Outgroup threat and opportunity to derogate: A social neuroscience approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Intergroup communication is at the core of intergroup relations. Studies demonstrate that intergroup threat and having an opportunity to derogate the outgroup result in heightened cortisol levels. However, biomarkers associated with different stress systems may show distinct patterns under the same conditions. We investigated whether perceptions of threat and the opportunity to derogate would result in an increase in alpha-amylase levels. White Canadian university students (<italic>N</italic> = 77) read discriminatory or favorable comments that Chinese individuals made towards Canadians. Subsequently, they were given the opportunity to derogate the outgroup. Salivary alpha-amylase was collected at baseline, following the threat, and after the opportunity to derogate. Participants showed an alpha-amylase response to threat, albeit delayed, but no further increase in concentration values due to derogation. The findings illustrate the impact of intergroup communication on physiological stress as well as the importance of using multiple biomarkers to elucidate that relationship. </abstract>
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".