MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024490589 · doi:10.1111/jasp.12669

Effects of intergroup contact and relative gratification vs. deprivation on prejudice on both sides of the U.S./Mexico status divide

2020· article· en· W3024490589 on OpenAlexaff
Anja Eller, Dominic Abrams, Stephen C. Wright, Ben Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClosenessPrejudice (legal term)GratificationSocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A study in the U.S.–Mexican intergroup context examined how collective relative gratification (RG) versus deprivation affects the relationship between intergroup contact and interpersonal closeness and subtle prejudice towards an out‐group. Participants were Mexican university students in Mexico ( N = 239) and non‐Mexican students in California ( N = 90). As predicted, Mexicans experienced less gratification/higher relative deprivation (RD), and low quality intergroup contact and expressed lower interpersonal closeness and higher subtle prejudice than U.S. Americans. Differences between countries were larger amongst participants reporting higher RD. Second‐stage moderated mediation analysis showed that the mediating effects of contact between country and interpersonal closeness and subtle prejudice, respectively, were larger amongst participants who felt relatively gratified than those who felt relatively deprived. These findings underline the importance of recognizing the moderating effect of differences in the RG versus RD levels of minority and majority groups when anticipating the potential benefits of intergroup contact for prejudice reduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Social PsychologySame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207