Brandon Kopp GAP April 13 th, 2007 Veracity Tags.

transcript

Brandon KoppBrandon Kopp

GAPGAP

April 13April 13thth , 2007 , 2007

VeracitVeracityy

TagTagss

NoNoFalseFalse

UntruUntruee

WrongWrong

LieLie

IncorrecIncorrectt

YeYess

TrueTrue

GenuineGenuine

CrediblCrediblee

ValiValidd

CorrecCorrectt

FakFakeeFictitiouFictitiou

FraudulenFraudulentt

Made-Made-UpUp

DoubtfDoubtfulul

Veracity – What’s it good Veracity – What’s it good for?for?

LegitimaLegitimatete

BelievablBelievablee

RealReal

FactuaFactuall

AAticaticais ais afoxfox

NoNo FalsFalsee

UntruUntruee

WronWrongg

LieLieIncorrectIncorrect

Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen, & Russin (2000)Hermsen, & Russin (2000)

Participants Engaged in “Negation” Participants Engaged in “Negation” Training to Reduce Effects of Training to Reduce Effects of StereotypingStereotyping– Pictures of White or Black people paired with Pictures of White or Black people paired with

stereotype consistent or inconsistent traitsstereotype consistent or inconsistent traits– Negation ConditionNegation Condition

Respond “NO” to race - consistent trait pairRespond “NO” to race - consistent trait pair Respond “YES” to race - inconsistent trait pairRespond “YES” to race - inconsistent trait pair

– Maintenance ConditionMaintenance Condition Respond “YES” to race - consistent trait pairRespond “YES” to race - consistent trait pair Respond “NO” to race - inconsistent trait pairRespond “NO” to race - inconsistent trait pair

Training TaskTraining Task

YES NO

athletic

Picture of Black or White Person

(500ms)

Stereotype Relevant Word

(until P answers)

Blank Screen(1s)

Person Categorization TaskPerson Categorization Task

White Black

athleticPrime

(250ms)

Picture of Black or White Person

(until P answers)

Blank Screen(750ms)

Kawakami et al. (2000) – Kawakami et al. (2000) – African-American and Caucasian African-American and Caucasian

StereotypeStereotype

Before After

MaintenanceNegation

F(1,40) = 8.37, p < 0.01

Violent

Affirm - Inconsistent

Negate - Consistent

WealthyBlack Yes

Kawakami et al. (2000) – Kawakami et al. (2000) – Negation TrainingNegation Training

Gawronski, Deutsch, Mbirkou, Gawronski, Deutsch, Mbirkou, Seibt, & Strack (in press)Seibt, & Strack (in press)

Criticized Kawakami et al (2000) for Criticized Kawakami et al (2000) for lumping negation training and lumping negation training and affirmation training together.affirmation training together.

Negation TrainingNegation Training– Respond “NO” to female/male name & Respond “NO” to female/male name &

consistent trait pairconsistent trait pair Affirmation TrainingAffirmation Training

– Respond “YES” to female/male name & Respond “YES” to female/male name & inconsistent trait pairinconsistent trait pair

MethodMethod

Sequential priming taskSequential priming task Training TaskTraining Task

– Affirmation – InconsistentAffirmation – Inconsistent– Negation – ConsistentNegation – Consistent

Sequential priming taskSequential priming task

Gawronski et al. (in press) – Gawronski et al. (in press) – Male and Female StereotypesMale and Female Stereotypes

Before After

Affirm - IncNegate - Con

F(1,79) = 8.39, 0.005

Gawronski et al. (in press) – Gawronski et al. (in press) – African-American and Caucasian African-American and Caucasian

StereotypeStereotype

Before After

Affirm - IncNegate - Con

F(1,79) = 12.49, p < 0.001

Strong No

Negate - Consistent

WeakMale

Gawronski et al. (in press)Gawronski et al. (in press)

Current StudyCurrent Study

To Gawronski et al.’s DesignTo Gawronski et al.’s Design– Affirmation of Inconsistent InformationAffirmation of Inconsistent Information– Negation of Consistent InformationNegation of Consistent Information

We Add the Missing Two ConditionsWe Add the Missing Two Conditions– Affirmation of Consistent InformationAffirmation of Consistent Information– Negation of Inconsistent InformationNegation of Inconsistent Information

HypothesesHypotheses

Gawronski et al. seem to suggest that:Gawronski et al. seem to suggest that:– Affirmation – Inconsistent = Negation – Affirmation – Inconsistent = Negation –

InconsistentInconsistent– Affirmation – Consistent = Negation – Affirmation – Consistent = Negation –

ConsistentConsistent Any difference between Any difference between

affirmation/negation conditions should be affirmation/negation conditions should be result of negation information being stored result of negation information being stored with the consistent/inconsistent with the consistent/inconsistent association association

Before After

Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc

Strong No

Negate - Consistent

WeakMale

MethodMethod

Sequential priming taskSequential priming task Training TaskTraining Task

– Affirmation – ConsistentAffirmation – Consistent– Affirmation – InconsistentAffirmation – Inconsistent– Negation – ConsistentNegation – Consistent– Negation – InconsistentNegation – Inconsistent

Sequential priming taskSequential priming task

InstructionsInstructions Your task is to respond [“NO!”/”YES!”] each time you see

a combination that is [CONSISTENT/INCONSISTENT] with the cultural stereotype of men and women.

Specifically, you are asked to respond [“NO!”/”YES!”] with the space bar each time you see a [FEMALE/MALE] name and a word relating to “WEAKNESS” or a [MALE/FEMALE] name and a word relating to “STRENGTH.”

Please attend particularly to combinations that are [CONSISTENT/INCONSISTENT] with the cultural stereotype of men and women!

