Young Women’s Silencing-Type Behaviors in Heterosexual Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminist researchers have demonstrated that engagement in silencing of the self (i.e., self-restrictive and sacrificial behaviors reflecting how women “should” be in relationships) remains a prevalent strategy for relationship maintenance. However, little is known about (young) women silencing themselves in relationships where abuse is present. Young women’s experiences of silencing and other partner-focused behaviors (e.g., sexual compliance) within their relationships were thus explored. Young, partnered women ( M age = 21; N = 146) completed an online survey and open-ended questions about their current intimate relationships. Comparing between groups (abuse, n = 108; non-abuse, n = 38), the former scored higher on measures of total self-silencing, sexual compliance, and non-constructive communication and lower on measures of constructive communication (all p < .001). A mixed inductive and deductive content analysis found that while the importance of communicating with their partner was a preferred strategy for conflict management, multiple participants still emphasized self-suppression as an important part of their experience of relational conflict. Also, most participants indicated feeling as though they could be their authentic selves in their relationships, which suggests that their silencing may be situational and strategic in nature. These findings nuance previous understandings of self-silencing as inherently harmful and instead frame it as something sporadic and done strategically. They also bring forth questions about the extent to which young women’s emphasis on communication and insistence that they can be authentic are a product of changing societal expectations of women in today’s society compared to the 1980s/1990s when much of the foundational work on self-silencing was being done.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".