Empathetic collective angst predicts perpetrator group members’ support for the empowerment of the victimized group.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although victimized groups have a need to recover diminished power, perpetrator groups are often reluctant to support actions that may undermine their own systemic advantages. We hypothesized that perpetrator group members' experience of empathetic collective angst-a group-based emotion focused on concern for the future vitality of an outgroup-mediates the relation between the perception of threat to the future of the victimized group and support for policies that may satisfy the group's empowerment. Across 5 studies and 3 distinct intergroup contexts (victimization of Aboriginal Canadians by non-Aboriginal Canadians, Native Americans by non-Native Americans, and French Canadians by Anglophone Canadians), we showed that perpetrator group members who perceive (Study 1) or are manipulated to perceive (Studies 2-5) that the victimized group is under existential threat (vs. secure) experience greater empathetic collective angst for the victimized group. In no study did perceived existential threat to the victimized group influence collective guilt-a group-based emotion focused on illegitimate harms committed against an outgroup. Empathetic collective angst mediated the relation between perceived existential threat and support for victimized group empowerment (e.g., self-determination). Study 4 found that the relation between empathetic collective angst and support for victimized group empowerment was stronger among perpetrator group members than bystander group members. A synthesis of the findings showed that the indirect effect was statistically significant across studies. Results suggest that, in the aftermath of victimization, empathetic collective angst motivates perpetrator group members to support policies that may satisfy victims' power needs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".