Expectations of Male and Female Adoptive Parents of Different Marital Status and Sexual Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults in the U.S. (undergraduate college students and adults recruited online) read vignettes about a fictional individual seeking to adopt an infant. Based on random assignment, participants read versions in which the prospective adoptive parent described was either an implied male or female and single, married to someone of the opposite sex, or married to someone of the same sex. After reading the vignettes, participants rated their expectations of the prospective parent’s ability to parent and their perceptions of the prospective parent’s personal characteristics. Female participants reported significantly (p < .05) higher expectations of general ability to parent and perceived higher responsibility, greater likeability, and less selfishness. Both sexes endorsed significantly lower anticipation of ability to parent and less responsibility when the prospective parent was designated as single or in a same-sex marriage. Same-sex prospective parents were additionally rated as significantly higher in immorality. Prospective fathers were rated as less likeable than prospective mothers and participants approved less of their plan to adopt. The authors discuss findings as relevant to bias favoring traditional families headed by a man and a woman with the wife taking the lead in the transition to parenthood.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".