Are they like us or are we like them? Applying the principle of contrast modeling to social identity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are conservatives as competent as liberals? Are liberals as competent as conservatives? Logically, one might assume agreement with one implies agreement with the other. However, we found that people rely on contrast modeling when making these types of similarity judgements. Specifically, people use their own social identity as a metric for weighing evaluative statements asymmetrically based on how they are framed (i.e., which group comes first). Thus, conservatives agree more strongly with the first framing of the statement, while liberals agree more strongly with the second, despite similar semantic meanings underlying both statements. Four studies ( N = 1,405) examined the cognitive processes leading to this similarity judgement. Further, we show that identity centrality moderates reliance on contrast modeling. Our findings suggest that cognitive mechanisms underlying social group comparisons are analogous to the mechanisms used to compare nonsocial categories.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it