Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although intergroup contact is generally associated with positive intergroup attitudes, little is known about whether individual differences moderate these relations, or how contact might operate among prejudice‐prone individuals. The present investigation explores Person × Contact and Person × Friendship interaction patterns among heterosexual university students. As expected, the positive relations of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and heterosexual identification with prejudice against homosexuals were weakened when participants reported increased contact, more positive contact, direct (personal) friendships, or indirect friendships (i.e., ingroup friends with outgroup friends) with homosexuals. These patterns held after controlling statistically for each person or situation variable. Contact and friendship exerted smaller or negligible effects among low authoritarians or low identifiers. Tests of indirect effects revealed that among high authoritarians or high identifiers, contact and friendship exerted influence on attitudes through group‐level perceptions that homosexuals promote societal values and through increased self–other overlap with gay friends, each otherwise resisted by these individuals. Overall these results suggest that: (a) intergroup contact and intergroup friendship are related but distinct constructs; and (b) past findings underestimate contact effects by collapsing across levels of personal biases. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".