Web Appendix A: Proof of Concept Facebook Study

Web Appendix A: Proof of Concept Facebook Study

In January 2018, an online petition asking the USDA to allow SNAP funds to be spent on

pet food was signed by over 100,000 people (Morris 2018). Networks who shared this news via

social media received hundreds of comments from consumers who gave their opinions on this

proposed policy. For two such articles shared on social media, we i) coded people’s responses as

either being for or against this policy change and ii) labeled respondents as either having a pet or

not (codings were made independent of each other). We posited that support for this policy

would be predicted by whether or not a commenter showed evidence of having a pet. While a

naturalistic study such as this is less controlled, it does serve to capture a spontaneous, real-world

illustration of our proposed effect which our experimental studies build on further.

Method

We analyzed Facebook users’ comments that were made on two articles posted by news

sources (NBC affiliate in Madison, WI and Fox affiliate in Cleveland, OH).

NBC Madison article. Four hundred and forty-three comments were originally included

in the dataset. Eighteen of these comments were removed from analysis because they lacked any

meaningful content that could be analyzed (e.g., comment only contained the name of a friend

tagged in the post, leaving 425 comments to be analyzed. Comments were coded by MTurk users

as having either a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the proposed policy change on a five-point

scale (1 = strongly against policy, 5 = strongly supports policy). Coders were randomly assigned

to rate 20 of the comments. Each comment received 5 to 10 ratings. The commenters’ Facebook

profiles were then explored for evidence of having a pet in their profile picture(s). A priori,

profiles that had fewer than ten public pictures were considered uninformative (n = 108). Profiles

with pictures of pets were considered as evidence of having a pet (n = 145), and profiles with

more than ten pictures and no pictures of pets were considered as not having a pet (n = 172).

Fox Cleveland article. Two hundred and twenty-three comments were originally included

in the dataset. One comment was removed from analysis because they lacked any meaningful

content that could be analyzed, leaving 222 comments to be analyzed. MTurk users were

randomly assigned to rate 20 of the comments as having a favorable or unfavorable attitude

toward the policy (1 = strongly against policy, 2 = somewhat against policy, 3 = mixed opinion

of policy, 4 = somewhat supports policy, 5 = strongly supports policy). Each comment received 7

to 10 ratings. To simplify and more objectively define the coding of having a pet, we simply

coded whether the respondent had a picture of a pet specifically in their profile picture (n = 30),

or did not (n = 192). Our coding choices create a conservative test of our hypotheses, insofar as

one can theoretically have a pet or value pets and not post pictures of them on social media. This

also explains why there are seemingly so few people with pets in this dataset compared to the

NBC Wisconsin dataset.

Results and Discussion

Welfare attitudes are often articulated as principled beliefs and a reflection of ideology.

However, we found that the simple fact of whether or not one has a pet was a strong predictor of

policy attitudes. For the NBC article, an ANOVA showed that those with evidence of having a

pet showed significantly more support for the policy (M = 2.70, SD = 1.36) compared to those

showing no evidence of having a pet (M = 2.03, SD = 1.00) or those for whom having a pet was

inconclusive (M = 2.08, SD = 1.21), F (2, 422) = 14.83, p < .001. Said differently, 25.3% of

those identified as having a pet made comments that were on average “somewhat” or “strongly”

supportive of the policy versus only 8.2% of those with no evidence of having a pet (and 10% of

those for who having a pet was inconclusive).

For the Fox article, an independent samples t-test found that those with evidence of

having a pet supported the policy significantly more (M = 3.10, SD = 1.45) than those showing

no evidence of having a pet (M = 2.24, SD = 1.28), t(220) = 3.37, p < .001. Said differently, 40%

of those who had a pet in their profile picture made comments that were on average “somewhat”

or “strongly” supportive of the policy versus only 16.6% of those who did not.

These results provide some preliminary, real-world evidence that people’s attitudes

toward specific welfare policies can vary as a function of egocentric processes. While the nature

of these data are imprecise, they are nevertheless illustrative of the proposed phenomenon.

