-mind-operationalization/papers.md). The measurement-theory literature is in source/review/disposition-measurement/papers.md
• Standing of this note: the account of “what is being measured” rests on primary sources. The account of “how it might be measured” is this wiki’s proposal, not a claim made by the prior studies

All forty-four items take the form of aspiration

Line up the forty-four items of Motode’s scale and the sentence endings fall into three types.

• “I admire people who …”: I admire people who can assert themselves firmly / I admire people who make the most of their individuality and thrive / I admire people who shine brightly however dark the world may be
• “I want to …”: I want to act as I please, without minding what others think / I want to stand out more than other people / I want to see through, all the way, what I have decided
• “I think it is wonderful to …”: I think it is wonderful to live freely / I think it is wonderful to live with the confidence that one is the cutest of all

The scale is named the “scale of aspiration toward gyaru-mind”. Name and items agree.

What can therefore be said about a high scorer is that she rates those values as desirable. Whether she in fact acts without minding what others think does not follow from these forty-four items.

Motode does not confuse the two. The hypothesis she tested was that dissatisfaction under COVID-19 raises the appeal of Heisei retro through aspiration toward gyaru-mind, and aspiration is used there as a mediating variable. Design and claim are aligned.

The confusion arises when this scale is cited as a quantity of gyaru-mind held.

What Ikegami and colleagues measure is speech style in one situation

Ikegami and colleagues’ GYARU-MIDX is a value obtained by having a large language model read the text of an utterance, assign 0 to 5 on each of eight factors, and combine them into 0 to 50 through partial least squares regression.

The two factors carrying the largest weights are Emotional Intensity (intensifiers, exclamations) and Linguistic Creativity (slang, coinages), both surface features of speech. The two carrying the smallest weights are Other-Respect and Self–Other Boundary, which are attitudes toward others. The ratio of the highest to the lowest is roughly thirty-six to one, and the lowest carries a negative sign.

The situation of measurement is fixed to one. Fifteen minutes of talking with a chatbot about a personal problem one wants to overcome.

What is measured here is the style of the whole utterance in that one situation, which is to say a marginal frequency. This sits in the same place as what Mischel and Shoda showed: counting the total number of behaviours does not yield when a person does them.

Motode set aside the 2011 scale from Dentsu’s Gal Labo on the grounds that it carries many behavioural items — “wears false eyelashes” — and few that measure the mindset itself. That criticism lands equally on the two heavy factors of Ikegami and colleagues. Put in the terms of Borsboom, Mellenbergh and van Heerden’s formulation, a high density of slang and a disposition causally producing that density of slang are two different things.

Neither has a column for the situation

The blank the two scales share is the description of the situation.

Motode’s items do not say when, or in what setting.

I want to act as I please, without minding what others think

Someone who agrees with this item does not necessarily behave the same way in a job interview, in front of her parents, and among friends. In terms of the situational strength that Meyer, Dalal and Hermida set out, a strongly constraining situation produces the same behaviour whoever is in it. Since individual differences in disposition are observable only in weak situations, the meaning of a score is undetermined unless one knows what strength of situation the answer assumed.

In Ikegami and colleagues, the situation is fixed to one. Being fixed is itself correct as an experiment. What is unclear is whether that one situation is an apt setting in which gyaru-mind is at stake. The paper carries no record describing this situation through a taxonomy such as Rauthmann and colleagues’ DIAMONDS.

When generations are compared, the reference group moves

Motode divides respondents into three generations for comparison. Generation X (born before 1977), Generation Y (aged 27 to 44), and Generation Z (aged 15 to 26).

The reference-group effect shown by Heine, Lehman, Peng and Greenholtz bears on this.

I want to stand out more than other people

The “other people” here are the surroundings the respondent tacitly calls to mind. If those surroundings differ by generation, the same answer of 4 points to a different position. Heine and colleagues showed that experimentally manipulating the reference group makes the expected cultural difference appear, and that without the manipulation the difference vanishes.

The response-style problem shown by Chen, Lee and Stevenson compounds this. If the tendency of Japanese respondents to choose the midpoint itself differs by generation, then a difference in how the scale points are used will surface as a generational difference.

This point does not refute Motode’s generational comparison. It is the limitation that, since the reference group was not measured, one cannot separate how much of the observed generational difference is a difference in disposition and how much a difference in standard.

