Evolutionary Psychology and LGBTQ+ Issues: A Qualitative Study of Queer Women’s Perspectives on Research Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines reactions to a recent evolutionary psychology article that uses self-report data to claim that same-sex attraction in women evolved because men find it a desirable quality in a mate. Our study explores a novel perspective on the article by interviewing 29 women with attraction to women in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Participants read a news article about the original study, then the original article, and were then asked about their thoughts and feelings. Our research questions were as follows: 1) What cognitive and emotional reactions to the article do women with attraction to women experience? 2) Why did this article generate a lot of online criticism, from the perspective of women who are attracted to women? 3) Do papers like this cause women with attraction to women to change their opinions about psychological journals and/or psychological research? Using thematic analysis, we found seven themes: Negative emotion, identity threat, failure to address sociocultural explanations, male/hetero-centric, differences in paradigms, sensationalized news article, and contextualizing. The proliferation of articles like these represents one of many small stressors women attracted to women deal with as a minority population, and this stress can have important implications for health.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".