Femininity, LGBTQ Identity, and Paranormal Belief: Doing Gender and Religious Individualism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How are gender and sexuality related to belief in the paranormal? Study 1 uses a probability sample of New Jersey residents (n = 813) to run an experiment in which respondents reported their level of belief in astrology, ghostly hauntings, the Jersey Devil, and two political conspiracy theories. Half of respondents were primed to think about their gender prior to answering these questions. Women, but not men, who were primed were substantially more likely to report belief in all three paranormal items, but not the political conspiracies. LGB women were more likely than their straight counterparts to report belief in ghostly hauntings and the Jersey Devil. To confirm these findings, Study 2 used a probability sample of the entire US (n = 806) and included a broader measure of LGBTQ identity. Similarly to the first study, LGBTQ people were more likely to believe in astrology and ghostly hauntings. While the mechanisms behind these relationships require further study, prior work leads us to believe that “doing” femininity for some women involves reporting belief in (or being less likely to reject) the paranormal, whereas LGBTQ people are more likely to report paranormal belief due to social unconventionality and religious individualism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".