Aggressive confrontation shapes perceptions and attitudes toward racist content online
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
With more people using social media on a daily basis and the prevalence of racial discrimination online, it becomes imperative to understand what factors impact minority individuals’ perceptions of these transgressions in an online context. Confrontation to discrimination in the form of comments on social media may meaningfully shape perceptions of racism online. Across three studies, we examine how confrontation type (aggressive vs. passive) and confronter group membership (ingroup vs. outgroup) influence Asian Americans’ perceptions of online prejudice and attitudes towards the confronters. In Study 1, we find that aggressive confrontations alter perceptions of a racist online post to be more offensive as compared to passive confrontations. In Study 2, these findings extend to participants’ likelihood to report the content as offensive. Lastly, in Study 3, we find that aggressive confronters are evaluated more positively than passive confronters. These findings have important implications for understanding racial discrimination in an online context by demonstrating the impact of confrontation type on minority individuals’ perceptions and behaviors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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