Adolescents' Perceptions of the Seriousness of Sexual Aggression: Influence of Gender, Traditional Attitudes, and Self-Reported Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about adolescents' perceptions of interpersonal aggression and the role of traditional social attitudes in these perceptions. Sixteen-year-old students (N = 212) of both sexes rated the seriousness of 9 aurally presented scenarios depicting either sexual or nonsexual, physical aggression. Sex of perpetrator and sex of victim were manipulated partly factorially. Students also reported on their own experiences (as perpetrators and victims) of the aggression portrayed, and completed a measure of traditional sex role ideology. Sexual aggression was rated as more serious than nonsexual physical aggression, especially when involving physical force. Girls gave higher seriousness ratings than did boys. Male-to-female aggression was rated as most serious, and male-to-male aggression, least serious. Self-reported perpetrators tended to give lower ratings of seriousness than did victims. Traditional sex-role attitudes were associated with lower rated seriousness but not with reported perpetration or victimization. Multivariate analyses suggested that the effects of traditional sex-role attitudes could largely be subsumed by the effects of other study variables, especially participant sex. The role of attitudes as a direct cause of interpersonal aggression is discussed along with implications for intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".