1 / 15

Influences of Attractiveness on Indirect Aggression

Influences of Attractiveness on Indirect Aggression. Megan Campbell Jen Hill Mariko Osada Emily Otto Debbie Spencer Becky Vick. Introduction. Background Information. Alcock, Solano, Kayson (1998) Baumeister and Boden (1998) Ego Threat Bjorkqvist (1992)

urit
Download Presentation

Influences of Attractiveness on Indirect Aggression

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Influences of Attractiveness on Indirect Aggression Megan Campbell Jen Hill Mariko Osada Emily Otto Debbie Spencer Becky Vick

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

  3. Variables Independent Variables~ IV1Attractiveness 2 Levels 1~ average attractiveness 2~ above average attractiveness IV2 Scenario 2 Levels 1~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. ~Marginally significant main effect for scenario F(1,101)=3.40, MSe=49.99, p=.068 • Interaction ~No significant interaction between attractiveness and scenario F(1,101)=.008, MSe=49.99, p>.05

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. QUESTIONS?

More Related