Women's Intentions Regarding, and Acceptance of, Self-Sexualizing Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No known research has examined women's acceptance of self-sexualizing behaviors, which includes the use of catwalks at dance clubs, taking pole dance classes, and wearing clothing with sexually suggestive statements. Structural equation modeling assessed the links between choosing sexually objectifying media, internalized appearance ideals, and self-objectification to self-sexualizing behaviors and general acceptance of sexualizing behavior among 207 female university students. Media choice predicted one's own behavioral intentions and the acceptance of others' sexualizing behavior. Neither internalized appearance ideals nor self-objectification mediated these relations. Hyperfemininity and sexism were tested as individual difference variables predicting these variables. Hyperfemininity added to the prediction of self-sexualizing behaviors and general acceptance of sexualizing behavior, whereas sexism did not. Our results indicate that sociocultural ideals of women's sexual attractiveness predict women's intentions regarding, and acceptance of, sexualizing behavior. Self-sexualizing behavior may have negative consequences, including the lack of subjective experience of one's sexuality.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".