Web Appendix B: Study 1a Experimental Materials, Pre-test, and Supplementary Analyses

Study 1a Materials

Please RANK the following things according to how you would PRIORITIZE them. That is,

with a limited amount of money, what you would keep in your budget and what would you

remove? Things you would keep in your budget go toward the TOP of the list. Things you would

NOT buy in order to buy other things go toward the BOTTOM of the list:

salty snacks (e.g., pretzels, potato chips)

soda

sugary snack (e.g., candy, candy bars)

frozen processed food

dessert foods (e.g., cake, ice cream)

Now, please rate how much you like each of the following things: (same five items as above

were listed, 1 = not at all, 5 = moderately, 9 = very)

How well do the following statements describe your personality? I see myself as someone who...

…is reserved

…is generally trusting

…tends to be crazy

…is relaxed, handles stress well

…has few artistic interests

…is outgoing, sociable

…tends to find fault with others

…does a thorough job

…gets nervous easily

…has an active imagination

You will next read about a person and answer some questions about your impression of them.

Tim Garrett is 32 years old, and lives in Kansas City Missouri. He has a diploma from a community

college. He has a wife and child that he lives with. He is recently unemployed, and is receiving

welfare from the government. He receives a few hundred dollars a month in the form of cash

assistance as well as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds (SNAP, i.e., "food

stamps").

Target Profile Image from Minear, Meredith and Denise C. Park (2004), “A Lifespan Database

of Adult Facial Stimuli,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 630 –

633).

Image file name: TMWmale22neutral.bmp

When Tim goes grocery shopping with his SNAP (food stamp) funds, he will sometimes buy

some ______________ along with his other groceries [food item varied by condition. Was either

participants most or least preferred item from ranking task].

Manipulation check: How much value do you think Tim will get from buying salty snacks,

considering other ways that he could spend his SNAP funds?

(1 = very little, 5 = a moderate amount, 9 = a lot)

In your opinion, how likely is it that Tim…

(1 = not at all, 5 = moderately, 9 = extremely).

…is irresponsible with his money

…is impulsive

…is easily tempted

…lacks self-control

…violent

…rude

…vulgar

…mean

What was Tim’s occupation? [attention check]

None, was receiving government assistance

None, disability

Restaurant server

Construction

Consumer service

What is your sex? Male, Female

What is your age?

On the scale below please indicate your household’s approximate yearly income before taxes

(Below $20,000, 20-30k, 30-40k, 40-50k, 50-70k, 70-100k, 100-200k, 200k+)

How would you describe yourself politically? (1 = very liberal, 5 = moderate, 9 = very

conservative)

Have YOU ever been a recipient of government assistance (SNAP/"food stamps", or

SSI/TANF/"welfare") (No, Yes)

What is your overall attitude toward government assistance programs commonly referred to as

"welfare" (e.g., SNAP/"food stamps", SSI and TANF)? (1 = very negative, 5 = neither negative

nor positive, 9 = very positive)

Pre-test

To first determine that the stereotype of welfare recipients being irresponsible is indeed a

relevant stereotype that is relatively unique to this group, 75 participants (MTurk) were asked, in

random order, the extent to which they associate the following traits with each of six different

groups: impulsive, easily gives into temptation, can delay gratification, and is bad at money

management (1 = not at all, 9 = very much; coded so that higher scores reflect higher

irresponsibility). The six groups rated were welfare recipients, middle-class people, blue-collar

workers, businesspeople, non-working housewives, and the retired elderly. Thus, target groups

varied in their employment status and income level. We found that welfare recipients were

judged as more irresponsible (M = 5.25, SD = 1.98) compared to all other groups (Ms < 4.64 SDs

= 1.37 – 1.73), ts > 2.19, ps < .03, suggesting that this stereotype is more relevant to people’s

perceptions of welfare recipients than for other groups.

