When White Feels Right: The Effects of In‐Group Affect and Race of Partner on Negotiation Performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research investigated the unique role of racial in‐group affect, or liking one's racial group, to foster or inhibit integration in negotiations with different race partners. We hypothesized that when the racial backgrounds of the negotiators are salient, threat inherent in negotiations activates in‐group affect for some White negotiators (those more “glad to be White”), triggering divergent negotiation approaches with White versus Black counterparts. In support of our hypotheses, we found that when negotiating with a Black confederate, stronger in‐group affect of White participants was a liability, relating to poorer joint outcomes and a “chilling and competing” negotiation approach. When negotiating with a White confederate, stronger in‐group affect of White participants instead boosted the dyad's joint outcomes by fostering greater trust. The meaning and practical implications of strong in‐group affect in negotiations with diverse counterparts are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it