Correlates of Sexting Coercion Victimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an online sample of adults aged 18 to 30 (n = 2,828), we examined if experiencing sexting coercion victimization was correlated with demographic (e.g., sexual orientation), relationship domain variables (e.g., number and length of relationships), prior victimization, sexuality domain variables (e.g., pornography use), and sexting behaviour (e.g., frequency). Approximately 1 in 5 participants reported being pressured (22%; 620/2,828; Nmen = 125, Nwomen = 495), threatened (5%; 144/2,828; Nmen = 19, Nwomen = 125), or coerced (22%; 629/2,828; Nmen = 127, Nwomen = 502) into sending a sext. Prior victimization, greater mating effort (e.g., multiple partners, infidelity) were unique correlates of experiencing sexting coercion victimization. Alternatively, greater pornography consumption among females was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of experiencing sexting coercion victimization. The study highlights correlates that increase an individual’s susceptibility to coercive sexting. Our findings can inform interventions and future research directions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".