Effects of Intergroup Ambivalence on Information Processing: The Role of Physiological Arousal
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
Previous research has found that people who are ambivalent toward a group process new information about the group more carefully than people who are nonambivalent toward the group. It has been suggested that this effect occurs because people who are ambivalent toward a group (a) experience a high level of physiological arousal when they think about the group and (b) seek to reduce this arousal by carefully processing new information about the group. To test these hypotheses, we conducted a correlational study (Study 1) and an experimental study (Study 2). Unexpectedly, Study 1 found that intergroup ambivalence is negatively correlated with the physiological arousal that is experienced when target outgroups are salient. Study 2 replicated this pattern and demonstrated an effect of intergroup ambivalence on information processing, while also discovering that the effects of ambivalence on arousal and on information processing were independent. Overall, these results indicate that arousal is not a necessary mediator of the relation between intergroup ambivalence and information processing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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