Revisiting the Role of Pornography Use in the Confluence Model Theory of Sexual Aggression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research tested Confluence Model reasoning that pornography use should be related to sexual aggression among men who are high but not low in the predisposing risk factors of hostile masculinity (HM) and impersonal sexuality (IS). This hypothesis was examined with three online surveys of young adult males, including an American Mechanical Turk sample (N1 = 1,528, Mage = 22.46 years); a national sample of Canadian students (N2 = 1,049, Mage = 20.89 years); and a national sample of Canadian non-students (N3 = 905, Mage = 21.66 years). As expected, synergistic interactions between HM and IS reliably predicted self-reported sexual aggression across samples. Results with respect to interactions with pornography use were more complex. The Confluence Model hypothesis was supported when pornography use was operationalized as the use of nine specific magazines but it was not supported when pornography use was operationalized with a contemporary inclusive approach that included use of internet materials. These discrepant findings are difficult to account for with Confluence Model theorizing and highlight the non-equivalence of pornography use measures in survey research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".