Inhibitory Control in Sexually Coercive Men: Behavioral Insights Using a Stop-Signal Task With Neutral, Emotional, and Erotic Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Response inhibition is defined as one's ability to voluntarily override an automatic or already initiated action when that action is inappropriate. Although a core mechanism of self-control, its association with sexual coercion perpetration and the impact of erotic cues on its exertion remain unknown. According to a domain-specific perspective on impulsivity, response inhibition performances should be disproportionately hindered by sexual cues in sexual coercion perpetrators. In total, 94 male college students completed a stop-signal task that included neutral, emotional, and erotic distracters. Results showed that men who reported past use of sexual coercion obtained overall poorer stop-signal task (SST) performances. Highly arousing sexual stimuli equally hindered the performances of perpetrators and non-perpetrators, whereas moderately arousing sexual and nonsexual positive stimuli did not significantly affect performances. Results do not support a domain-specific perspective on the link between response inhibition and sexual coercion, but rather suggest generally poorer inhibitory control among sexual coercion perpetrators.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".