MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206553670 · doi:10.1521/soco.2021.39.5.570

Does Emotional Expression Moderate Implicit Racial Bias? Examining Bias Following Smiling and Angry Primes

2021· article· en· W4206553670 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Cognition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPrejudice (legal term)Racial biasMisattribution of memoryRace (biology)Facial expressionSocial psychologyEmotional expressionSocial perceptionFace perceptionAffect (linguistics)PerceptionAngerExpression (computer science)RacismCognitionCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the pervasiveness of prejudice, researchers have become increasingly interested in examining racial bias at the intersection of race and other social and perceptual categories that have the potential to disrupt these negative attitudes. Across three studies, we examined whether the emotional expression of racial exemplars would moderate implicit racial bias. We found that racial bias on the Affect Misattribution Procedure only emerged in response to angry but not smiling Black male faces in comparison to White (Study 1) or White and Asian (Study 3) male faces with similar emotional expressions. Racial bias was also found toward Asian targets (Studies 2 and 3), but not only following angry primes. These findings suggest that negative stereotypes about Black men can create a contrast effect, making racial bias toward smiling faces less likely to be expressed in the presence of angry Black male faces.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.263 · 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