MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6888744958 · doi:10.23668/psycharchives.5142

Hostile Masculinity and Emotional Negativity as Pathways to Hostility Toward Women

2021· other· en· W6888744958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Archives · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHostilityMasculinityAggressionPersonalityStructural equation modelingHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hostility toward women is frequently examined as a risk factor for sexual or physical aggression against women, but it is also associated with other violent offenses. However, despite its relevance, research on the etiology of this misogynistic attitude is lacking. Thus, the aim of our study is to explore the effect of developmental and psychological factors on hostility toward women and cognitive distortions associated with it. Partially inspired by Malamuth’s (1996) confluence model of sexual aggression, we will investigate the mediating role of “hostile masculinity” (i.e., personality characteristics associated with callousness and antisociality) and “emotional negativity” (i.e., depressive and anxious emotional experiences) in a multifactorial model of hostility toward women. We tested our etiological model on a Canadian sample of sexual aggressors of women (n=200), using structural equation modeling (SEM). Results indicated the presence of several pathways from childhood victimization leading to hostility toward women through hostile masculinity and emotional negativity. Findings will be discussed along with their theoretical implications.

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)0.005
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology ArchivesFrench-language works237,207