The more “intergroup” the merrier? The relationship between ethnic identification, coping options, and life satisfaction among South Asian Canadians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying with one’s ethnic group can contribute to the well-being of racial/ethnic minorities; however, little research has investigated the mechanisms that account for this relationship. Using a sample of South Asian Canadians, we examined whether this relationship can be explained in part by appraisals of intergroup coping options—beliefs about how one’s ingroup as a whole can respond effectively to discrimination. Participants appraised the availability of 2 individual coping options and 2 intergroup coping options. The 2 individual coping options included appraisals about personally being able to avoid potential instances of discrimination (proactive avoidance), as well as being able to successfully regulate the negative emotions stemming from perceived discrimination (emotion regulation). The 2 intergroup coping options included appraisals about one’s ethnic group working together to better their status (collective action) as well as ingroup members being able to effectively deal with negative societal beliefs about their group (social creativity). Participants who highly identified with their ethnic group reported greater satisfaction with their lives. Of the 4 coping options, collective action and social creativity were simple mediators of the relationship between ethnic identification and life satisfaction. Collective action emerged as the lone unique mediator when using the more robust test of multiple mediation. The results provide further evidence that group identification promotes well-being for racial/ethnic minorities, in part, because it encourages beliefs about one’s group effectively responding to discrimination.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".