1. They Did it on Purpose… Or Did They?
Victor R. Bullock, Allyson E. Yarsinske, & Dr. Sarai Blincoe
Longwood University
Results
Introduction
Intentionality can be defined as behaving in a certain way in order to get a desired outcome (Owen, 2009). Intentional actions have three components: the agent’s interest in producing an effect, the agent’s control over producing an effect, and the agent's belief that there is a chance of producing the desired effect (Sverdlik, 2014). Combining the concept of intentionality with the research conducted by Blincoe and Harris (2011) on disrespect, we designed a scenario to explore the role of intentionality in disrespectful incidents.
Hypotheses
Intentionality will be rated higher when the disrespect is coming from a coworker in the presence of a group.
Feelings of hostility, sadness, and surprise will be higher when a coworker commits the disrespect than when a manager commits the disrespect.
Feelings of hostility, sadness, and surprise will be higher when the disrespect is committed in the presence (vs. absence) of a group.
Intentionality will be positively correlated with hostility and sadness.
Method
Participants
158 United States citizens,18-65 years old, (45.6% female).
Participants received $1.00 for participation.
Materials &Procedure
Participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk) to complete the study via SurveyMonkey.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four scenarios describing a disrespectful incident.
IV 1 Status of Disrespectful Actor: Manager/Coworker.
IV 2 Group Context of Disrespectful Act: Present/Absent.
After reading the scenario, participants gave their emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses to the disrespect.
Emotional responses, (hostility, sadness, surprise, self-assurance) were measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale.
Perceptions of intentionality were assessed via five questions measured on a 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale.
The Manager made the comment on purpose.
The Manager’s intention was to get a reaction.
The Manager planned to make the statement.
The Manager was aware of how this statement could be perceived.
I think the Manager thought about how to phrase the statement before making it.
Table 1. The effect of the actor’s status on emotions
Manager
Coworker M SD t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Hostility
2.53
.87
2.73
1.07
1.29
145
.20
Sadness
2.78
.83
1.57
.72
-9.53
152
.00
Self-Assured
1.93
.77
2.02
.96
.585
147
.56
Surprise
2.56
.97
2.58
1.05
.16
150
.88
When the actor is a manager, ratings of sadness are higher compared to when the actor is a coworker (see Table 1).
Table 2. Effect of group context on emotions
Present
Absent M SD t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Hostility
2.58
.99
2.68
.97
.63
145
.53
Sadness
2.30
2.14
.98
-.97
152
.34
Self-Assured
1.96
.88
1.20
.85
.30
147
.77
Surprise
2.57
1.06
-.01
150
Group context did not affect any of the emotions (see Table 2).
Figure 1. Perceptions of intentionality were higher in the coworker condition (M = 3.2, SD = .09) than the manager condition (M = 2.86, SD = .08), F(1,149) = 8.289, p < .01. The main effect of group context was not significant, p = .79, nor was the interaction, p = .412.
Discussion
The status of the disrespectful actor affects perceptions of intentionality but not deservingness.
The group context of the disrespectful act affects perceptions of deservingness, but not intentionality.
When disrespect is committed by an authority figure more sadness is reported than compared to a peer.
Future research
Examine the possible influence of actor sex.
Manipulate the type of disrespect to better understand its effects on intentionality ratings.
Expand to a student sample with classmate/professor as actor.
Limitations
Additional participants to increase power.
Clearer manipulation of group presence.
Figure 2. The ratings of deservingness were not significantly affected by the status of the actor, p = .19; however, when the disrespect occurs in the presence of a group (M = 2.04, SD = .11) deservingness is rated higher than when the disrespect occurs in the absence of the group (M = 2.42, SD = .10), F(1, 153) = 6.85, p = .01. The interaction was not significant, p = .40.
Table 3. Intentionality and Emotions Correlations
Hostility
Sadness
Self-Assured
Surprise
Intentionality
.10
-.14
.21**
.07
Deservingness
-.41**
-.04
-.24**
-.26** M
2.63
2.22
1.98
2.57 SD
.97
.99
.86
1.01
** = significant at .01
Questions? Contact Victor Bullock at or Allyson Yarsinske at