Nonjudgmental Regard of Others: Investigating the Links Between Other-Directed Trait Mindfulness and Prejudice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although researchers predict that experiencing greater trait mindfulness should be related to less prejudiced attitudes towards others, the evidence has been inconsistent. We suggest that this is due to the narrow operationalizations of mindfulness that have been utilized thus far. Specifically, research to date has relied solely on mindfulness as it pertains to the self. We therefore examined an expanded definition of mindfulness to study the role of nonjudgmental attitudes towards others and its relation with prejudice. Using a new measure of Nonjudgmental Regard towards Others (NRO), the current study found that Ideological Acceptance, or judgments of another's actions, ideas, and personality, and Emotion Acceptance, or acceptance of another's emotions and emotional expressions, were independently associated with prejudiced attitudes towards numerous different outgroups such as drug users, people who are overweight, homosexuals, and people with disabilities. Furthermore, they were able to explain variance over and above the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Having a nonjudgmental regard towards others, not just the self, may be an important component of mindfulness that has not yet been explored.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".