ArticlePNAS nexus2026
A conditional threat-regulation model: When deliberative processing of ongoing threat reduces intergroup bias.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ongoing societal threats such as war, civil unrest, and pandemics heighten intergroup bias by inducing cognitive rigidity and suppressing complex reasoning. Yet most bias-reduction strategies require conditions that threat itself undermines, including direct engagement with outgroups. We propose a conditional threat-regulation model that specifies when and for whom threat-induced cognitive rigidity can be regulated in the face of threat. Across three experiments conducted during real societal crises in Israel, Hong Kong SAR, and the United States, we test whether deliberative processing of ongoing threat can enable integrative complexity and thereby reduce intergroup bias toward groups associated with the threat. Two exploratory studies conducted during armed conflict and societal unrest varied writing topic (threat vs. nonthreat) while holding depth of processing constant; deliberative processing of the ongoing threat increased integrative complexity conditionally and in turn was associated with reduced intergroup bias. A preregistered experiment conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic crossed writing topic with depth of processing (deliberative vs. intuitive) to isolate the role of deliberation, and demonstrated that deliberative processing of ongoing threat enabled greater integrative complexity and reduced intergroup bias. Across studies, these effects were conditional on individuals' cognitive preparedness, indexed by multicultural experience, with benefits concentrated among individuals able to translate deliberation into integratively complex reasoning. Integrative complexity served as a structural signature of regulated cognition under threat, mediating the relationship between deliberative processing and intergroup judgment. Together, the findings indicate that regulation of threat-induced cognitive rigidity is possible but conditional on both situational prompts and individual cognitive readiness.
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.