The two factors that missed might be reread as conditional tendencies

In her criterion-related validity check, Motode reports that two of the four factors came out against expectation.

Subfactor	Established scale applied	Prediction	Result
Standing out	”Conformity to peers” factor of the conformity scale	negative correlation	r = .138 (weak positive)
Own way	Authenticity scale	negative correlation	r = .015 (no correlation)

The misses are written up rather than deleted, and for one of them the items were rebuilt and re-tested. This is the procedure scale development is supposed to follow.

On top of that, another reading is possible.

The prediction that people who want to stand out will not conform to their peers presupposes that the two compete within the same situation. What Shoda, Mischel and Wright observed was that presupposition breaking down. There were children who turned aggressive when warned by an adult yet stayed compliant when provoked by a peer. Given a different situation, standing out and conforming can coexist within the same person.

If so, people scoring in the middle on both are of two kinds. Those who stand out moderately and conform moderately in every situation, and those who conform strongly among friends and stand out strongly outside. A mean score does not distinguish these two.

This is an interpretation, and it cannot be tested on Motode’s data. Testing it requires data on how the same people answer across different situations. And the condition under which this interpretation would be wrong can be stated. If the correlation between the two factors stays constant across situations even when the situations are measured separately, this reading is rejected.

What measuring it as a conditional tendency would look like

From here on the material is a proposal. What follows is a design that applies the methods laid out in disposition-measurement-literature to this construct.

Stage 0: collect situations from the people concerned

Build the list of situations before the scale items.

Do not have researchers imagine where gyaru-mind is at stake. Collect situations that actually happened from people who identify as gyaru. Concrete things such as “I was told I did not fit in”, “a friend’s plans clashed with my own”, “I hesitated over whether to post a photo I had touched up”.

Describe the collected situations through a taxonomy such as DIAMONDS and estimate situational strength (constraints, consequences, clarity, consistency). Skip this stage and the condition column stays empty through every stage that follows.

This stage has one further effect. The “appraisal by the people concerned” that neither of the two existing studies fills (an item listed among the gaps in gyaru-mind-operationalization) enters the design here. What exactly has thereby entered the design, broken out by dimension, is set out in tojishasei-agency-literature; what stage 0 touches are need self-definition and epistemic agency.

Stage 1: put the items into if-then form

Rewrite Motode’s four factors into conditional form.

Factor	Current item type	Conditional form
Own way	I want to act as I please, without minding what others think	When told I do not fit the setting, I keep my look unchanged
Standing out	I want to stand out more than other people	When my friends have all chosen the same thing, I alone choose something else
Confidence from “cute”	Pursuing “cute” is enjoyable	When there is not enough time to get ready, I still go out only once I am satisfied with how I look
Prizing friends	Time spent with friends matters more than anything	When my own plans clash with a friend’s, I give the friend priority

The quantity measured shifts from a marginal frequency to a conditional probability.

P(keeps her look unchanged | told she does not fit the setting)

Making the items conditional while leaving them self-report is already enough to fill the situation column. This form does move closer to the situational judgment test, however, so it inherits the criticisms of that lineage as well. McDaniel and colleagues showed in a meta-analysis that what is being measured changes with the response instruction (whether knowledge or behavioural tendency is asked for).

Stage 2: measure the same people many times

Send short questions built from the situation list several times a day for about two weeks. This is the experience sampling method.

Benchmarks for sample design are available in the literature. van de Maat, Lataster and Verboon estimated that detecting daily cyclic patterns in ecological momentary assessment data at 80% power requires 50 participants with 10 measurements for a large pattern, and 60 participants with 30 measurements for a small one. Using the preregistration template published by Kirtley and colleagues reduces the room for arbitrary analysis in a study of this size.

Stage 3: split the variance into trait and situation

Running the collected data through a latent state-trait model separates a person’s state in a given situation into a component stable over time and a component specific to that situation.

Whether the disposition is “always held” or “appeared only under this condition” divides here.

Within-person change must not be mixed with between-person difference. As Molenaar showed, generalizing from group structure to individual structure holds only under the stringent condition of ergodicity. Hamaker, Kuiper and Grasman showed concretely how this confusion misleads causal inference in the cross-lagged panel model, and offered an alternative with a random intercept.

Stage 4: handle the narrative side through co-occurrence

The part that does not become a score can be handled with epistemic network analysis.