Primary Analyses with Control Variables (Income, Political Orientation, If They Have

Received Welfare Before, General Welfare Attitudes)

Effect of condition on stereotyping: F (2, 180) = 5.02, p = .008

Least preferred vs. most preferred: p = .02

Least preferred vs. baseline: p = .004

Most preferred vs. baseline: p = .75

Effect of condition stereotype-irrelevant traits: F (2, 180) = 6.91, p = .001

Least preferred vs. most preferred: p = .07

Least preferred vs. baseline: p < .001

Most preferred vs. baseline: p = .10

Interaction Between Target Product (Most vs. Least Preferred) and Specific Product

Selected by Participant (e.g., Salty Snacks, Soda, etc.)

Stereotyping: F (1, 182) = 1.18, p = .87

Web Appendix C: Study 1b Materials and Supplementary Analyses

Study 1b Materials

Please rank your interest in paying for each of the following things, with your MOST preferred

option at the TOP, and your LEAST preferred option at the bottom of the list.

(the zoo, a play in a theater, an amusement park, a museum, a movie)

[profile of Tim was the same as in Study 1].

Imagine that Tim is walking down the street and finds $50. Unable to find the original owner, he

takes this bit of good luck and decides to take his wife to ________________. [purchase listed

was either participants’ most or least preferred purchase from the ranking task, depending on condition].

You read that Tim spent $50 taking his family to the zoo. To you, how much is this purchase

“worth”? Meaning, what price do you think accurately reflects the value that one would obtain

from making this purchase? You might see it as not worth very much based on what kind of

use/enjoyment/satisfaction/value one gets out of it. You might see it as worth a lot given the

amount of use/enjoyment/satisfaction/value one gets out of it.

[participants indicated a dollar amount from $0-100]

How much value do you think Tim will get from this purchase, considering other ways that one

could spend $50? (1 = very little, 5 = a moderate amount, 9 = a lot)

Tim is responsible with his money (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = neither agree nor disagree, 9 =

strongly agree

Tim is impulsive

Tim lacks self-control

Tim makes poor purchasing decisions

(1 = not at all, 5 = moderately, 9 = very)

[Attention check, demographic, and control items were the same as in Study 1a, except general

welfare attitudes was not measured]


Received Welfare Before)

Effect of condition on stereotyping: F (1, 182) = 6.77, p = .01

Interaction Between Target Purchase (Most vs. Least Preferred) and Specific Purchase

Selected (e.g., going to the zoo, amusement park, etc.)

Stereotyping: F (1, 177) = 1.89, p = .11

Web Appendix D: Study 1c Materials and Supplementary Analyses

Study 1c Materials

Healthy goal condition:

On the next page, please imagine that you are going grocery shopping with the overall goal of

buying healthy food. This may or may not be what you already do, but imagine that your primary

concern on this trip is making healthy choices.

Imagine that you are going grocery shopping with the overall goal of buying healthy food. This

may or may not be what you already do, but imagine that your primary concern on this trip is

making healthy choices.

Please list 10 items below that you would buy on this trip. As you try to think of things, consider

that you will need food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, side dishes, snacks, drinks, and so on.

Please take a minute or two and do your best to list 10 healthy items you would buy on this trip.

Baseline goal condition:

On the next page, please imagine that you are going on a typical grocery shopping trip.

Imagine that you are going on a typical grocery shopping trip.

Please list 10 items below that you would buy on this trip. As you try to think of things, consider

that you will need food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, side dishes, snacks, drinks, and so on.

Please take a minute or two and do your best to list 10 items you would buy on a typical grocery

shopping trip.

Next, you will be asked to rate different purchases made with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP) funds, otherwise known as food stamps.

You can see each purchase as a not at all appropriate use of SNAP money, very appropriate, or

something in between.

Please just try to answer as honestly as possible.

(1 = not at all appropriate, 5 = moderately appropriate, 9 = very appropriate

Less-healthy items:

Healthy items:

Think back to your grocery shopping trip that you made a minute ago.

