ArticleBMC psychology2025
Unconscious stereotypes: An investigation into public attitudes toward disabled groups.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChina has a large population of individuals with physical disabilities and mental disorders. The public's implicit stereotypes of these groups are significant factors influencing their daily lives, social integration, and mental health. The intergroup contact theory implies that the public may have positive implicit stereotypes of physically disabled groups and negative implicit stereotypes of individuals with mental disorders. In contrast, the theory of intergroup discrimination and ingroup favoritism implies that the public may have opposite implicit stereotypes of these two groups.
objectiveThis study employed two IRAP experiments to examine whether there is a difference in the public's implicit stereotypes toward these two groups of disabled individuals and to determine which theory aligns more closely with contemporary reality.
methodThe Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) was employed to assess 60 participants.
resultIRAP1 found that participants tended to affirm "physically disabled groups + positive words" (p<0.05) as well as "the group with mental disorder + negative words" (p<0.05), while IRAP2 found that participants tended to deny "physically disabled groups + positive words" (p<0.05).
conclusionIRAP1 directly supports the theory of intergroup contact, whereas IRAP2 provides indirect support for the theory of intergroup discrimination and ingroup favoritism. The public holds both positive and negative implicit stereotypes towards these two groups of disabilities. This study expands the application of IRAP, uncovers the public's complex implicit stereotypes, and enhances two theories closely related to the people with disabilities. It is crucial for understanding these implicit stereotypes and for mitigating and alleviating negative implicit stereotypes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.