1. Megan Campbell Jen Hill Mariko Osada Emily Otto Debbie Spencer Becky Vick

2. Background Information  Alcock, Solano, Kayson (1998)  Baumeister and Boden (1998) Ego Threat  Bjorkqvist (1992) Indirect Aggression in Women Introduction

3. 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

4. Hypothesis  Above Average Attractive Photographs & Unapologetic Response Scenario= Highest Amount of Aggression  Average Attractive Photographs & Apologetic Response Scenario= Lowest Amount of Aggression

5. Rationale Viewing attractive women will elicit ego threat. In order to protect their ego women will indirectly aggress.

6. 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)

7. 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

8.  Scenario~paper form ~Apologetic ~Unapologetic  Indirect Aggression Questionnaire  Debriefing Statement

9. 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

10. 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

11.  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

13. 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

14. 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

15. QUESTIONS?