Indirect Contact and Collective Action Among Disadvantaged Groups: A Multi‐Level Mini‐Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT It is well established that positive contact between members of different groups can reduce prejudice. However, there is also evidence that direct contact with advantaged group members can undermine disadvantaged group members' engagement in collective action. Also, considerable evidence shows that effective contact need not be direct. Mere knowledge of cross‐group friendships (extended contact) or observing positive contact (vicarious contact) can also reduce prejudice. This raises the question of whether these indirect forms of contact might also undermine collective action. We conducted a mini‐meta‐analysis of eight unpublished studies, including a range of intergroup contexts and samples, that measured indirect contact with advantaged group members and collective action among disadvantaged groups. We found a small but significant relationship that was consistently negative but varied in size depending on how indirect contact was measured. Contrary to expectation, more indirect contact predicted reductions in normative forms of collective action as strongly as radical forms.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".