MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1872417632 · doi:10.1111/jasp.12360

Does imagery reduce stigma against depression? Testing the efficacy of imagined contact and perspective‐taking

2015· article· en· W1872417632 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Jiwon Na, Alison L. Chasteen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVignettePsychologyStigma (botany)Perspective (graphical)Prejudice (legal term)Social psychologyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While the stigma surrounding mental illness has been well‐established, less is known about methods for reducing that bias. In both laboratory (Study 1) and community (Study 2) samples, we tested the efficacy of imagined contact and perspective‐taking for reducing stigma against depression. Participants first read a vignette about an individual with depression and then imagined either interacting with the individual (imagined contact), putting themselves in the individual's shoes (perspective‐taking) or a neutral scene (control). In both samples, imagined contact was more effective in reducing stigma against depression than perspective‐taking. The findings suggest that different prejudice reduction strategies should be used for different stigmatized groups.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Social PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207