Divide the accounts of the people concerned into codes and build a network of which codes bind together within the same situation. Which situations link “cute” to “friends”, and which link it to “standing out”, remain as a configuration.

One comparison here can be used as it stands. Apply Motode’s four factors and Ikegami and colleagues’ eight factors as a single coding scheme to the same accounts, and see which reproduces a structure closer to the structure of the accounts of the people concerned. No study has yet applied the two to the same sample (a gap listed in gyaru-mind-operationalization).

ENA carries a cost, however. The unit of analysis, the coding scheme, and where the boundaries of an episode are drawn are all settled by the researcher’s judgment. Csanadi and colleagues write, as a limitation of their own, that a different window size might have captured a different process.

There is precedent for not using a scale at all

Among studies measuring constructs originating in Japan, there is a case that did not use a Likert scale.

Niiya, Ellsworth and Yamaguchi treated amae by presenting a situation — an inappropriate request from a friend — and measuring the emotional experience within it. No self-report Likert scale for amae was found in this search. No psychometric scaling of ma or iki could be confirmed either.

Japanese cultural constructs have not, on the whole, been turned into scales. What they have been turned into is presented situations.

The procedure for turning an indigenous concept into a scale already has a form

The discussion so far has been about new ways to measure. Before that, there is a procedure that ought to be settled first.

Church and Katigbak formulated, in 1988, a four-stage procedure for identifying and measuring personality dimensions in non-Western cultures. The order runs: identify the emic concept, generate items specific to that culture, confirm validity on the emic side, and finally make explicit the relation between the emic dimension and existing etic dimensions.

Both of the studies that have measured gyaru-mind stop at the second stage. Motode built her items from a content analysis of ten magazines; Ikegami and colleagues decomposed a single trade book through discussion among the authors to set their factors. Neither has carried out the procedure by which the people concerned judge “is this our own word” (the third stage), nor the procedure that systematically examines overlap with, and separation from, existing scales (the fourth stage).

What happens when the fourth stage is skipped is known as a named failure. The jangle fallacy. It refers to the error of assuming that things carrying different names are different things. The case in which grit failed to separate statistically from conscientiousness (Credé and colleagues’ meta-analysis, 584 effect sizes, 66,807 people) shows that this failure actually occurs.

Precedent has taken this stage. A study that built six indigenous factors from the Romanian lexicon could claim a separate construct only once it had statistically shown incremental validity over the Big Five and HEXACO. The two scales of gyaru-mind have not yet undergone verification at this level.

Four cheap tests worth running first

The design above is expensive. Before it, some things can be settled with existing data and small replications alone.

One. Can GYARU-MIDX be explained away by style? Regress GYARU-MIDX on slang density and exclamation-mark frequency as independent variables and see what share of its variance is explained. If the share is high, what the index measures is speech style, not disposition. One regression is all it takes.

Two. Do aspiration and possession agree within the same person? Give the same respondents both Motode’s forty-four items and items rewritten so that the same content takes the form “I actually did so”. A high correlation leaves room for using the aspiration scale as a proxy for possession. A low one settles that the two are separate constructs.

Three. Do the two scales measure the same thing? Apply Motode’s four factors and Ikegami and colleagues’ eight factors to the same sample and examine convergent validity. If the correlation is low, at least one of them is measuring something other than “gyaru-mind”.

Four. Does it even separate from known constructs? Administer the gyaru-mind scale alongside Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale, an extraversion scale, and a general self-efficacy scale to the same sample. If a criterion such as the HTMT ratio cannot discriminate them, all that has been done is to give a new name to something already known. Ikegami and colleagues define their Self-esteem factor using Rosenberg’s scale, yet do not include Rosenberg’s scale among their outcome measures. Of the four, this test is the cheapest and the one that most belongs first.

For all four, a result in either direction is informative.

Conditions under which this design fails

Stated in advance.

If the situations do not come together. If the situations collected from the people concerned at stage 0 vary so widely from person to person that they will not fit a common frame, the condition column cannot be standardized. In that case conditional probabilities cannot be compared across people, and description closes at the level of the individual.

If every situation turns out to be strong. If every situation collected is a strongly constraining one, individual differences in disposition will not show up in behaviour in the first place. That would not be a failure of measurement but a finding that situations in which this disposition branches behaviour are rare in daily life.

