Historical changes in baby names in China

Based on previous research on names and naming practices, I propose three suggestions to Bao et al. (2021), which investigated historical changes in given names of Han Chinese in China between 1920 and 2005. Their study analyzed a one-shot cross-sectional survey conducted in 2005 and reported that unique names increased from 1920 to 2005. The authors concluded that China became more individualistic over time for the period. However, three questions have remained unanswered in Bao et al. (2021). First, were the samples of older birth cohorts truly representative? Second, did unique names increase only after the 1970s? Third, how are the historical changes in average name length interpreted? Answering these three questions would contribute to a further understanding of the historical changes in given names and their underlying psychological/cultural shifts in China.

I have conducted research on unique names (e.g., Ogihara, 2015Ogihara, , 2021aOgihara, , 2021bOgihara, , 2021cOgihara, , 2023b;;Ogihara et al., 2015;Ogihara & Ito, 2022) and related cultural changes (e.g., Ogihara et al., 2016;Ogihara, 2018bOgihara, , 2023a; for reviews, see Ogihara, 2017Ogihara, , 2018a)).Based on this previous research, I suggested three recommendations (Ogihara, 2020) to a prior study on historical changes in baby names in China ( Study 2 in Cai et al., 2018).The authors answered some of my comments with an empirical investigation on a new dataset (Bao et al., 2021).I respond to it by focusing on three major points.Specifically, Bao et al. (2021) examined historical changes in given names of Han Chinese in China between 1920 and 2005 by analyzing a cross-sectional survey.This article provides rich information about historical changes in names in China and their underlying psychological/cultural shifts.

Were the samples of older birth cohorts truly representative?
The authors used a random subset of a one-shot cross-sectional survey conducted in 2005 (the 2005 China's 1% Population Census) and analyzed given names of people born between 1920 and 2005.They emphasized that the sample is representative (e.g., "Using a large representative sample of Chinese names" in Abstract, "We used an unprecedentedly large representative sample of Chinese names, covering a longer period of time from 1920 to 2005" (p.4) in Discussion, "To obtain a nationally representative sample of Chinese names covering a long period" (p. 2) in Method).
However, the data is from a one-shot cross-sectional survey, not a cross-temporal survey (e.g., birth records).The authors investigated names of Chinese people aged from 0 (newborns) to 85 years.This indicates a possibility that the samples for some populations, especially older birth cohorts, may not be nationally representative (not including all the names given in a year in China).Considering that the average life expectancy in China in 2005 was approximately 73 years (72.99;United Nations, 2022), especially the data for older people would be systematically selected by death, yielding the selection effect.For example, economically wealthy people would live longer (despite diseases and aging, e.g., Wilkinson & Marmot, 2003;Jagger et al., 2008), and physically healthy people would be better suited to survive natural disasters at a higher rate, leading to the possibility that economically not wealthy and physically not healthy older people were underrepresented in the samples.In other words, although a subset of the 2005 China's 1% Population Census would represent people who lived in 2005, older birth cohorts would not be representative, implying that the results for older years might not reflect the reality.To avoid these systematic biases, previous research examining historical changes in baby names analyzed cross-temporal data.Prior research in China (e.g., Cai et al., 2018), Japan (e.g., Ogihara, 2021a, 2022a;Ogihara et al., 2015;Ogihara & Ito, 2022), the United States (e.g., Ogihara, 2021d;Twenge et al., 2010Twenge et al., , 2016)), the United Kingdom (e.g., Bush, 2020;Bush et al., 2018), Germany (e.g., Gerhards & Hackenbroch, 2000), and France (e.g., Mignot, 2022) has used a series of yearly cross-temporal data of newborn baby names.
It would be necessary for the authors to clarify how they overcame these possible biases.The authors already stated that "because the sample sizes for birth years < 1920 were not sufficient, we limited the range of birth years to 1920~2005" (p. 2), but this issue is related to not only sample size but also sample characteristics (selection bias).The sample sizes for the earlier periods between 1920 and 2005 would not be sufficient to claim that the samples are representative, and the samples would be systematically selected and biased.Cross-sectional data should be carefully investigated to discuss cross-temporal changes (e.g., Cai et al., 2018;Ogihara, 2022b;Ogihara & Kusumi, 2020;Twenge, 2011;Twenge & Campbell, 2001). 1

