MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063912603 · doi:10.1177/0146167203029005008

Fear of the Dark: Interactive Effects of Beliefs about Danger and Ambient Darkness on Ethnic Stereotypes

2003· article· en· W2063912603 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Schaller, Justin H. Park, Annette Mueller

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEthnic groupSocial psychologyDarknessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies examined effects of ambient darkness and chronic beliefs about danger on activation of stereotypes about Blacks. Chronic beliefs were measured by a Belief in a Dangerous World (BDW) questionnaire. In Study, 1, participants in either a dimly lit or dark room saw photos of Black men and rated the extent to which specific traits described the cultural stereotype of Blacks. In Study 2, participants in either a well-lit or dark room completed reaction-time tasks assessing implicit associations between Blacks and evaluative attributes. Separate measures assessed stereotypes connoting danger versus those that are merely derogatory. Results revealed BDW x Darkness interactions on activation of danger-relevant stereotypes: BDW positively predicted activation in dark but not in light conditions. It appears that chronic beliefs about danger can facilitate activation of functionally relevant stereotypes, but this effect occurs primarily under circumstances (such as darkness) that heuristically suggest vulnerability to harm. Conceptual implications 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations264
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207