Factors Influencing University Students’ Explicit and Implicit Sexual Double Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative research has resulted in inconsistent evidence for the existence of a sexual double standard, leading Crawford and Popp (2003 Crawford , M. , & Popp , D. ( 2003 ). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research . Journal of Sex Research , 40 , 13 – 26 .[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) to issue a call for methodological innovation. The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998 Greenwald , A. G. , McGhee , D. E. , & Schwartz , J. L. K. ( 1998 ). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 , 1464 – 1480 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) is a measure that may provide a means to examine the double standard without the contamination of the demand characteristics and social desirability biases that plague self-report research (Marks & Fraley, 2005 Marks , M. J. , & Fraley , R. C. ( 2005 ). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles , 52 , 175 – 186 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The purpose of this study was to examine the factors influencing explicit and implicit double standards, and to examine the relationship between these explicit and implicit double standards, and levels of socially desirable responding. One hundred and three university students completed a sexual double standard IAT, an explicit measure of the double standard, and measures of socially desirable responding. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that levels of socially desirable responding were not related to implicit or explicit double standards. Men endorsed a stronger explicit traditional double standard than women, whereas for implicit sexual standards, men demonstrated a relatively gender-neutral evaluation and women demonstrated a strong reverse double standard. These results suggest the existence of a complex double standard, and indicate that more research of sexual attitudes should include implicit measures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".