Did unique names increase only after the 1970s?
The authors concluded that unique names increased in China between 1920 and 2005 and claimed that they replicated their previous study, which insists on an increase in unique names between 1950and 2009(Cai et al., 2018)).However, all six indicators the authors analyzed consistently showed that the unique names did not increase from 1920 to 1969.Rather, the indicator of name-character uniqueness, which the authors "preferred" (p. 6) most and stated "the estimation would be more accurate" (p. 6) among all six indicators, shows a gradual decrease in uniqueness from 1920 to 1969 (Figure 2B in Bao et al., 2021).These results were inconsistent with their previous finding that insists on a continuous increase in unique names from 1950 to 2009(Cai et al., 2018)).The authors did not mention this point clearly. 2he study would be improved if the authors made efforts to explain why unique names did not increase between 1920 and 1969 and why the study did not replicate the previous finding.
One possible reason is the above-mentioned plausible biases in the samples.As I explained above, the samples in the older birth cohorts would likely include a higher proportion of more economically wealthy people.Previous research has demonstrated that people of high economic status tend to express more uniqueness (e.g., Ma et al., 2017;Snibbe & Markus, 2005;Stephens et al., 2007;Wang et al., 2020).This leads that they tend to receive more unique names from their parents who are also more likely to be in high economic status.Thus, the values of the uniqueness indicators in the older birth cohorts would be higher than the actual values and should be lower in reality.If this is true, an increase in unique names would be observed from 1920 to 1969 as well as from 1970 to 2005, showing that unique names would continue to increase from 1920 to 2005.

How are the historical changes in average name length interpreted?
The historical changes in average name length (described in Figure 2F in Bao et al., 2021) were newly added to a previous study (Cai et al., 2018).They showed a different pattern of changes from those of character-based indices and seem to be divided into three periods: 1) 1920-1960: almost stable (maintained), 2) 1961-1990: sharp decrease, and 3) 1991-2005: sharp increase (Table 1). 3owever, the authors did not explain these changes and possible interpretations sufficiently.These drastic changes might be related to various changes in official rules regarding names, political policies, and so on (e.g., Ogihara, 2020).These changes in social, economic, and political aspects should also be considered when cultural changes are discussed.
The analysis shows that given names of Han Chinese in China typically consisted of two Chinese characters at least between 1920 and 2005 (Figure 1 in Bao et al., 2021).From 1920 to 1960, the proportions of one-character and threecharacter names did not change extensively, leading to the stability of the average name length.From 1961 to 1990, the proportion of one-character names remarkably increased (from approximately 10% to over 30%), but the proportion of three-character names did not vary, which decreased the average name length.It would be beneficial to investigate why only the proportion of one-character names remarkably increased during this period.From 1991 to 2005, the proportion of three-character names increased and the proportion of one-character names decreased, causing the increase in the average name length of this period.It would also be important to examine why the proportion of three-character names increased but the proportion of one-character names decreased.

Conclusion
I propose three suggestions that would further increase the validity and impact of the article (Bao et al., 2021).First, it would be better to answer whether the samples of older birth cohorts were truly representative.Second, it would be preferrable to answer whether unique names increased only after the 1970s.Third, it should be clarified how the historical changes in average name length are interpreted.These suggestions would hopefully contribute to a further understanding of the historical changes in baby names and their underlying psychological/cultural shifts in China.
Table 1.Historical changes in average name length of given names and proportions of one-character and three-character given names in China (Bao et al., 2021).

