Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37948447›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Salience Matters: Filler groups on the ascent of human scale impact ratings for target groups.

Devin L Johnson, Sukhvinder S Obhi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Devin L JohnsonDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2390-3117
Sukhvinder S ObhiDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers using the ascent of human scale (AOH) to study dehumanization typically include filler groups in addition to the main comparator groups, to hide the true intent of the study. However, there is little work examining the impact of filler group choice on dehumanization ratings between groups of interest. Across two studies (including one pre-registered study) we manipulated the salience of a target out-group (i.e., the extent to which the group stood out) by embedding it within lists of other groups. By comparing AOH ratings across three conditions in which the target out-group was either high salience, medium salience, or low salience, we were able to determine the effects of target out-group salience on dehumanization. In study 1, we included participants' in-group (Canadian) in the list, and in study 2, we did not include participants in-group in the list. Results from study 1 showed that group salience had no impact on AOH ratings for the out-group when the participant in-group was included in the list. However, in study 2, when participant in-group was removed from the list, ratings for the out-group in the high salience condition were significantly lower than both the medium and low salience conditions. Implications for both theoretical and methodological issues in investigations using the AOH scale are discussed.

Indexed as

DehumanizationPrejudiceCanadaHumans

Identifiers

PMID37948447
PMCPMC10637698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.