On the protective role of identification with a stigmatized identity: Promoting engagement and discouraging disengagement coping strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined the mechanisms by which ingroup identification impacts well‐being in stigmatized groups. Studies 1–3a were conducted among gay people in Europe and North America. Among gay people, the results suggest identification with homosexuals protected well‐being via a decrease in self‐group distancing (Studies 1–3a, N = 1,055). Other coping strategies were associated with identification but had no relationship with well‐being. Identification was positively related to engagement coping strategies (i.e., collective action, group affirmation and ingroup support), and negatively related to disengagement strategies (i.e., ingroup blaming and avoidance of discrimination). Study 3b examined these mechanisms among Black Americans (N = 203). Again, identification was positively related to engagement coping, and negatively to disengagement; however, only collective action (positively) predicted well‐being. Results are discussed in terms of how the effectiveness of different strategies for coping with stigma will differ depending on features of the intergroup context, such as the level of permeability of intergroup boundaries.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".