MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071265731 · doi:10.2190/ag.69.3.c

The Moderating Role of Age-Group Identification and Perceived Threat on Stereotype Threat among Older Adults

2009· article· en· W2071265731 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia K. Kang, Alison L. Chasteen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereotype threatPsychologyStereotype (UML)PerceptionRecallCoping (psychology)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although research has shown that older adults are negatively affected by aging stereotypes, relatively few studies have attempted to identify those older adults who may be especially susceptible to these effects. The current research takes steps toward identifying older adults most susceptible to the effects of stereotype threat and investigates the consequence of stereotype threat on the well-being of older adults. Older adults were tested on their recall of a prose passage under normal or stereotype threatening conditions. Memory decrements for those in the threat condition were moderated by perceived stereotype threat such that greater decrements were seen for those who reported greater perceived threat. A similar pattern was observed for negative emotion, such that those in the threat condition who reported higher perceptions of threat experienced a greater decrease in positive emotions. Age group identification also proved to be an important factor, with the strongly identified performing worse than the weakly identified. As well, high age-group identification buffered some of the negative affective consequences associated with stereotype threat, which is consistent with some models of coping with stigma.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations114
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Aging and Human DevelopmentSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207