The Effect of First-Hand and Second-Hand Knowledge on Perceived Group Homogeneity and Certainty About Stereotype-Based Inferences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereotypes are often used to make inferences about others, yet can lead to problematic consequences, which get exacerbated when people are more confident in these inferences. The current research examines whether biases in people's first-hand and second-hand information about groups make groups appear overly homogeneous, leading to more confident inferences about group members. Supporting this, across two studies, groups appeared more homogeneous when people lacked first-hand information from personal experience with a group, as well as when stereotypes were based on second-hand information from the media or other people. However, only second-hand information increased confidence about group members, as lacking first-hand information reduced confidence about what groups and group members were like. Biases in homogeneity also had greater impact for typical rather than atypical group members. Thus, people may be especially confident in stereotype-based inferences when stereotypes are based on second-hand information and when group members appear typical of their group.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it