Rebels <i>without</i> a cause: Discrimination appraised as legitimate harms group commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments tested the hypothesis that perceptions of the legitimacy of discrimination moderate the extent to which targets respond to pervasive discrimination with commitment to their ingroup. Both the perceived pervasiveness and legitimacy of discrimination directed toward the ingroup were manipulated among group members of a stigmatized group: People with body piercings. Generalizing previous research findings to this non-typical stigmatized group, perceiving discrimination as pervasive and legitimate affected group commitment. On a number of group commitment indicators, we found that pervasive and legitimate discrimination lowered group identification (Experiment 1), outrage about the treatment received, and liking for a victimized ingroup member, but enhanced willingness to remove body-piercings in order to pass (Experiment 2) compared to legitimate and rare discrimination. Group commitment was relatively high when discrimination was appraised as illegitimate and was not affected by pervasiveness of discrimination. These results highlight that, for this non-typical stigmatized group, pervasive discrimination that is appraised as legitimate undermines group commitment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".