MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095110276 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.569976

Factors Influencing University Students’ Explicit and Implicit Sexual Double Standards

2011· article· en· W2095110276 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplicit-association testDouble standardPsychologyImplicit attitudeTest (biology)Social psychologyPersonalityTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.208 · 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