MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159527431 · doi:10.1348/014466607x231109

Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially dominant) cons

2007· article· en· W2159527431 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Hodson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Social Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial dominance orientationPsychologyEmpathySocial psychologyPrisonModerationSocial contactIngroups and outgroupsContact hypothesisPrejudice (legal term)Developmental psychologyAuthoritarianismCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals high in social dominance orientation (SDO; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) endorse group hierarchies and social inequality. Surprisingly little research has addressed contextual factors associated with reduced intergroup biases among such individuals. The present investigation considers a Person x Situation approach to this question in two British prisons, exploring the contextual factors outlined in the Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954). White inmates scoring higher in SDO exhibited significantly less in-group bias when reporting increased contact with Black inmates (Studies 1 & 2), when perceiving that favourable contact conditions are institutionally supported (Study 1), or when experiencing more pleasant personal interactions with Black inmates (Study 2). These SDO x Contact Condition moderation effects were mediated in Study 2: among high-SDO individuals, increased empathy towards Black inmates mediated the relation between contact variables and lower in-group bias. Implications for considering individual differences and empathy in contact settings are considered.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.375 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations119
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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