MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950528821 · doi:10.1177/2158244019857341

Size Matters After All: Experimental Evidence that SEM Consumption Influences Genital and Body Esteem in Men

2019· article· en· W2950528821 on OpenAlexaff
Kaylee Skoda, Cory L. Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamSelf-esteemPsychologyMedia consumptionConsumption (sociology)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAdvertisingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has found that images depicted in the mainstream media have a negative influence on self-esteem, particularly among women. With the ease of accessibility and distribution of sexually explicit material (SEM) in recent years, due largely to the rise of the Internet, it has been postulated that consumers of SEM may experience reduced self-esteem in an effect similar to that found in research on exposure to mainstream media imagery. This experimental investigation explored whether exposure to SEM influenced self-esteem in consumers and whether this effect was comparable with that of exposure to mainstream media. Male and female participants were randomly assigned to no imagery, mainstream media imagery, or SEM imagery conditions and asked to report levels of overall global self-esteem, as well as levels of body-specific and genital-specific self-esteem. Mean scores were significantly lower for female participants relative to males overall, but exposure to SEM imagery revealed a significant negative effect on body-specific and genital-specific self-esteem among men only. Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207