Can Intergroup Behaviors Be Emitted Out of Self-Determined Reasons? Testing the Role of Group Norms and Behavioral Congruence in the Internalization of Discrimination and Parity Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bringing self-determination theory to understand why intergroup behaviors are emitted, two studies were conducted to investigate how group norms and individuals' congruence with these norms predicted self-determination to pursue two types of intergroup behaviors (parity and discrimination). Experiment 1 (N = 97) manipulated ingroup norms in favor of parity versus of discrimination and assessed the behavior participants displayed (congruent or incongruent with the norm) and their motivations for emitting this behavior. The manipulated norms significantly influenced group members' behaviors. When the ingroup norm was parity, participants whose behavior was congruent with this norm reported more self-determination to emit this behavior. When the ingroup norm was prodiscrimination, participants whose behavior was congruent with this norm were less self-determined. Experiment 2 (N = 139) replicated and extended these findings in a more conflictual intergroup setting. Results are discussed in light of motivational and intergroup theories.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".