If discriminant validity cannot be established. As Credé, Tynan and Harms showed for grit, a newly posited construct that merely correlates strongly with known traits amounts to a renaming. If the factors of gyaru-mind do not separate from self-esteem or extraversion, the grounds for positing this construct weaken.

What can and cannot be said

What can. Motode’s forty-four items take the form of measuring aspiration, and this matches the name of the scale. Ikegami and colleagues’ index is built from the style of speech in a single situation. Since neither carries a description of the situation, neither can support a claim about how a given person responds in a given situation.

What cannot. The latter half of this note, the stage 0 to stage 4 design and the four tests, is a proposal that has not been carried out. There is no guarantee that making the items conditional raises validity. As the lineage of the situational judgment test shows, items with conditions written into them have problems of their own.

What is not being said. Nothing here says that the two existing studies are wrong. Motode aligns her design with her claim, and Ikegami and colleagues list their limitations themselves. What has been written is the range of questions these two numbers can answer.

References

URLs retrieved 2026-08-15. The full records for the measurement-theory literature are in disposition-measurement-literature; only works directly cited in this note are listed here.

The two studies examined

1. Motode, Rino. 2023. Heisei gyaru no motsu maindo ga gendai josei-tachi ni oyobosu eikyō no kentō: Shōwa retoro oyobi Heisei retoro ryūkō no haikei no kentō to tomo ni [An examination of the effects of the “Heisei gal” mindset on contemporary women: with consideration of the background of the “Shōwa retro” and “Heisei retro” fads]. Bulletin of the School of Sociology, Kwansei Gakuin University 141, 89–124 (in Japanese). https://kwansei.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/2000128
2. Ikegami, Momoka et al. 2025–2026. A series of presentations on GYARU-CHAT / GYARU-MIDX (IWSDS 2026, CHI EA 2026, WISS 2025). For full records see gyaru-mind-operationalization
3. Nishii, Mihoko. 2011. Pa-gyaru Shōhi: Joshi no Nanawari ga Kakushimotsu “Gyaru Mind” Kenkyū [Pa-gyaru consumption: research on the “gyaru mind” seven in ten women hold in reserve]. Nikkei BP (in Japanese).

Measurement theory

4. Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality. Psychological Review 102(2), 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246
5. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W. & Wright, J. C. 1994. Intraindividual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(4), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.674
6. Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S. & Hermida, R. 2010. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management 36(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309349309
7. Rauthmann, J. F. et al. 2014. The Situational Eight DIAMONDS. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107(4), 677–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037250
8. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K. & Greenholtz, J. 2002. What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(6), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903
9. Chen, C., Lee, S. & Stevenson, H. W. 1995. Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science 6(3), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
10. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J. & van Heerden, J. 2004. The concept of validity. Psychological Review 111(4), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.111.4.1061
11. McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L. & Grubb III, W. L. 2007. Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 60(1), 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.x [citation unverified]
12. van de Maat, R., Lataster, J. & Verboon, P. 2024. Minimum required sample size for modelling daily cyclic patterns in ecological momentary assessment data. Methodology 20(4), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.11399
13. Kirtley, O. J. et al. 2021. Making the black box transparent: A template and tutorial for registration of studies using experience-sampling methods. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920924686 (abstract reached 2026-08-16. Identifies the problem of researcher degrees of freedom in ESM research and proposes a preregistration template)
14. Molenaar, P. C. M. 2004. A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective 2(4), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1
15. Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M. & Grasman, R. P. P. P. 2015. A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
16. Steyer, R., Mayer, A., Geiser, C. & Cole, D. A. 2015. A theory of states and traits—Revised. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 11, 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153719
17. Csanadi, A., Eagan, B., Kollar, I., Shaffer, D. W. & Fischer, F. 2018. When coding-and-counting is not enough. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 13(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9292-z
18. Niiya, Y., Ellsworth, P. C. & Yamaguchi, S. 2006. Amae in Japan and the United States: An exploration of a “culturally unique” emotion. Emotion 6(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.279
19. Credé, M., Tynan, M. C. & Harms, P. D. 2017. Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113(3), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000102

