MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143619251 · doi:10.1177/1368430210374609

Differentially dangerous? Phenotypic racial stereotypicality increases implicit bias among ingroup and outgroup members

2010· article· en· W2143619251 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Barsamian Kahn, Paul G. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueGroup Processes & Intergroup Relations · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutgroupIngroups and outgroupsPsychologySocial psychologyRacial biasIn-group favoritismRace (biology)White (mutation)Social groupSocial identity theoryGender studiesGeneticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates whether within-group differences in perceived phenotypic racial stereotypicality can exacerbate implicit racial stereotyping for Blacks among both ingroup and outgroup members. Two studies with non-Black (Study 1) and Black (Study 2) participants confirmed that high stereotypical (HS) Black targets (i.e., those with darker skin, broader noses and fuller lips) elicited stronger implicit bias in split-second “shoot/don’t shoot” situations than low stereotypical (LS) Black targets or White targets. Specifically, a lower shooting criterion was adopted for HS Black targets, indicating a greater willingness to shoot HS Black targets, resulting in more pronounced bias. Results suggest that the perceived phenotypic racial stereotypicality of Black targets can increase the accessibility of stereotypes linking Blacks with danger, which intensifies racial bias. Further, the article provides the first empirical evidence that stereotypicality biases operate at implicit levels among Blacks when evaluating ingroup members. The implications for stereotypicality research and policing are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations127
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGroup Processes & Intergroup RelationsSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207