MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392236299 · doi:10.1007/s13178-024-00951-2

Affective and Attitudinal Features of Benevolent Heterosexism in Italy: The Italian Validation of the Multidimensional Heterosexism Inventory

2024· article· en· W4392236299 on OpenAlexaff
Vincenzo Bochicchio, Selene Mezzalira, N. Eugene Walls, Raquel Lucas Platero Méndez, Miguel Ángel López‐Sáez, Bojana Bodroža, Manuel Joseph Ellul, Cristiano Scandurra

Bibliographic record

VenueSexuality Research and Social Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversità della CalabriaEuropean Commission
KeywordsHeterosexismPsychologyDiscriminant validitySocial psychologyAuthoritarianismDevelopmental psychologyScale (ratio)Confirmatory factor analysisConstruct validityHomosexualityPsychometricsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction People who belong to a sexual and gender minority often face prejudices that have their roots in heterosexism, a sociocultural system that can manifest itself in different ways and sometimes in a seemingly benevolent fashion. The present study examined the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Heterosexism Inventory (MHI), a scale assessing aversive, amnestic, paternalistic, and positive stereotypic heterosexism, in an Italian sample. Methods Two hundred one cisgender and heterosexual individuals (129 women and 72 men) aged 18 to 81 years ( M = 36.42, SD = 12.56) were recruited online between May and October 2022 and answered questions about social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Results Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the original 4-factor model of the scale fit the data well. Predictive and convergent validity of the Italian version of the MHI was adequate, whereas discriminant validity was not fully achieved due to overlap of multidimensional heterosexism with hostile and benevolent sexism and authoritarianism. Scores were higher for aversive and amnesic heterosexism in men than in women, but not for paternalistic and positive stereotypic heterosexism. Finally, less educated participants, those with no LGBTQI + friends, and religious participants were higher in all MHI subscales than their counterparts. Conclusions This study provides the first evidence for the validity and reliability of an Italian version of the MHI. Policy Implications Using the MHI can help to make visible not only the explicit but also the subtle forms of heterosexism, thus recognizing the multidimensional nature of heterosexism produced in social institutions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.367 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexuality Research and Social PolicySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207