MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Discrimination Under Ego Depletion: Differential Effects for Perceived Controllable and Uncontrollable Stigmas

2025· article· en· W4414487861 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jordan Schriver, Mihailo Perunovic, W. Q. Elaine Perunovic

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of FrederictonUniversity of New BrunswickCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential effectsDifferential (mechanical device)PerceptionId, ego and super-egoControl theory (sociology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the effect of self-control on discrimination against groups with perceived controllable and uncontrollable stigmas by experimentally manipulating state self-control. Sixty-nine university students in Canada completed either an ego depletion task intended to temporarily reduce their ability to exert self-control (depletion condition) or a similar task that did not affect self-control (control condition) and then filled out a measure assessing their discrimination against various groups. Results showed that participants in the depletion condition displayed greater discrimination against an uncontrollable stigma group (cutting more funds from the Arabs Association) than did participants in the control condition, but less discrimination against perceived controllable stigma groups (cutting less funds from the Smokers Rights Association and the Fat is Beautiful groups). These findings suggest that ego depletion may exacerbate biases against groups with inherent, unchangeable characteristics, but reduce negative biases towards groups whose stigma may be perceived as controllable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial and Intergroup Psychology→French-language works237,207→