MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415256599 · doi:10.2196/75485

Predictors for Acceptance of Sexual Aggression Myths Among People Using Cyberporn: Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4415256599 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farah Ben Brahim, Germano Vera Cruz, Robert Courtois, Yasser Khazaal

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual coercionSexual arousalAggressionImpulsivitySalientPoison controlArousalInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although the acceptance of sexual aggression myths (ASAM) has been intensively studied over the past 30 years, there is still a lack of conclusive information on its relationships with a given set of cognitive and behavioral variables. Objective: This study aimed to examine to what extent sexual coercion, compulsive cyberporn use (CCU), arousing cyberporn scenes, moral incongruence, impulsivity, and sexual self-esteem can predict the ASAM-assessed with the Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) score-among people who use cyberporn. Methods: Overall, 1557 English speakers who used cyberporn at least once during the previous 6 months (mean age 33.3, SD 10.9 years; men: n=1000, 64.2%; women: n=557, 35.8%) were included in this study after completing an online questionnaire. The questionnaire included measures of the AMMSA, sexual coercion experiences including perpetration and victimization, CCU, arousing cyberporn scenes, moral incongruence, impulsivity, and sexual self-esteem. Data analytics included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, analysis of variance, and multivariate linear regression. Results: Male participants had significantly higher scores than their female counterparts regarding the following variables: AMMSA (t1551=12.46, P<.001), sexual violence perpetration (t1551=3.10, P<.001), CCU (t1551=8.05, P=.003), aroused by "groups with several females" porn scenes (t1551=8.71, P=.002), and age (t1551=7.11, P<.001). Female participants had significantly greater mean scores than their male counterparts regarding the following variables: sexual violence victimization (t1551=-11, P<.001), aroused by "submission" pornographic scenes (t1551=-5, P<.001), aroused by "soft" pornographic scenes (t1551=-2.40, P=.03), and aroused by "groups with several males" pornographic scenes (t1551=-5.93, P<.001). Among the male participants, AMMSA scores were significantly predicted by scores of sexual coercion (both perpetration and victimization; β=.042, P<.001 and β=.023, P=.03, respectively), CCU (β=.339, P<.001), arousing cyberporn scenes displaying humiliation and groups of males (β=.136, P=.003), sexual self-esteem (β=.164, P<.001), and moral incongruence (β=.131, P<.001). Among the female participants, AMMSA scores were significantly predicted by the scores of sexual coercion perpetration (β=.060, P<.001), CCU (β=.287, P<.001), arousing cyberporn scenes with several females (β=-.111, P=.02), sexual self-esteem (β=.188, P<.001), and age (β=.025, P<.001). Age emerged as a distinct factor in women, with older participants more inclined to accept sexual aggression myths. Conclusions: This study identified key psychological and behavioral correlates of the ASAM across genders. CCU, sexual coercion perpetration, and sexual self-esteem predicted the ASAM. Impulsivity and moral incongruence were salient among men, and age was salient among women. Gender differences emerged in arousal of pornographic content.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207