From outgroups to allied forces: Effect of intergroup cooperation in violent and nonviolent video games on boosting favorable outgroup attitudes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we addressed whether even violent video games can improve intergroup attitudes if played cooperatively with an outgroup, in keeping with the Contact Hypothesis. In addition, we examined potential mechanisms of this effect. In Experiment 1 (N = 77), Canadians played a violent video game (Call of Duty: Black Ops) against zombies, either cooperatively or independently (i.e., at the same time but solo) with a (supposed) University of Buffalo participant. As expected, cooperative (vs. solo) play significantly improved outgroup attitudes and pro-outgroup participant behavior, effects explained by heightened 1-group recategorization (i.e., feeling psychologically on the same team and connected with the outgroup member). In Experiment 2 (N = 239), effects of cooperation (vs. solo play) held whether playing a violent or nonviolent video game. Importantly, our findings offer an engaging and pragmatic solution to the pervasive issue of setting up and negotiating opportunities for successful intergroup cooperation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".