Average name length
Proportion of one-character names Tokyo Woman's Christian University, Tokyo, Japan The claims of the author (Dr.Ogihara) are quite reasonable and convince me in general.
However, the concept of uniqueness and some insistences are confusing or inadequately supported by the references.
The author insists on a selection bias on a sampled elderly; living elderly at the time when the national survey was conducted would be wealthier (and healthier) compared with the elderly who had already passed away, which results in more uniqueness of the names of the sampled living elderly.
Although the fact that this systematic selection bias is stronger in the elderly is critical for the intergenerational comparison, the three variables A) unique names of the participants, B) uniqueness of the participants, and C) uniqueness of the parents of the participants seem to be used confusingly in the claims by the author.
Can A) unique names of the participants be identified as B) psychological uniqueness of the participants?The author says that previous research has demonstrated that wealthy people tend to express more uniqueness, but does it really mean that wealthy people tend to have more unique names?As for the causal direction, money could get people to have freedom and uniqueness as demonstrated in Ma et al. ( 2017) which is cited in the present paper, but could unique-name also get people to be wealthy?In fact, some studies indicate that unique names limit future employment or social prospects (e.g., Kalist & Lee, 2009;Rogers-Anderson, 2017;Savage & Wells, 1948).In addition, the negative consequence of having unique names might relatively be seen in the interdependent countries such as China where people are expected to have social harmony or rejection avoidance rather than in the independent countries such as the U.S. where people are expected to have independence or uniqueness.
Furthermore, A) unique names of the participants would be directly affected by C) uniqueness of the parents of the participants rather than by B) uniqueness of the participants themselves.If so, the selection bias the author pointed out might not be as critical as expected.
Overall, I recommend the author to add empirical evidence which shows that having unique names results in low life expectancy directly or indirectly.In that case, individual-level (within culture) associations rather than social/group-level (between-culture) associations are preferable to be shown because between-culture association includes the mixed effects of A) unique names of the participants, B) uniqueness of the participants, and C) uniqueness of the parents of the participants, which would fail to explain the selection bias of the sampled individuals within China.

Are any opinions stated well-argued, clear and cogent? Yes
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature or by new data and results?Partly

Is the conclusion balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: social psychology, social survry, culural psycholgy I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

intergenerational comparison, the three variables A) unique names of the participants, B) uniqueness of the participants, and C) uniqueness of the parents of the participants seem to be used confusingly in the claims by the author.
Can A) unique names of the participants be identified as B) psychological uniqueness of the participants?The author says that previous research has demonstrated that wealthy people tend to express more uniqueness, but does it really mean that wealthy people tend to have more unique names?As for the causal direction, money could get people to have freedom and uniqueness as demonstrated in Ma et al. (2017) which is cited in the present paper, but could unique-name also get people to be wealthy?In fact, some studies indicate that unique names limit future employment or social prospects (e.g., Kalist & Lee, 2009;Rogers-Anderson, 2017;Savage & Wells, 1948).In addition, the negative consequence of having unique names might relatively be seen in the interdependent countries such as China where people are expected to have social harmony or rejection avoidance rather than in the independent countries such as the U.S. where people are expected to have independence or uniqueness.
Furthermore, A) unique names of the participants would be directly affected by C) uniqueness of the parents of the participants rather than by B) uniqueness of the participants themselves.If so, the selection bias the author pointed out might not be as critical as expected.

