Right-wing authoritarianism as a moderator of the similarity-attraction effect.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deux experiences (n = 155 et 173, respectivement) ont ete menees en vue de tester l'hypothese voulant que le dogmatisme de droite (DDD) soit un moderateur de l'effet de similarite-attraction dans un paradigme d'un pretendu etranger (Byrne, 1971). Les deux experiences ont eu recours a des evaluations de la moralite et de l'evaluation de l'attirance pour le pretendu etranger. Dans l'experience 1, les croyances etaient constituees d'elements de l'echelle du DDD. Dans l'experience 2, les croyances ont ete concues tout particulierement pour etudier la facon de se comporter par rapport au respect par opposition a l'enfreinte des normes et des valeurs conventionnelles. L'effet de similarite-attraction a ete clairement demontre dans les deux etudes. Les analyses de regression ont indique que le DDD etait un moderateur consequent de l'effet de similarite-evaluation quant aux jugements de moralite, mais un attachement modere lorsque l'etranger etait decrit en termes tres peu conventionnels (experience 2). Les etudes font l'objet de discussion en regard de la theorie du prejuge du concept de croyances symboliques (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993) et Rokeach's (1960).
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".