Effect of Sexual Coercion Proclivity and Cognitive Priming on Sexual Aggression in the Laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research follows from the "rape proclivity" literature to evaluate whether proclivity actually predicts sexual coercion. One hundred forty-two heterosexual males attending a Canadian university participated. Participants completed the sexual coercion proclivity questionnaire packet to determine high or low sexual coercion proclivity, and were randomly assigned to complete either an innocuous or a sexually aggressive cognitive priming task. Sexual coercion was operationalized by having men read increasingly graphic sexual material to an increasingly uncomfortable confederate. Regardless of condition, high sexual coercion proclivity males were more likely to engage in sexual coercion than low sexual coercion proclivity males. When the effects of discomfort were controlled, a significant interaction emerged between sexual coercion proclivity and the priming condition on sexual coercion. Although engaging in significantly less sexual coercion than the high sexual coercion proclivity males when assigned to the innocuous cognitive priming task, the low sexual coercion proclivity males assigned to the sexually aggressive cognitive priming task were indistinguishable from the high sexual coercion proclivity group. The nature of this relationship differed for Caucasian and Chinese men. These findings suggest that even those not previously inclined toward sexual coercion can do so under opportunistic circumstances, following an increase in discomfort associated with exposure to and involvement with sexually aggressive material. The prevention implications associated with this are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".