Surfing for Sexual Sin: Relations Between Religiousness and Viewing Sexual Content Online
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religious individuals in America have concerns about pornography addiction among the religious. Whereas positive associations between religiosity and online pornography use exist at the state level, associations between religiosity and online pornography consumption at the individual level are typically negative. We examined (1) reactions to, (2) perceptions of, and (3) self-report based relations between religiousness and viewing sexual content online among adult web users. Those higher in religiosity or religious fundamentalism responded more negatively to, and were less willing to accept, scientific findings demonstrating positive associations between state-level religiousness and increased viewing of sexual content online. More religious individuals were more likely to believe that moral values, race, and finances (not religion) impact the extent to which sexual content is viewed online. More religious individuals also held more negative beliefs about viewing sexual content online and perceived such viewing as more problematic than other prominent social issues (e.g., racism, gun violence). Finally, those higher in religiousness reported less viewing of sexual content online overall. Among a subset of individuals relatively high in religiosity or religious fundamentalism who reported viewing sexual content online, religiosity was associated with feeling negatively about this behavior and a self-reported motive of monitoring society's immorality.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".