MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169375438 · doi:10.1177/01461672022811011

When Different Becomes Similar: Compensatory Conformity in Bicultural Visible Minorities

2002· article· en· W2169375438 on OpenAlexaffabout
Romin W. Tafarodi, Sojin Kang, Alan B. Milne

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformityPsychologySocial psychologyEthnic groupDistancingNormativeNorm (philosophy)Minority groupLegitimacySocial distanceDevelopmental psychologySociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The children of immigrants possess bicultural identities that reflect their ethnic heritage and their membership in the wider community. For most, strong identification with the dominant culture creates a desire for full inclusion within it. In the case of visible minorities, however, physical dissimilarity is at times experienced as an “ethnifying” obstacle to assimilation or integration. One response to this challenge is compensatory alignment with the majority group when physical appearance is made salient. To demonstrate this phenomenon, the authors asked Chinese Canadian participants to rate their liking of a set of abstract paintings. The ratings were made in relation to various normative anchors and either in the presence or absence of a mirror. As predicted, only participants in the presence of the mirror showed heightened conformity to the perceived European Canadian (majority group) norm. This tendency, however, was not matched with greater distancing from the perceived Chinese Canadian (minority group) norm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations89
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207