A Longitudinal Study of Sexual Entitlement and Self-Efficacy among Young Women and Men: Gender Differences and Associations with Age and Sexual Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many scholars have called for an increased focus on positive aspects of sexual health and sexuality. Using a longitudinal design with two assessments, we investigated patterns of entitlement to sexual partner pleasure and self-efficacy to achieve sexual pleasure among 295 young men and women aged 17-25 years attending one Australian university. We also tested whether entitlement and efficacy differed by gender, and hypothesized that entitlement and efficacy would be higher in older participants and those with more sexual experience. A sense of entitlement to sexual partner pleasure increased significantly over the year of the study, whereas, on average, there was no change in self-efficacy over time. At Time 1 (T1), young women reported more entitlement than young men. Age was positively associated with T1 entitlement, and experience with a wider range of partnered sexual behaviors was concurrently associated with more entitlement and efficacy and was also associated with increased entitlement to partner pleasure and increased self-efficacy in achieving sexual pleasure at T2 relative to T1. A group with the least amount of sexual experience was particularly low in entitlement and efficacy when compared to groups with a history of coital experience. There was no evidence that any association differed between young men and young women. Limitations of the study include a sample of predominantly middle class, Caucasian students at one university and the possibility that students more interested in sex and relationships, and with more sexual experience, chose to participate.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".