MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365816867 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sfubr

Even When Ideologies Align, People Distrust Politicized Institutions

2023· preprint· en· W4365816867 on OpenAlexaff
Connie J. Clark, Calvin Isch, Jim A. C. Everett, Azim Shariff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistrustIdeologyInstitutionDeferenceSocial psychologyPoliticsPublic institutionSupreme courtPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In three studies (two preregistered; total n = 3,490 ideologically balanced U.S. adults), we examined attitudes toward 40 institutions, organizations, and groups of professionals (e.g., journalists, scientists, the Supreme Court, the World Health Organization, professors, police officers, doctors, the Catholic Church, banks, pharmaceutical companies, psychologists, Facebook), and tested the associations between (1) perceived ideological slant (the percentage of people in those institutions that lean politically left or right), (2) perceived politicization (the extent to which political values impact the work they do), and (3) public trust and willingness to support and defer to the institution’s expertise. Higher congruence between participant ideology and perceived institutional slant predicted higher trust and deference. And higher perceived politicization of institutions consistently predicted lower trust, often with large effect sizes. Similar patterns were observed between institutions, such that the institutions perceived as the most politicized were also the least trusted, with a very large effect, r = -0.76. Studies 2 and 3 found that perceived politicization also predicted lower support and willingness to defer to institutions’ expertise. Across studies, these negative relationships were observed among both participants who shared and opposed the institution’s ideological slant. In other words, even left-leaning participants were less trusting and less willing to support and defer to left-leaning institutions that appeared more politicized, and even right-leaning participants were less trusting and less willing to support and defer to right-leaning institutions that appeared more politicized. Studies 2 and 3 attempted to experimentally manipulate perceived politicization and failed to do so. We thus post this preprint in hopes of initiating discussion of these findings and identifying promising avenues for future research and possible interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.817
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate Change Communication and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207