Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (<scp>ITG‐DS</scp>)?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intergroup disgust sensitivity ( ITG‐DS ) reflects an affect‐laden revulsion toward out‐groups. Previous attempts to weaken its prediction of prejudice have failed. Given that clinical approaches to disgust sensitivity successfully utilize mental imagery, we consider contact simulation interventions. Participants were randomly assigned to control, standard imagined contact, or an elaborated contact condition (elaborated imagined contact [ EIC ]; detailed imagination involving physical contact with a homeless person, with relaxation instructions). Both contact conditions (vs. control) significantly weakened the link between ITG‐DS and prejudice, yet only EIC weakened the relation between ITG‐DS and out‐group trust. Mediated moderation analysis confirmed that EIC significantly attenuated the link between ITG‐DS and prejudice through increasing trust. Clinically relevant treatments are thus valuable in severing the association between (a) ITG‐DS and (b) lower out‐group trust and greater out‐group prejudice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it