MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409396391 · doi:10.1177/10790632251334754

Attitude Toward Sexual Aggression Against Women (ASAW) Scale: Development and Structural Validity

2025· article· en· W4409396391 on OpenAlexaff
Chloe I. Pedneault, Chantal A. Hermann, D. Hawthorn, Kevin L. Nunes

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersAssociation for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyScale (ratio)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed a new measure designed to facilitate research on the potential role of men’s attitude toward sexual aggression against women in gender-based sexual violence: the Attitude toward Sexual Aggression against Women (ASAW) scale. We created a large pool of items, in which participants were asked to evaluate how bad it would be if they engaged in various sexually aggressive behaviors in a variety of scenarios. Three independent samples of men recruited from online panels ( N = 380, 149, and 322) completed these items. Based on their responses, we retained 13 non-redundant items that had the most variance and covered a wide range of sexually aggressive behaviors (e.g., unwanted sexual touching; non-consensual sex), tactics (e.g., threatening to damage her reputation; using physical force), and contexts (e.g., the woman previously agreed to some sexual activity; the woman is intoxicated). An exploratory factor analysis found that all 13 ASAW items loaded strongly onto one factor, which suggests a unidimensional structure. If future research finds evidence for the construct validity of its scores, potential uses for the ASAW include risk assessment, treatment-related attitude-change, and research into the potential causal role of attitudes in sexual aggression against women.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual AbuseSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207