Majority friendship and support for social change: Examining the role of ethnic and politicized identifications among Indigenous people in Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study revisits an alleged 'sedative' effect of intergroup friendship on minority support for social change. Focusing on support for political action and empowering policies among Indigenous minorities in Chile, we examine both friendship with majority Chileans and personal discrimination; we distinguish ethnic and politicized minority identifications as hypothetical processes connecting intergroup contact with political outcomes; and we propose majority friends' perceived valuation of Indigenous minority friendships as a hypothetical buffer against sedation. Drawing on a large-scale stratified national sample of Indigenous peoples (N = 1856, aged 17-90), we tested half-longitudinal, (fully) cross-lagged models over 2 years. Qualifying earlier evidence of sedation, negative effects of majority friendship on minority support for social change were exclusively found cross-sectionally, and only when majority friends were perceived not to value minority friendships. In contrast, majority friendship had direct positive effects on support for social change over time. We also found that friendship promoted politicized identification over time, which in turn was associated with more support for social change. Personal discrimination predicted more support for social change both directly and indirectly. We conclude that majority friendship need not compromise and may instead promote minority group members' support for change towards equality.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 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".