Open or close the door to the outgroup? Diversity beliefs moderate the impact of group boundary permeability on attitudes toward the outgroup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research investigated the moderating role of diversity beliefs with the aim of reconciling inconsistent findings regarding the impact of group boundary permeability on attitudes toward outgroup. In Study 1, all variables were measured with self-report scales completed by Chinese participants. In Study 2, diversity beliefs were manipulated by randomly assigning Chinese participants to a high or low diversity belief condition. In Study 3, we replicated the moderating model with American participants. Results of all three studies indicated that diversity beliefs moderated the relationship between group boundary permeability and attitudes toward outgroup. Individuals with high diversity beliefs held more positive attitudes toward the outgroup when the group boundary was permeable (vs. impermeable). Conversely, individuals with low diversity beliefs held more negative attitudes toward the outgroup when the group boundary was permeable (vs. impermeable). These findings suggest that when the inflow of the outgroup members is inevitable, attitudes toward the outgroup may be effectively improved by increasing diversity beliefs.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".