Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107466›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Observers of social media discussions about racial discrimination condemn denial but also adopt it.

Kiara L Sanchez, Maggie Harrington, Cinoo Lee, Jennifer L Eberhardt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Kiara L Sanchez *Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, 03755, USA. kiara.l.sanchez@dartmouth.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8924-6661
Maggie Harrington *Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, 94305, USA.
Cinoo Lee *Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, 94305, USA.
Jennifer L EberhardtDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, 94305, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sharing experiences with racism (racial discrimination disclosure) has the power to raise awareness of discrimination and spur meaningful conversations about race. Sharing these experiences with racism on social media may prompt a range of responses among users. While previous work investigates how disclosure impacts disclosers and listeners, we extend this research to explore the impact of observing discussions about racial discrimination online-what we call vicarious race talk. In a series of experiments using real social media posts, we show that the initial response to racial discrimination disclosure-whether the response denies or validates the poster's perspective-influences observers' own perceptions and attitudes. Despite observers identifying denial as less supportive than validation, those who observed a denial response showed less responsive attitudes toward the poster/target (Studies 1-3) and less support for discussions about discrimination on social media in general (Studies 2-3). Exploratory findings revealed that those who viewed denial comments also judged the transgressor as less racist, and expressed less support and more denial in their own comments. This suggests that even as observers negatively judge denial, their perceptions of the poster are nonetheless negatively influenced, and this impact extends to devaluing the topic of discrimination broadly. We highlight the context of social media, where racial discrimination disclosure-and how people respond to it-may be particularly consequential.

Indexed as

RacismSocial MediaAdultAttitudeDenial, PsychologicalDisclosureFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID39107466
PMCPMC11303685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.