For combinations that are [INCONSISTENT/CONSISTENT] with the cultural stereotype of men and women, you do not have to do anything.

Additional InstructionsAdditional Instructions

Affirmation – Inconsistent:Affirmation – Inconsistent: “Yes, that is “Yes, that is counterstereotypical”counterstereotypical”

Negation – Consistent:Negation – Consistent: “No…That “No…That stereotype is wrong”stereotype is wrong”

Affirmation – Consistent:Affirmation – Consistent: “Yes, that is “Yes, that is stereotypical”stereotypical”

Negation – Inconsistent:Negation – Inconsistent: “No, that is not “No, that is not the stereotype”the stereotype”

MaterialsMaterials

MaleMaleANDREWANDREW

BILLBILLPAULPAULDAVIDDAVID

GEORGEGEORGEJASONJASONKEVINKEVIN

MATTHEWMATTHEWRICHARDRICHARD

TONYTONY

FemaleFemaleANGELAANGELABETSYBETSYPEGGYPEGGYDIANNEDIANNEGLORIAGLORIAJANETJANETKARENKAREN

MARTHAMARTHARACHELRACHELTANYATANYA

WeaknesWeakness s

daintydaintydelicatedelicate

weakweakfragilefragilesmallsmall

tendertenderslightslightwispywispyfrailfrail

feeblefeeble

StrengthStrengthmightymighty

powerfulpowerfulforcefulforceful

assertiveassertivepotentpotenttoughtoughstrongstrong

vigorousvigorousintenseintense

bigbig

CategoryCategory TraitTrait

Priming TaskPriming Task

potent

Strength (A) Weakness (L)

RICHARDName

(200ms)

Strength or Weakness Related Word

(until P answers)

Blank Screen(1s)

Learning TaskLearning Task

RICHARD

potent

RICHARDName(500ms)

Strength or Weakness Related Word

(depends on condition)

Blank Screen(1s)

Scoring the Priming TaskScoring the Priming Task

Threw Out:Threw Out:– Incorrect Answers (T1 = 9.0%, T2 = Incorrect Answers (T1 = 9.0%, T2 =

6.1%)6.1%)– RTs > 1000 (T1 = 16.4%, T2 = 12.8%)RTs > 1000 (T1 = 16.4%, T2 = 12.8%)– RTs < 300 (T1 = 0.4%, T2 = 0.3%)RTs < 300 (T1 = 0.4%, T2 = 0.3%)

Level of Gender Stereotyping = Level of Gender Stereotyping = (Female/Strength – Male/Strength) + (Female/Strength – Male/Strength) + (Male/Weakness – Female/Weakness)(Male/Weakness – Female/Weakness)

Learning Trials - ErrorsLearning Trials - Errors

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

of Err

ME of Block: F(2,44) = 14.491, p < 0.001

Learning Trials – RTsLearning Trials – RTs

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

ME of Block: F(2,44) = 7.164, p < 0.05

Expected ResultsExpected Results

Before After

ResultsResults

Before After

F(3,45) = 0.906, ns

Results – Men (n=23)Results – Men (n=23)

Before After

F(3,19) = 0.182, ns

Results – Women (n=26)Results – Women (n=26)

Before After

F(3,22) = 1.238, ns

New Criterion for the Priming New Criterion for the Priming TaskTask

Threw Out:Threw Out:– Incorrect Answers (T1 = 9.0%, T2 = Incorrect Answers (T1 = 9.0%, T2 =

6.1%)6.1%)– RTs < 300ms (T1 = 0.4%, T2 = 0.3%)RTs < 300ms (T1 = 0.4%, T2 = 0.3%)

Capped RT’s > 3000 at 3000Capped RT’s > 3000 at 3000– T1 = 0.5%, T2 = 0.5%T1 = 0.5%, T2 = 0.5%

ResultsResults(capped at 3s)(capped at 3s)

Before After

F(3,45) = 0.615, ns

Results – Men (n=23)Results – Men (n=23)(capped at 3s)(capped at 3s)

Before After

F(3,19) = 0.138, ns

Results – Women (n=26)Results – Women (n=26)(capped at 3s)(capped at 3s)

Before After

F(3,22) = 0.599, ns

Expected ResultsExpected Results

Before After

Slight ChangeSlight Change

Attempt to replicate Gawronski et al. Attempt to replicate Gawronski et al. (in press)(in press)– Removed Additional InstructionsRemoved Additional Instructions– Only ran Affirm-Inconsistent & Negate-Only ran Affirm-Inconsistent & Negate-

Consistent conditionsConsistent conditions– N = 30N = 30

Results – Without Additional Results – Without Additional InstructionsInstructions

(capped at 3s)(capped at 3s)

Before After

Affirm - Inc (2)Negate - Con (2)Affirm - IncNegate - Con

F(3,51) = 0.422, ns

DiscussionDiscussion

Hard to make inferences based on Hard to make inferences based on non-significant datanon-significant data

Some interesting patterns in the dataSome interesting patterns in the data

Future DirectionsFuture Directions

Increase # of Training TrialsIncrease # of Training Trials– From 120 to 200From 120 to 200

Increase # of Priming TrialsIncrease # of Priming Trials– From 96 to 160From 96 to 160

Add measure of motivation to control Add measure of motivation to control gender stereotypinggender stereotyping

Future DirectionsFuture Directions

StrongNO

Future Directions (cont.)Future Directions (cont.)

Word (A) Non-Word (L)

RICHARD

potent

Name(500ms)

True or FalseRelated Word/Non-Word

(until P answers)

Blank Screen(1s)

Questions/Comments?Questions/Comments?

Brandon Kopp GAP April 13 th, 2007 Veracity Tags.

Documents