About taking the perspective of an offender : how self-reflection and group-membership influence people's perspective taking of an offender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, there was at first tried to replicate an earlier study. With respect to this, it was expected that people who were primed on own good actions were more likely to take the perspective of an in-group offender and that people who were primed on own bad actions were more likely to take the perspective of an out-group offender. It was tested what possible explanations could be for these differences in perspective taking. The design was a 2 (good actions versus bad actions of the participants respectively) x 3 (in-group offender versus out-group offender versus neutral offender) between-groups design. The three possible explanations for these findings which were tested were the threat to the self-esteem (people's self-esteem would be threatened when they had to think about own bad actions and not threatened when they had to think about own good actions); the motivation to behave unprejudiced (people would show a higher motivation when confronted with an out-group offender compared to when confronted with an in-group offender) and the use of heuristics (the degree of seriousness of the crime and the estimation of its frequency). The hypotheses were that the findings regarding perspective taking would be replicated, that the threat to self-esteem would be influenced by the conditions and that this threat would explain the differences in perspective taking. Yet, the findings of the earlier study could not be replicated (i.e. the interaction effect concerning perspective taking did not occur). Results show that people remained more aloof when they were primed with own good actions and that they were more motivated to behave unprejudiced when they were confronted with an out-group offender. Therefore, the hypotheses cannot be confirmed and further research is necessary in order to assess the influence of the motivation to behave unprejudiced on the degree of perspective taking.
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 | 0.008 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".