Teaching and learning guide for: The role of individual differences in understanding and enhancing intergroup contact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergroup contact, the direct or extended (or virtual/imagined) interaction with members of other groups, has enjoyed a long history in social psychology. Allport (1954) introduced the “Contact Hypothesis”, which has since evolved into a full and complex “Contact Theory” (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; see also Hodson & Hewstone, 2013; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2001; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, Vonofakou, & Christ, 2007). Across different types of groups, different types of contact, and different methodologies, researchers find that having more encounters with specific outgroup members tends to reduce prejudice toward that group as a whole (see meta-analyses by Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Lemmer & Wagner, 2015). Importantly, contact works more reliably at reducing prejudice relative to other interventions (e.g., Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). Yet researchers historically felt that individual differences in prejudice-proneness (e.g., authoritarianism) were either irrelevant to, or were obstacles to, contact-based prejudice reduction (see Hodson, Costello, & MacInnis, 2013). More recently, interest in individual differences in contact settings has grown steadily. This article serves as an education tool to not only teach students about intergroup contact and personality (among other individual differences), but to encourage them to consider the possibilities for learning and prejudice reduction when these two topics are conceptually integrated.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".