Perceived personality traits and presumptions of vulnerability to victimization in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In women, having a history of sexual victimization has been linked to certain personality traits (e.g. low levels of assertiveness) and nonverbal behaviors (e.g. fewer head movements). The majority of research in this area, however, has considered how self-reported personality traits and gait relate to victimization. As such, the present study aims to examine how observers’ perceptions of personality impact judgments of targets’ vulnerability to sexual and violent victimization, and how the nonverbal behaviors used when making these judgments may vary depending on perceived personality traits. Design/methodology/approach A total of 309 participants watched eight audio-less videos of a woman speaking. Following each video, participants rated each woman on varying personality and emotionality traits, as well as their perception of how vulnerable the woman was to future victimization, and how they came to their decision according to a number of predetermined nonverbal cues. Findings Consistent with previous research, observers’ perceptions of sexual vulnerability were negatively related to perceptions of targets’ self-esteem and confidence, and positively related to anxiety. While violent vulnerability displayed a similar pattern of results, the nonverbal behaviors cited during the vulnerability appraisal process varied between personality traits. Though few results emerged within the latter query, anxiety exhibited the majority of all significant relationships, including being positively associated with facial expressions and upper and lower body movements. Originality/value Results suggest that different behavioral and personality interventions (e.g. increasing self-esteem) may serve to increase self-efficacy, autonomy and confidence, as well as help women feel more in control of their destiny and interpersonal communications.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".