The Development of Group Stereotypes from Descriptions of Group Members: An Individual Difference Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined the effects of Personal Need for Structure, Need for Closure, and Personal Fear of Invalidity on information processing during the development of stereotypes. In Study 1, participants read as many group member descriptions as they wanted before expressing group stereotypes. Participants higher in Personal Fear of Invalidity sought more information; they also developed more detailed stereotypes when they received more information, whereas participants lower in Personal Fear of Invalidity did not. There was a tendency for participants higher in Need for Structure & Closure to develop less accurate stereotypes. Finally, participants higher in Need for Structure & Closure or Personal Fear of Invalidity were less confident about their stereotypes when they received more information, whereas participants lower in Need for Structure & Closure or Personal Fear of Invalidity were more confident. In Study 2, participants were presented with two, four, or eight descriptions of group members before expressing stereotypes. Participants lower in Personal Fear of Invalidity developed more detailed stereotypes when they received more information, whereas participants higher in Personal Fear of Invalidity did not. When two or eight group member descriptions were presented (fewer or more than participants probably would have chosen themselves), participants higher in Personal Fear of Invalidity and lower in Need for Structure & Closure generated the most accurate stereotypes. Finally, participants higher in Need for Structure & Closure did not differ in stereotype confidence as a function of how much information they received, whereas participants lower in Need for Structure & Closure were more confident when they received more information. These results indicate that cognitive style plays a role in the development of group stereotypes.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".