Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39208134›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Registered report protocol: Stress testing predictive models of ideological prejudice.

Jordan L Thompson, Abigail L Cassario, Shree Vallabha, Samantha A Gnall, Sada Rice, Prachi Solanki, Alejandro Carrillo, Mark J Brandt, Geoffrey A Wetherell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jordan L ThompsonDepartment of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7752-297X
Abigail L CassarioDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Shree VallabhaDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Samantha A GnallDepartment of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0000-8932-771X
Sada RiceDepartment of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America.
Prachi SolankiDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Alejandro CarrilloDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Mark J BrandtDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7185-7031
Geoffrey A WetherellDepartment of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this registered report, we propose to stress-test existing models for predicting the ideology-prejudice association, which varies in size and direction across target groups. Previous models of this relationship use the perceived ideology, status, and choice in group membership of target groups to predict the ideology-prejudice association across target groups. These analyses show that models using only the perceived ideology of the target group are more accurate and parsimonious in predicting the ideology-prejudice association than models using perceived status, choice, and all of the characteristics in a single model. Here, we stress-test the original models by testing the models' predictive utility with new measures of explicit prejudice, a comparative operationalization of prejudice, the Implicit Association Test, and additional target groups. In Study 1, we propose to directly test the previous models using an absolute measure of prejudice that closely resembles the measure used in the original study. This will tell us if the models replicate with distinct, yet conceptually similar measures of prejudice. In Study 2, we propose to develop new ideology-prejudice models for a comparative operationalization of prejudice using both explicit measures and the Implicit Association Test. We will then test these new models using data from the Ideology 2.0 project collected by Project Implicit. We do not have full access to this data yet, but upon acceptance of our Stage 1 registered report, we will gain access to the complete dataset. Currently, we have access to an exploratory subset of the data that we use to demonstrate the feasibility of the study, but its limited number of target groups prevents conclusions from being made.

Indexed as

PrejudiceHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalPre-Registration Publication

Identifiers

PMID39208134
PMCPMC11361595

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.