ArticlePloS one2025
Registered report: Stress testing predictive models of ideological prejudice.
Article in PloS one, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this registered report, we stress-tested existing models for predicting the ideology-prejudice association, which varies in size and direction across target groups. Previous models of this relationship use 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 three characteristics in one model. Here, we stress-tested the original models by testing the models' predictive utility with new measures of explicit prejudice, a comparative operationalization of prejudice, the Implicit Association Test (IAT), and additional target groups. In Study 1, we directly tested the previous models using absolute measures of prejudice that closely resemble the measures used in the original study. Our results indicated that the models replicate with distinct, yet conceptually similar measures of prejudice. As in previous work, our ideology-only and ideology, status, and choice models were the best predictors of the ideology-prejudice association. In Study 2, we developed new ideology-prejudice models for a comparative operationalization of prejudice using both explicit measures and the Implicit Association Test. We tested these new models using data from the Ideology 2.0 project collected by Project Implicit. Our results indicate that this model-building strategy was not effective for relative or IAT prejudice measures. We found no significant differences in predictive ability between the models. These results indicate that the ideology-only and ideology, status, and choice models are effective in predicting the ideology-prejudice association in a variety of absolute prejudice measures, but our results suggest this may not generalize to relative or IAT measures.
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.