Discrimination between dominant and subordinate groups: The positive–negative asymmetry effect and normative processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research using the minimal group paradigm (MGP) demonstrates that categorization and in-group identification can suffice to foster intergroup discrimination. However, the positive- negative asymmetry effect (PNAE) shows that less discrimination occurs when negative than when positive outcomes are distributed between group members. Combining the polarization paradigm and the MGP, this study investigated the discriminatory behaviour of dominant and subordinate group members ( N = 197) on positive and negative outcome distributions. During private outcome distributions at pre-consensus, dominant groups discriminated more than subordinate groups while the PNAE was not replicated. Positive/negative outcome distributions were sought during intragroup discussion in the consensus phase, while post-consensus involved private outcome distributions. The PNAE emerged in both consensus and post-consensus phases: group members discriminated less on salary cuts than on salary increases, whereas the power effect disappeared in those phases. The emergence of in-group norms during face-to-face discussions at consensus as well as social identity processes help account for the results obtained in this study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".