1,720,969 research outputs found
Unequal tweets
No full textThis is the Online Supplement for the following article: Malapally, A., Blombach, A., Heinrich, P., Schnepf, J., & Bruckmüller, S. (2024). Unequal Tweets: Black Disadvantage is (Re) tweeted More but Discussed Less Than White Privilege. Political Communication, 41(1), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.225762
Privilege-Reframing Bias: Study 3
No full textFraming inequality in terms of in-group privilege (vs. out-group disadvantage) can be threatening to group-based beliefs, leading to various defensive reactions. By remembering inequality in terms of out-group disadvantage (as opposed to in-group privilege), people can make inequality seem less relevant to the in-group and thus less threatening. Therefore, people should be motivated to misremember information about their privilege. We hypothesize that privileged group members more often misremember in-group privilege than out-group disadvantage
Privilege-Reframing Bias: Study 4
No full textFraming inequality in terms of in-group privilege (vs. out-group disadvantage) can be threatening to group-based beliefs, leading to various defensive reactions. By remembering inequality in terms of out-group disadvantage (as opposed to in-group privilege), people can make inequality seem less relevant to the in-group and thus less threatening. Therefore, people should be motivated to misremember information about their privilege. We hypothesize that privileged group members more often misremember in-group privilege than out-group disadvantage
Privilege-Reframing Bias: Study 5
No full textFraming inequality in terms of in-group privilege (vs. out-group disadvantage) can be threatening to group-based beliefs, leading to various defensive reactions. By remembering inequality in terms of out-group disadvantage (as opposed to in-group privilege), people can make inequality seem less relevant to the in-group and thus less threatening. Therefore, people should be motivated to misremember information about their privilege. We hypothesize that privileged group members more often misremember in-group privilege than out-group disadvantage. This is a direct replication in Kannada, conducted in India, of a study in German, conducted in Germany
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Privilege-Reframing Bias: Study 6
No full textFraming inequality in terms of in-group privilege (vs. out-group disadvantage) can be threatening to group-based beliefs, leading to various defensive reactions. By remembering inequality in terms of out-group disadvantage (as opposed to in-group privilege), people can make inequality seem less relevant to the in-group and thus less threatening. Therefore, people should be motivated to misremember information about their privilege. We hypothesize that privileged group members more often misremember in-group privilege than out-group disadvantage and that the effect of framing on recall is mediated by group image threat
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Talking about Privilege
No full textThis is the Online Supplement for the following article: Malapally, A., & Bruckmüller, S. (2024). Talking About Privilege: Framing Inequality as Advantage Is More Likely for Inequality in Positive Than in Negative Outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167224126577
- …
