MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134319253 · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2006

How normative and social identification processes predict self‐determination to engage in derogatory behaviours against outgroup hockey fans

2014· article· en· W2134319253 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine E. Amiot, Sophie Sansfaçon, Winnifred R. Louis

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Social Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersHealth Research Foundation
KeywordsOutgroupPsychologyNormativeSocial psychologySocial identity theoryLeagueNorm (philosophy)Ingroups and outgroupsNormative social influenceIdentity (music)Social group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bringing together self‐determination theory, intergroup theories based on the social identity approach, and normative approaches, three studies conducted among hockey fans tested if social norms and social identity predict greater self‐determined motivation to engage in derogatory behaviours against an outgroup team and higher frequency of these behaviours. Higher self‐determination was conceptualised as an indicator of internalisation. In Study 1, hockey fans who identified more strongly as fans of the Montreal Canadiens (N = 181) displayed a stronger positive association between the perceived norm in favour of outgroup derogation and self‐determined motivation to engage in derogatory behaviours against fans of an outgroup team. This interaction also emerged on the frequency with which the derogatory behaviours were enacted. In Studies 2 and 3 (Ns = 105 and 116), this norm by social identity interaction was replicated on both the self‐determination and the frequency outcomes for fans of a diversity of teams in the National Hockey League. In Study 3, these findings were observed over and above a manipulation that framed derogatory behaviours as being either harmful or beneficial. Results are discussed in light of motivational theories, normative approaches, and intergroup theories based on the social identity approach. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Social PsychologySame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207