MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Not Just the Booze Talking: Trait Aggression and Hypermasculinity Distinguish Perpetrators From Victims of Male Barroom Aggression

2010· article· en· W1906724920 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha Wells, Kathryn Graham, Paul F. Tremblay, Nora Magyarody

Bibliographic record

VenueAlcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyTraitDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no research has assessed whether young male victims and perpetrators of barroom aggression differ in terms of their drinking patterns and predisposing characteristics. This study assessed the extent that frequent heavy episodic drinking (HED) and bar-going, trait aggression, and hypermasculinity were differentially associated with victimization versus perpetration for aggression occurring among young adult men in the setting of the public drinking establishment. METHODS: A random sample of 2,500 male students attending a local university and a local community college was invited to participate in an online survey. Participants were asked the number of times in the past 12 months they had experienced an incident of aggression at a bar in which (a) someone was physically aggressive toward them and (b) they were physically aggressive toward another person. Responses were coded as (i) any perpetration of aggression, (ii) victim only, (iii) no aggression. A composite variable of HED (5 or more drinks per occasion) and bar-going frequency was computed: (i) both HED and bar ≥ twice a month, (ii) only HED ≥ twice a month, (iii) only bar ≥ twice a month, and (iv) both < twice a month. Standard measures of trait aggression and hypermasculinity were used. RESULTS: Multivariate multinomial logistic regression analyses revealed that a combination of both frequent HED and frequent bar-going was associated with both perpetration and victimization at a bar (compared to no aggression). Trait aggression and hypermasculinity were associated with perpetration but not with victimization. Logistic regression analyses directly comparing perpetrators with victims indicated that perpetrators were more likely to both drink heavily and go to bars frequently and were more likely to have high levels of trait aggression and hypermasculinity. CONCLUSIONS: While HED is an important target for prevention programming, additional efforts should be directed toward addressing the combination of frequent HED and frequent bar-going as well as underlying aggressive personalities and masculinity concerns among young men.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcoholism Clinical and Experimental ResearchSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207