Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39336057›Full record

ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Exploring Egalitarianism: A Conceptual and Methodological Review of Egalitarianism and Impacts on Positive Intergroup Relations.

Rachael J Waldrop, Meg A Warren

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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

2 authors.

Rachael J WaldropDepartment of Psychology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3190-7871
Meg A WarrenDepartment of Management, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7462-3580

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considerable research on intergroup relations emphasizes attitudes, motivations, and emotions that lead to the reduction of prejudice. While factors that actively promote positive intergroup interactions have been emerging, a central theoretical framework has not been formally proposed. To address this gap, we engaged a positive psychology lens to explore how researchers have defined key indicators and consider the positive counterparts of traditional prejudice-reduction models to begin building a new framework of egalitarianism. After scanning 16,840 records that emerged in PsycInfo using keywords "egalitarian", "non-prejudice", and "intergroup", we assessed 158 articles for eligibility. Among the relevant articles (N = 54), we analyzed authors' definitions, methods of measurement, types of processes, and outcomes associated with egalitarian values as they related to intergroup behavior. Overall, there was notable variability in how researchers conceptualized and studied egalitarianism. We discuss the five broad categories of egalitarianism (prejudice reduction, universal orientation, concern for others, positive expression, and low social dominance orientation) and how they relate to positive or negative and approach or avoidant outcomes. Through these findings, we urge scholars to utilize a centralized model for studying egalitarianism in intergroup contexts moving forward.

Indexed as

egalitarianintergroup relationsliterature review

Identifiers

PMID39336057
PMCPMC11429248

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.