Friend or Ally: Whether Cross-Group Contact Undermines Collective Action Depends on What Advantaged Group Members Say (or Don’t Say)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research shows that positive contact with members of advantaged groups can undermine collective action among the disadvantaged. The present work provides the first experimental evidence of this effect and introduces a moderator which highlights the fundamental role of communication about perceptions of the legitimacy of intergroup inequality. Study 1 (N = 267) focused on the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered community's struggle for same-sex marriage in California. In Study 2 (N = 81), cross-group contact was initiated between members of two universities that differ in social status. Results revealed that positive cross-group contact undermined public collective action among the disadvantaged when the advantaged-group partner described their group's advantaged position as legitimate or when they did not communicate their feelings about intergroup inequality (leaving them ambiguous). In contrast, when the advantaged-group partner clearly described the intergroup inequality as illegitimate, cross-group contact did not undermine participation in public collective action.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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 teacher head, 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".