Overall, I recommend the author to add empirical evidence which shows that having unique names results in low life expectancy directly or indirectly. In that case, individual-level (within culture) associations rather than social/group-level (between-culture) associations are preferable to be shown because between-culture association includes the mixed effects of A) unique names of the participants, B) uniqueness of the participants, and C) uniqueness of the parents of the participants, which would fail to explain the selection bias of the sampled individuals within
China.
Thank you for your important comment.My explanation in the previous version of the article was insufficient.Thus, I have added an explanation as below.
"Previous research has demonstrated that people of high economic status tend to express more uniqueness (e.g., Ma et al., 2017;Snibbe & Markus, 2005;Stephens et al., 2007;Wang et al., 2020).This leads that they tend to receive more unique names from their parents who are also more likely to be in high economic status.Thus, the values of the uniqueness indicators in the older birth cohorts would be higher than the actual values and should be lower in reality." I provide one possible interpretation of the results, as I wrote in the previous version of the article.The important point is that all six indicators the authors analyzed consistently showed that the unique names did NOT increase from 1920 to 1969.Thus, I recommend that the authors of the target article examine this possibility.
Thank you for your further consideration of this manuscript.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Gabriela Fatková
Department of Anthopology, University of West Bohemia, Sedlacková, Czech Republic The article discusses and criticizes a study (Bao et al. 2021) on historical changes in given names in China from 1920 to 2005.The author presents three key points of contention.Firstly, it questions whether the samples for older birth cohorts are truly representative due to potential selection biases.The cross-sectional nature of the data and the unsatisfactorily settled biases stemming from it could lead to inaccuracies in the study's conclusions.Secondly, it challenges the study´s claim of an increase in unique names only after the 1970s, pointing out that in the results presented it did not apply to all indicators.Lastly, the author aptly notes that the interpretation and introduction of broad social context (historical, societal, and policy changes) of any quantitative analysis is needed.The suggestions are reasonable and constructive.
The author recommends a deeper exploration of societal and policy transformations that might underpin the observed fluctuations.In addition to the last point, the broader reflection on the evolving functions of names within Chinese society would be very useful.Names are not mere symbols but integral to a dynamic social process, shaping identities and forging connections among individuals and groups on a daily basis.Name studies approaching names solely as indicators of single social processes, such as individualization in the case of Bao et al. (2021), is deemed shallow and insufficient.Consequently, the author´s critique proposes comprehensive considerations to enhance the validity and impact of the research, encompassing a nuanced examination of the multifaceted roles names play in the fabric of Chinese society.Reviewer Expertise: Anthropology of names and naming, gender, kinship, food, memory I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Comments on this article Version 1
Reader Comment 07 Jun 2023 Han-Wu-Shuang Bao, Manchester China Institute, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Dear Dr. Ogihara, Thank you for proposing these suggestions to our article.I agree that answering these three questions could help clarify the implications of our findings and facilitate the understanding of cultural changes in China.As the first author of this article (Bao et al., 2021), I am responsible for providing a reply to address your concerns.Overall, it is important to note that no research is perfect without limitations.While there are studies using more comprehensive data on baby names to test cultural changes in the United States (Twenge et al., 2010(Twenge et al., , 2016) ) and France (Mignot, 2022), the complete annual baby names data for the other countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, Japan, and China) are difficult if not impossible to access.Thus, the 2005 China's 1% Population Census data used in our study (Bao et al., 2021) is still the most qualified dataset to our knowledge.
Below is my detailed point-by-point rebuttal.

