Stereotype Threat and Psychotic Like Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on stigmatized and marginalized communities (e.g., POC, the elderly) has found that eliciting stereotype threat (ST), that is the fear of confirming negative stereotypes about one's group, can affect performance on tasks related to the stereotype. For example, telling elderly individuals that their memory or math abilities are being investigated can result in poorer performance on such tasks due to their knowledge of the stereotype of diminished cognitive function in older age. Another highly stigmatized group that is subject to possible ST effects concerns individuals who experience psychosis. Studies have found deficits in neurocognitive and social-cognitive performance in this population. There is limited research as to whether eliciting ST may contribute to decreased performance in these individuals. To address this gap, we will recruit 400 individuals from the Undergraduate Participant Pool (SONA) at Toronto Metropolitan University and 400 participants from the State University of New York at Buffalo's Undergraduate Participant Pool (SONA) to investigate ST effects on performance in relevant domains of cognition; we expect that eliciting ST related to psychosis and memory/social skills, will result in poorer performance on tasks assessing these domains. Participants will be randomized into conditions, which will direct them to one of two ads with either an experimental or control survey link. Per previous research in this area, participants in the ST (experimental) condition will be told that the study objective is to investigate relations between psychosis and performance on memory and social skills. Speed and accuracy will be emphasized to participants. Participants in the experimental group will complete the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) to strengthen participants’ self-identification regarding psychotic like experiences to further elicit the ST. They will then complete a recall task and the Movie for Assessment of Social Cognition (MASC), which asks participants to interpret actions of individuals in a video. Finally they will be asked to identify 20 facial emotions and then complete a surprise recognition task with the same 20 faces + 20 distraction faces. Participants in the neutral condition will be told that they are going to complete a memory task, a social cue interpretation task, and emotion identification task. They will also complete the CAPE after the cognitive tasks. In both groups, participants will also complete a demographic form (age, sex/gender, ethnicity, mental health, substance use). The study is expected to take 1 hour to complete. There are no direct benefits to participants expected, although the information gained from the overall study may improve our understanding of stereotypes and stigma of people who endure psychotic-like experiences and their effects on functioning. There is minimal risk to the participants. They may feel uncomfortable talking about their mental health. Participants in the experimental condition may experience discomfort due to the ST manipulation. To manage, it will be made clear to participants that they can withdraw at any time or skip any questions, so that if they begin to feel uncomfortable they know they are free to stop. They will also be provided a list of resources at consent and debrief.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".