Distinct Effects of Imagine-Other Versus Imagine-Self Perspective-Taking on Prejudice Reduction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments tested the hypothesis that imagine-other and imagine-self perspective-taking have different implications for prejudice reduction when instantiated in intergroup exchanges characterized by the potential for evaluation. We reasoned that because imagine-other perspective-taking is more likely than imagine-self perspective-taking to lead individuals to an unproductive focus on how they themselves are evaluated, imagine-other perspective-taking would hinder prejudice reduction whereas imagine-self perspective-taking would not. Results across two different intergroup relationships were consistent with these predictions and further suggested that the negative implications of imagine-other perspective-taking were mediated by relative meta-stereotype activation, an index of the extent to which individuals focused more on how their own group was viewed than on their view of the outgroup. These findings highlight that considering how individuals' concerns with evaluation guide their thoughts and experiences during intergroup exchanges can help identify the likely effects of different intervention strategies in such contexts.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it