The Relation between Allocentrism and Perceptions of Ingroups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examine how allocentrism, or the importance placed on ingroups, relates to the perceived homogeneity and entitativity (groupness)of relational (interpersonal) and collective (categorical) ingroups. In two studies (N s = 198, 90), allocentrism is shown to be positively related to perceptions of ingroup entitativity and homogeneity. This pattern was obtained, however, only for perceptions of collective ingroups. Ethnic differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White participants’ perceptions of ingroups were mediated by allocentrism (Study 1). Participants in Study 2 were members of a laboratory task group and their levels of allocentrism predicted their perceptions of the group’s homogeneity and entitativity regardless of the actual homogeneity of the group. The effects of allocentrism on perceptions of ingroups are discussed in terms of self-esteem, group identification, and responses to ingroup members’ deviations from norms.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".