Effects of Gender, Education, Income, Social Rank, Financial Stress, and Shame on Beliefs About the Autonomy of One’s Opinions and Their Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individuals’ beliefs about their opinion-related tendencies should interest public opinion researchers for at least two reasons. First, these beliefs could influence opinion-related behaviors. Second, they are likely to indicate tendencies that transcend specific situations and pertain to a wide range of subjects for which opinions can be held. This study investigates the associations of demographic characteristics, material and social resources, and subjective experiences with the belief that one tends to develop independent opinions (i.e., opinion autonomy) and expresses one’s minority opinions (i.e., expressed autonomy). Effects are estimated through analyses of three waves of data collected from a sample of the U.S. adult population. Education, age, community rank, financial stress, and shame are revealed to have effects of similar magnitude on expressed autonomy and opinion autonomy. Gender is the only variable investigated associated with only one form of autonomy—expressed autonomy. The findings are interpreted through the lenses of identity and affect control theories. Processes related to maintaining authenticity, perceived self-worthiness, and confidence in oneself as an independent thinker and agent are theorized as underlying the results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".