Established scales Motode used in her validity checks

20. Kasai, Makiko & Matsumoto, Mari. 2010. Seinen-ki no yūjin kankei ni okeru dōchō kōdō: dōchō kōdō shakudo no sakusei [Conformity behaviour in adolescent friendships: constructing a conformity scale]. Bulletin of Naruto University of Education 25, 189–203 (in Japanese).
21. Ito, Masaya & Kodama, Masahiro. 2005. Jibun-rashiku aru kankaku (honrai-kan) to jisonshin ga well-being ni oyobosu eikyō no kentō [An examination of the effects of the sense of being true to oneself (authenticity) and self-esteem on well-being]. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology 53(1), 74–85 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep1953.53.1_74

Discriminant validity and the methodology of indigenous scales (added in the cross-cutting search of 2026-08-16)

22. Church, A. T. & Katigbak, M. S. 1988. The emic strategy in the identification and assessment of personality dimensions in a non-Western culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 19(2), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022188192002 (formulates the scaling of an indigenous concept in four stages)
23. Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D. & Li, A. 2016 (online 2015). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: A guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organizational Research Methods 19(1), 80–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115598239
24. Rönkkö, M. & Cho, E. 2022 (online 2020). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods 25(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614
25. Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
26. Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K. & Lauver, K. J. 2010. The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003
27. Burtăverde, V., de Raad, B. & Zanfirescu, A.-Ș. 2018. An emic-etic approach to personality assessment in predicting social adaptation, risky social behaviors, status striving and social affirmation. Journal of Research in Personality 76, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.08.003
28. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Wada, S. & Zhang, J. 2003. Indigenous measures of personality assessment in Asian countries: A review. Psychological Assessment 15(3), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.280
29. Wulff, D. U. & Mata, R. 2025. Escaping the jingle-jangle jungle. Current Directions in Psychological Science 35(2), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214251382083
30. Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470 (the original source for the procedure of having the people concerned report situations that actually happened; usable directly for stage 0)
31. Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Brown, N. A., Serfass, D. G. & Jones, A. B. 2015. The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109(5), 872–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000036 (the closest existing implementation of the crossing of stages 1 and 2, though its subject is general personality traits)
32. Hamilton, E. & Hurford, A. 2023. Political discourse modeling with epistemic network analysis and quantitative ethnography. In Advances in Quantitative Ethnography (ICQE 2022), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31726-2_25 (an example applying ENA to the analysis of attitude and stance outside learning analytics)

Unverified items

• The stage 0 to stage 4 design of this note, and the four tests, are all proposals that have not been carried out. Whether any study has carried out stage 0 through stage 4 as a single continuous programme was searched across Crossref, CiNii, and WebSearch, and none was found. Individual stages have precedent (stage 0: Flanagan 1954’s critical incident technique and Church & Katigbak 1988’s identification of emic concepts; the crossing of stages 1 and 2: Sherman and colleagues 2015; stage 4: Hamilton & Hurford 2023)
• The reading on which “standing out” and “conformity to peers” coexist depending on the situation is this wiki’s interpretation, not a claim by Motode. It has not been tested
• Where Ikegami and colleagues’ experimental situation (fifteen minutes, a personal problem one wants to overcome) sits in terms of situational strength has not been assessed
• Among Motode’s forty-four items, the full text of the eight new items rebuilt for the “own way” factor in Study 3 has not been checked for this note
• The abstracts of references 11 and 13 were not reached [citation unverified], and the record for 21 is unsettled [primary source unverified]
• Whether any study has examined the discriminability of the factors of gyaru-mind from known traits such as self-esteem and extraversion was searched for and does not exist. CiNii Research returned zero results for “youth culture attitude scale discriminant,” “subculture identity scale,” “otaku scale discriminant validity,” and “experience sampling method youth culture”; “gyaru scale” returned only a single paper on makeup behaviour
• References 22 through 32 had their bibliographic records fixed by DOI, but their full texts were not read. Thorndike 1904 and Kelley 1927 (the original sources for jingle/jangle) rest only on attribution from secondary literature [primary source unverified]
• No study addressing the scaling and discriminant-validity testing of other culturally specific constructs such as “face” (mentsu) and “ninjō” could be identified in Anglophone databases. Chinese-language (CNKI) and Korean-language (RISS, KCI) databases were not searched, so this is not a confirmed absence
• No study applying if-then behavioural signatures to a cultural disposition, and no study applying ESM to a subcultural identity, could be found despite searching. A cross-cutting search of Japanese-language databases has not been carried out