All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Mediational-Hierarchical Model of Sexual Aggression
Unformatted Document Text:  A Mediational-Hierarchical Model of Sexual Aggression Page 9 of 23 Hostile Masculinity High HM Low HM E s t. M a rg in a l M e a n s o f S e x u a l A g g re s s io n 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 Impersonal Sexuality Low IS High IS The Confluence Model Tables A3 and A4 summarize the results of Regression 1, in which Hostile Masculinity, and Impersonal Sex were entered together in Step 1, and the interaction term (HM x IS) was added to the model in Step 2, to predict participants’ total number of sexually aggressive acts (SES). At Step 1, the Confluence Model was a significant predictor of the frequency with which participants reported perpetrating acts of sexual aggression. Adjusted R² for Step 1 was 0.290 (p < 0.0005), indicating that the model comprised of Hostile Masculinity and Impersonal Sexuality accounted for about 29% of the variance in participants’ SES scores. Hostile Masculinity ( = 0.503, p < .0005) was a significant predictor of participants’ SES scores, but Impersonal Sex ( = 0.131, p > 0.10) was not. The change in R² for Step 2 was 0.045, indicating that the addition of the interaction term to the model accounted for about 34% of the variance in participants SES scores. The beta values in column five indicate that at Step 2, Hostile Masculinity ( = 0.477, and p < 0.0005) and the interaction between Hostile Masculinity and Impersonal Sex ( = 0.215, p < 0.05) were significant predictors of participants’ SES scores; however, Impersonal Sex again was not ( = 0.116, p > 0.10). In Figure 1, a median split was used on each of the predictor variables to plot the direction of the interaction between Hostile Masculinity and Impersonal Sex. The interaction occurred in the predicted direction: High rates of both Impersonal Sex and Hostile Masculinity appear to be associated with an increased risk for perpetrating sexual aggression. For participants with Hostile Masculinity scores at or below the median, rates of sexual aggression did not differ by participants’ Impersonal Sex scores. Pornography ANOVA Analyses Risk analysis similar to previous research (e.g. Malamuth, 1986; Malamuth et al., 1995; Malamuth et al., 2000) was conducted to test the moderating effects of pornography consumption. A single “risk score” for sexual aggression was obtained based on the confluence of both of the key composite predictors of HM and SP. Both of these dimensions, which were continuous variables in the regression analyses, were divided Fig. 1. A plot of the two-way interaction between Hostile Masculinity (HM) and Impersonal Sex (IS) predicting number of sexually aggressive acts.

Authors: vega, vanessa. and Malamuth, Neil.
first   previous   Page 9 of 23   next   last



background image
A Mediational-Hierarchical Model of Sexual Aggression
Page 9 of 23
Hostile Masculinity
High HM
Low HM
E
s
t
.
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
M
e
a
n
s
o
f
S
e
x
u
a
l
A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
Impersonal Sexuality
Low IS
High IS
The Confluence Model

Tables A3 and A4 summarize
the results of Regression 1, in
which Hostile Masculinity, and
Impersonal Sex were entered
together in Step 1, and the
interaction term (HM x IS) was
added to the model in Step 2, to
predict participants’ total number
of sexually aggressive acts
(SES). At Step 1, the
Confluence Model was a
significant predictor of the
frequency with which
participants reported
perpetrating acts of sexual
aggression. Adjusted R² for
Step 1 was 0.290 (p < 0.0005),
indicating that the model comprised of Hostile Masculinity and Impersonal Sexuality
accounted for about 29% of the variance in participants’ SES scores. Hostile Masculinity
(
= 0.503, p < .0005) was a significant predictor of participants’ SES scores, but
Impersonal Sex ( = 0.131, p > 0.10) was not. The change in R² for Step 2 was 0.045,
indicating that the addition of the interaction term to the model accounted for about 34%
of the variance in participants SES scores. The beta values in column five indicate that at
Step 2, Hostile Masculinity (
= 0.477, and p < 0.0005) and the interaction between
Hostile Masculinity and Impersonal Sex ( = 0.215, p < 0.05) were significant predictors
of participants’ SES scores; however, Impersonal Sex again was not (
= 0.116, p >
0.10).
In Figure 1, a median split was used on each of the predictor variables to plot the
direction of the interaction between Hostile Masculinity and Impersonal Sex. The
interaction occurred in the predicted direction: High rates of both Impersonal Sex and
Hostile Masculinity appear to be associated with an increased risk for perpetrating sexual
aggression. For participants with Hostile Masculinity scores at or below the median,
rates of sexual aggression did not differ by participants’ Impersonal Sex scores.

Pornography
ANOVA Analyses

Risk analysis similar to previous research (e.g. Malamuth, 1986; Malamuth et al., 1995;
Malamuth et al., 2000) was conducted to test the moderating effects of pornography
consumption. A single “risk score” for sexual aggression was obtained based on the
confluence of both of the key composite predictors of HM and SP. Both of these
dimensions, which were continuous variables in the regression analyses, were divided
Fig. 1. A plot of the two-way interaction between Hostile
Masculinity (HM) and Impersonal Sex (IS) predicting number of
sexually aggressive acts.


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 23   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.