MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157804667 · doi:10.1177/1368430206062075

Collective Guilt as Distress over Illegitimate Intergroup Inequality

2006· article· en· W2157804667 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGroup Processes & Intergroup Relations · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutgroupLegitimacyEmpathyPsychologySocial psychologyDisadvantagedDistressInequalityAffect (linguistics)System justificationIngroups and outgroupsCollective responsibilityEmpathic concernDevelopmental psychologyPerspective-takingClinical psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine how appraisals of the legitimacy of gender inequality affect men's experience of collective guilt. We tested two potential routes by which perceiving intergroup inequality as legitimate might undermine collective guilt: via reductions in empathy for the disadvantaged outgroup or via reductions in the distress experienced when confronted with the suffering of the outgroup. In the first study ( N= 52), we measured legitimacy appraisals, and in the second experimental study ( N= 73) we manipulated the legitimacy of gender inequality. In both studies, reductions in self-focused distress mediated the effect of legitimacy appraisals on collective guilt, while other-oriented empathy did not. These effects suggest that collective guilt is a self-focused emotion that emerges when members of a dominant group perceive their relationship with a disadvantaged outgroup to be illegitimate.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.308 · 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