Exploring dual gender typicality among young adults in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the current study was to better understand the development of gender typicality in young adulthood by applying the dual-identity approach to gender typicality, previously developed with children, to a university sample. Participants ( n = 215, M age = 20.20 years; 62% female) were asked to rate their perceived similarity to both own- and other-gender peers. They also completed questionnaires assessing sexist attitudes, internalized sexualization (females), adherence to male-typed behaviors in the context of interpersonal relationships (males; adherence to physical toughness and restrictive emotional expressivity), gender-based relationship efficacy, friendships, self-esteem, social self-efficacy, and social anxiety. Results indicated that self-perceived gender typicality involves comparisons to both gender groups, and that meaningful typologies can be created based on similarity to own- and other-gender groups. As with children, results indicated that identifying with one’s own gender was advantageous in terms of low social anxiety and relationships with own-gender peers. For adults who identified with both own- and other-gender peers, we identified additional social benefits (i.e., efficacy and friendships with other-gender peers). Further, we identified a downside to own-gender typicality: individuals who identified only with their own gender had more sexist attitudes than those who identified with the other gender. Findings support the viability of the dual-identity approach in young adults, and have implications for researchers assessing gender typicality across development.
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".