Were the samples of older birth cohorts truly representative?
Let me first reiterate the data source as described in Bao et al. (2021): To obtain a nationally representative sample of Chinese names covering a long period, we accessed data from the 2005 China's 1% Population Census (National Bureau of Statistics [NBS] of China, 2005).The 2005 China Census was conducted using a three-stage stratified cluster sampling method, with respondents randomly selected from each of 340 prefectural-level cities or regions in China.Our sample was a random subset (N = 2,585,481) drawn by the NBS, which had been widely used in previous economic and population research.
Notably, the 2005 China Census was conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics of China, and the random subset we used was also drawn by the NBS.Given the three-stage stratified cluster sampling method for the census, it is reasonable to describe the 2005 China Census as a "nationally representative sample" in terms of its high representativeness of the Chinese population alive in 2005.Indeed, we highlighted its representativeness of the Chinese population but did not overstate its representativeness of any specific birth cohort.
More importantly, four points deserve special consideration, rendering the doubt about the representativeness of older birth cohorts unwarranted or less necessary.
First, although the 2005 China Census is a "one-shot cross-sectional survey" rather than a "crosstemporal survey", this would not necessarily bias the research on names.The main reason for research using cross-temporal surveys (e.g., cross-temporal meta-analysis) to study psychological changes is to disentangle cohort effects from age effects in participants' self-report responses.However, names are not a self-report measure and thus unlikely to be confounded with age effects.While a small proportion of people may change their names over the lifetime, most people retain their birth names throughout their lives.Therefore, it is not much problematic to use crosssectional name data.
Second, it should be clarified that the Study 2 in Cai et al. (2018) was also based on cross-sectional (but not cross-temporal) name data, because "the name database in the Chinese Public Security Department" (Cai et al., 2018, p. 3) only included people alive in that year but did not include the deceased population.Chinese who have died are usually removed from the household registration records in the Chinese Public Security Department.Therefore, the large sample of 2 million names with at least 2,000 names per year (Bao et al., 2021) was certainly more representative, reliable, and valid than the small sample of 600 names with only 10 random names per year (Cai et al., 2018).
Third, Ogihara mentioned that "the average life expectancy in China in 2005 was approximately 73 years", which might introduce selection bias due to the health and wealth of older people who managed to live longer.The rationale for this argument is probably that name uniqueness can dramatically affect, or at least be strongly associated with, one's (physical) longevity and (economical) prosperity, which actually lacks empirical support.Moreover, it is critical to think about what "reality" is when speaking of older generations.One important factor that Ogihara did not mention, but which has caused the unexpected deaths of Chinese born before 1945, is war.In the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1931~1945), tens of millions of Chinese people were killed.How do we account for the possible impact of the war on the representativeness of the older Chinese?Is including or excluding the Chinese who died in the war et al., 2021).Here I provide further probable explanations for the increased proportion of onecharacter given name and the decreased average name length (note that these two indices should be understood as reverse because the average name length was largely determined by the relative proportions of one-character and two-character names).
The main reason for this pattern may be the joint effect of the China's One-Child Policy (1979~2015) and the declined use of "generation names" in China (probably since the 1960s), both of which are factors unrelated to the need for uniqueness, making the indices based on name length less representative of cultural uniqueness and individualism.Take my own family as an illustrative example: my grandparents have three children born in the 1960s and 1970s, and all of them have one-character given names (i.e., Yue, Tai, and Dai).This actually deviates from the traditional naming practice in China of using "generation characters" in given names.We have also mentioned this in our article (Bao et al., 2021, p. 2): "Traditionally, the majority of Chinese given names consist of two characters: one represents the generation in a family and the other denotes the unique identity of a person (Zhu and Millward, 1987; see also Figure 1)."Meanwhile, the China's One-Child Policy also matters.It is likely that families with only one child no longer need to use generation names for multiple children, which may explain why the proportion of one-character names reached its highest level in the 1980s.In addition, the reason why the proportion of three-character names increased but the proportion of one-character names decreased from 1990 to 2005 may be that people began to be aware of the high probability of name duplication if their names only had one character, and thus they pursued two-character or even three-character baby names.Indeed, this is a plausible explanation based on my observations and informal interviews of my family members and peers.
