Date post: | 04-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | colin-nelson |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Brandon KoppBrandon Kopp
GAPGAP
April 13April 13thth , 2007 , 2007
VeracitVeracityy
TagTagss
NoNoFalseFalse
UntruUntruee
WrongWrong
LieLie
IncorrecIncorrectt
YeYess
TrueTrue
GenuineGenuine
CrediblCrediblee
ValiValidd
CorrecCorrectt
FakFakeeFictitiouFictitiou
ss
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
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Before After
Auto
mat
ic R
acia
l Ste
reoty
pin
g
MaintenanceNegation
F(1,40) = 8.37, p < 0.01
Violent
No
Affirm - Inconsistent
Negate - Consistent
WealthyBlack Yes
Kawakami et al. (2000) – Kawakami et al. (2000) – Negation TrainingNegation Training
Black
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
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
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Before After
Auto
mat
ic R
acia
l Ste
reoty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - Con
F(1,79) = 12.49, p < 0.001
Strong No
Affirm - Inconsistent
Negate - Consistent
WeakMale
Yes
Gawronski et al. (in press)Gawronski et al. (in press)
Male
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
HypothesesHypotheses
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Before After
Auto
mat
ic S
tere
oty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
Strong No
Affirm - Inconsistent
Negate - Consistent
WeakMale
Yes
HypothesesHypotheses
Male
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
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
Per
centa
ge
of Err
os
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
ME of Block: F(2,44) = 14.491, p < 0.001
Learning Trials – RTsLearning Trials – RTs
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
RT
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
ME of Block: F(2,44) = 7.164, p < 0.05
Expected ResultsExpected Results
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
ResultsResults
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
F(3,45) = 0.906, ns
Results – Men (n=23)Results – Men (n=23)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
F(3,19) = 0.182, ns
Results – Women (n=26)Results – Women (n=26)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
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)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
F(3,45) = 0.615, ns
Results – Men (n=23)Results – Men (n=23)(capped at 3s)(capped at 3s)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
F(3,19) = 0.138, ns
Results – Women (n=26)Results – Women (n=26)(capped at 3s)(capped at 3s)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
F(3,22) = 0.599, ns
Expected ResultsExpected Results
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Before After
Auto
mat
ic S
tere
oty
pin
g
Affirm - IncNegate - ConAffirm - ConNegate - Inc
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)
-40
0
40
80
120
Before After
Auto
mat
ic G
ender
Ste
reoty
pin
g
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
Man
StrongNO
Future Directions (cont.)Future Directions (cont.)
FASLE
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?