Megan Campbell Jen Hill Mariko Osada Emily Otto Debbie Spencer Becky Vick
Background Information Alcock, Solano, Kayson (1998) Baumeister and Boden (1998) Ego Threat Bjorkqvist (1992) Indirect Aggression in Women Introduction
Variables Independent Variables~ IV1 Attractiveness 2 Levels1~ average attractiveness 2~ above average attractiveness IV2 Scenario 2 Levels1~apologetic 2~unapologetic Dependent Variable~ Indirect Aggression Measure~ Self-reported Questionnaire
Hypothesis Above Average Attractive Photographs & Unapologetic Response Scenario= Highest Amount of Aggression Average Attractive Photographs & Apologetic Response Scenario= Lowest Amount of Aggression
Rationale Viewing attractive women will elicit ego threat. In order to protect their ego women will indirectly aggress.
Method Participants ~105 female Mount Holyoke Students ~Randomly assigned into four groups: 1.average attractive photos & apologetic scenario (n=28) 2.average attractive photos & unapologetic scenario (n=25) 3.above average attractive photos & apologetic scenario (n=28) 4.above average attractive photos & unapologetic scenario (n=24)
Materials Consent form 2 Power point slide shows of 15 photos of women’s faces. ~Above average attractive women faces ~Average attractive women’s faces
Scenario~paper form ~Apologetic ~Unapologetic Indirect Aggression Questionnaire Debriefing Statement
Procedure Consent Form Ps randomly assigned into one of four groups Ps view 2 min. 20 second slide show of assigned make-over condition Ps read assigned scenario Ps fill out aggression questionnaire Debriefing statement
Results Analysis~ 2(attractiveness: above average attractive vs. average attractive) x 2(scenario: apologetic vs. unapologetic) independent groups ANOVA Main effect ~No main effect for attractiveness F(1,101)=.01, MSe=49.99, p>.05
Interaction ~No significant interaction between attractiveness and scenario F(1,101)=.008, MSe=49.99, p>.05 ~Marginally significant main effect for scenario F(1,101)=3.40, MSe=49.99, p=.068
Discussion Hypothesis was not supported by the results Alcock et al study (1998) ~similar main effect for scenarios ~difference in result for attractiveness ~no interaction between attractiveness and scenario
Future Directions Manipulation wasn’t strong enough To strengthen manipulation: Scenario~more Ps to add power and significance Revise pilot study~longer viewing time Stronger measure~revise questionnaire
QUESTIONS?