Convergent Validity of Three Measures of Sexual Sadism: Value of a Dimensional Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual sadism can be described as the sexual pleasure produced by acts of cruelty and bodily punishment. The most common method for evaluating sexual sadism is clinical evaluation, that is, evaluation based on the diagnostic criteria of nosological instruments such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). It is also possible to evaluate sadistic sexual preferences by phallometry, which provides a physiological measure of sexual excitation by deviant and nondeviant scenarios. The most recently developed evaluation method is the Severe Sexual Sadism Scale (SESAS), a dimensional instrument that has been empirically validated. Despite the availability of all these measurement techniques, very little research has been conducted on their degree of convergence. Consequently, the aim of the current study was to assess the relationship between these three measures of sexual sadism. Our analyses were conducted on a sample of rapists ( N = 72), assessed in a maximum-security penitentiary. There was no significant relation between phallometric scores and other measures of sexual sadism. There was, however, an important correlation between SESAS scores and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) sexual sadism diagnosis. Our results are consistent with other phallometric studies, which reported no difference in the penile responses of individuals diagnosed as sadists and those not diagnosed as sadists. Results and implications for future research are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".