He Said, She Said: The Role of Self and Peer Rated Attractiveness in the Personality-Victimization Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our own and others' perceptions of our attractiveness are impressively salient. Such perceptions have the power to influence not only the respect and attention we receive from others but also how we are treated in platonic and romantic relationships. This association is found to be particularly relevant for children and adolescents' victimization. I hypothesized that the relationship between attractiveness and victimization is influenced by personality. Victimization outcomes are thought to differ in shy and attractive adolescents compared to outgoing and attractive adolescents. In the current study, links between personality, attractiveness, and victimization were explored. Participants (N = 539, M = 11.82) completed self-report questionnaires to assess personality (via HEXACO Personality Inventory), self-perceptions of attractiveness and victimization. Peer nominations were used to assess students' perceptions of their peers' level of attractiveness and victimization. Significant negative associations were found between Openness and peer nominations of attractiveness and Honesty-Humility and self-reported attractiveness. Furthermore, a significant positive relationship was found between self-reported attractiveness and self-reported indirect victimization. In contrast, significant negative relationships were found between peer-nominated attractiveness and all measures of peer nominated victimization. Mediation analyses resulted in different paths when comparing self-reported and peer nominated victimization. Lastly, contrasting results were found when direct effects were assessed for gender differences. A positive relationship between Emotionality and peer nominated attractiveness was found for girls, while a negative relationship was found for boys. Furthermore, a positive relationship between self-reported attractiveness and self-reported direct victimization was found exclusively in boys. Results have the potential to expand bullying interventions to include not only those who are customarily regarded as victims but all students
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".