Observed Normativity and Deviance in Friendship Dyads’ Conversations About Sex and the Relations With Youths’ Perceived Sexual Peer Norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the relations between observed normativity and deviance during adolescents' and young adults' conversations about sex with their friends and their individual perceptions of sexual peer norms. Participants were 16-21-year-old same-sex friendship dyads (31 male and 30 female dyads) who performed a peer interaction task that consisted of five discussion assignments focusing on party planning, sexual double standards, condom use, homosexuality, and consensual sex. Videotaped discussions were coded to capture the amounts of normative talk (e.g., consistent with notions of healthy sexuality) and deviant talk (e.g., consistent with notions of risky sexuality), and the verbal or nonverbal reinforcement thereof. Participants also completed individual questionnaires to assess their perceived sexual descriptive norms, injunctive norms, pressure, and risk norms among their peers. Actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) results revealed that youths' perceived descriptive, injunctive, and risk norms, but not their experienced peer pressure, were related to both their own (actor effects) and their friends' (partner effects) normativity and deviance. Overall, more deviance was related to perceiving friends to be more sexually active, more approving of having sex, and engaging in more risky sex, whereas more normativity was related to these perceptions in the opposite direction. Gender differences in the APIMs indicated that interactive normativity and deviance was related to perceived descriptive, injunctive, and risk norms for boys, but only to perceived injunctive norms for girls. These findings demonstrate the importance of assessing the dyadic nature of youths' sexual communication with friends, their relation to individual sexual peer norm perceptions, and gender differences therein.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".