Cognitive Liberalisation Through a Different Lens: Intergroup Contact Attenuates the Relationship Between Intolerance of Uncertainty and Intergroup Bias Across Three Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Researchers in the field of intergroup contact recently proposed that contact can broaden the mind, a process referred to as cognitive liberalisation. Under the right conditions, contact can increase flexible and creative thinking, as well as encourage the adoption of less rigid worldviews. The current research takes a novel approach by exploring whether contact can also “liberalise” people from the need to rely on intergroup bias to manage discomfort with uncertainty. We draw on Uncertainty‐Identity Theory to argue that intergroup contact can ameliorate the regulatory function of intergroup bias for reducing subjective uncertainty. Using three large‐scale Project Implicit datasets ( N total = 25,046), we tested whether contact moderates the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and intergroup bias and found that intolerance of uncertainty was associated with intergroup bias among people who do not experience contact with gay, transgender, or disabled people, but this association was generally weaker or non‐significant among people who experience contact. These results add to growing support for the liberalising impact of intergroup contact by elucidating a new benefit: Reduced reliance on intergroup bias as a means of managing subjective uncertainty.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".