He said what? Physiological and cognitive responses to imagining and witnessing outgroup racism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responses to outgroup racism can have serious implications for the perpetuation of bias, yet research examining this process is rare. The present research investigated self-reported, physiological, and cognitive responses among "experiencers" who witnessed and "forecasters" who imagined a racist comment targeting an outgroup member. Although previous research indicates that experiencers self-reported less distress and chose a racist partner more often than forecasters, the present results explored the possibility that experiencers may actually be distressed in such situation but regulate their initial affective reactions. The results from Experiment 1 demonstrated that participants in both roles showed (a) no activation of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal stress axis (decreased cortisol) and (b) activation of the sympathetic autonomic nervous system (increased skin conductance). However, experiencers but not forecasters displayed a physiological profile indicative of an orienting response (decreased heart rate and increased skin conductance) rather than a defensive response (increased heart rate and increased skin conductance). Furthermore, the results from Experiment 2 provided additional evidence that experiencers are not distressed or regulating their emotional responses. In particular, experiencers showed less cognitive impairment on a Stroop task than forecasters. Together these findings indicate that when people actually encounter outgroup bias, they respond with apathy and do not censure the racist. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".