All of these plausible interpretations, however, require more rigorous empirical examination.We hope that future research can empirically test the impact of political policies on naming practices in China.Nonetheless, because name length indices are more susceptible to such social or political impacts, they are less appropriate to indicate cultural emphasis on uniqueness or individualism.Therefore, we suggest that name-character uniqueness is the most appropriate index for research on Chinese cultural change.
I hope that the above responses have largely addressed your concerns and can enhance the understanding of historical changes in baby names and related cultural phenomena in China.
Best regards, Han-Wu-Shuang Bao The benefits of publishing with F1000Research: Your article is published within days, with no editorial bias • You can publish traditional articles, null/negative results, case reports, data notes and more • The peer review process is transparent and collaborative • Your article is indexed in PubMed after passing peer review • Dedicated customer support at every stage • For pre-submission enquiries, contact research@f1000.com China: A Reply to Ogihara.Front Psychol.2021; 12: 731244 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Is the rationale for commenting on the previous publication clearly described?Yes Are any opinions stated well-argued, clear and cogent?Yes Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature or by new data and results?Yes Is the conclusion balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Bao et al. (2021)s based onBao et al. (2021)'s Figure 2. Ogihara Y: Temporal changes in individualism and their ramification in Japan: Rising individualism and conflicts with persisting collectivism.Front.Psychol.2017; 8: 695.PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text|Free Full Text Ogihara Y: Economic shifts and cultural changes in individualism: A cross-temporal perspective.Uskul A, Oishi S, editors.Socioeconomic environment and human psychology: Social, ecological, and cultural perspectives.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018a; pp.247-270.Publisher Full Text Ogihara Y: The rise in individualism in Japan: Temporal changes in family structure, 1947-2015.J. Cross-Cult.Psychol.2018b; 49(8): 1219-1226.Publisher Full Text Ogihara Y: Unique names in China: Insights from research in Japan-Commentary: Increasing need for uniqueness in contemporary China: Empirical evidence.Front.Psychol.2020; 11: 2136.PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text|Free Full Text Ogihara Y: Direct evidence of the increase in unique names in Japan: The rise of individualism.Current Research in Behavioral Sciences.2021a; 2: 100056.Publisher Full Text Ogihara Y: I know the name well, but cannot read it correctly: Difficulties in reading recent Japanese names.Humanit.Soc.Sci.Commun.2021b; 8: 151.Publisher Full Text Ogihara Y: How to read uncommon names in present-day Japan: A guide for non-native Japanese speakers.Front.Commun.2021c; 6: 631907.Publisher Full Text Ogihara Y: Social security number holders in the United States, 1909-2019.Front.Big Data.2021d; 4: 802256.PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text|Free Full Text Ogihara Y: Ogihara Y: Popular names are given less frequently to babies in individualistic countries: Further validation of unique names as an indicator of individualism.Curr.Res.Behav.Sci.2023b; 4: 100094.Publisher Full Text Ogihara Y, Fujita H, Tominaga H, et al.: Are common names becoming less common?The rise in uniqueness and individualism in Japan.Front.Psychol.2015; 6: 1490.PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text|Free Full Text Ogihara Y, Ito A: Unique names increased in Japan over 40 years: Baby names published in municipality newsletters show a rise in individualism, 1979-2018.Curr.Res.Ecol.Soc.Psychol.2022; 3: 100046.Publisher Full Text Ogihara Y, Kusumi T: The developmental trajectory of self-esteem across the life span in Japan: Age differences in scores on the Rosenberg self-esteem scale from adolescence to old age.Front.Public Health.2020; 8: 132.PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text|Free Full Text Ogihara Y, Uchida Y, Kusumi T: Losing confidence over time: Temporal changes in self-esteem among older children and early adolescents in Japan, 1999-2006.SAGE Open.2016; 6(3): 1-8.Publisher Full Text Snibbe AC, Markus HR: You can't always get what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and choice.J. Pers.Soc.Psychol.2005; 88: 703-720.PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text Stephens NM, Markus HR, Townsend SS: Choice as an act of meaning: The case of social class.J. Pers.Soc.Psychol.2007; 93: 814-830.PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text Twenge JM: The duality of individualism: Attitudes toward women, generation me, and the method of cross-temporal meta-analysis.Psychol.Women Q. 2011; 35: 193-196.Publisher Full Text Twenge JM, Abebe EM, Campbell WK: Fitting in or standing out: Trends in American parents' choices for children's names, 1880-2007.Soc.Psychol.Personal.Sci.2010; 1: 19-25.synthesis from a psychological perspective.Rev. Gen. Psychol.2020; 24: 172-190.Publisher Full Text Wilkinson RG, Marmot M: Social determinants of health: the solid facts.World Health Organization; 2003.