Effects of Intergroup Ambivalence on Information Processing: The Role of Physiological Arousal
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".