Overall, how healthy do you think your purchases were on this trip? (1 = not at all, 5 =

moderately, 9 = very)

To what extent do you think that the grocery purchases that YOU made earlier are similar to

those of the average SNAP ("food stamp") recipient? (1 = not at all, 5 = moderately, 9 = very)

[demographic and control items were the same as in Study 1a]



Effect of goal condition on purchase appropriateness ratings:

Less healthy items: F (1, 198) = 21.97, p < .001

Healthy items: F (1, 198) = 1.19, p = .28

Web Appendix E: Study 2 Materials and Supplementary Analyses

Study 2 Materials

[The ranking task and subsequent filler task was the same as in Study 1]

Manipulation check: How much value do you think people get from buying ________,

considering other ways that people can spend money? [item was either the participant’s most or

least preferred item, depending on condition]

(1 = very little, 5 = a moderate amount, 9 = a lot)

To what extent do you think that a middle-class American buying…/To what extent do you think

that someone receiving welfare (e.g., SNAP/food stamps) buying __________ reflects…

[target varied by condition, item listed varied by condition]

…being irresponsible with one’s money

…being impulsive

…being easily tempted

…lacking self-control

State legislators in various states are proposing that _________ be prohibited as SNAP (aka:

food stamp) purchases. What do you think of this? [item was either the participant’s most or


(1 = strongly agree, 5 = neither agree nor disagree, 9 = strongly agree)

These purchases should NOT be covered by welfare programs.

I would support this kind of restriction.

This policy is a good idea.

Making these purchases should disqualify SNAP/food stamp recipients from receiving their

benefits.

If this policy was on a ballot, I would vote for it.

Attention check: What product category did you answer questions about? (salty snacks, soda,

sugary snacks, frozen processed food, dessert foods)

Suspicion probe: In your own words, what do you think this survey was investigating?

[All demographic items and control items were the same as in Study 1]



Stereotyping:

Purchase (most vs. least preferred) X target (welfare recipient vs. middle class): F (1,

171) = 6.35, p = .01

Effect of purchase with welfare recipient target: F (1, 84) = 18.43, p < .001

Effect of purchase with middle class target: F (1, 83) = .35, p = .56

Policy Attitudes:

Purchase (most vs. least preferred) X target (welfare recipient vs. middle class): F (1,

171) = 1.87, p = .17

Effect of purchase with welfare recipient target: F (1, 84) = 22.35, p < .001

Effect of purchase with middle class target: F (1, 83) = 11.01, p = .001

Moderated Mediation:

LLCI = -2.0284, ULCI = -.5357

Indirect effect when target is welfare recipients: LLCI = .6202, ULCI = 2.0683

Indirect effect when target is middle class: LLCI = -.1145, ULCI = .2910

Interaction Between Target Product (Most vs. Least Preferred), Target Being Judged

(Welfare Recipient vs. Middle Class) and Specific Product Selected (e.g., Salty Snacks,

Soda, etc.)

Stereotyping:

Three-way interaction: F (3, 164) = .79, p = .50

All two-way interactions between conditions and specific product selected:

Fs < .79, ps > .48

Policy Attitudes:


Two-way interaction between target being judged (welfare vs. middle class) and specific

product selected: F (4, 164) = 2.59, p = .04. Two-way interaction between target being

judged (welfare vs. middle class) and target product (most vs. least preferred): F (4, 164)

= .65, p = .63.

Factor Loadings for Stereotyping and Policy Attitudes

Principal axis factoring with promax rotation

Item Stereotyping Policy

Attitudes

…being irresponsible with

one’s money

.64 .17

…being impulsive

.92 -.10


.91 -.05


.81 .11

These purchases should NOT

be covered by welfare

programs.

.01 .89

I would support this kind of

restriction.

-.04 1.00


-.01 .95

Making these purchases should

disqualify SNAP/food stamp

recipients from receiving their

benefits.

.06 .70

If this policy was on a ballot, I

would vote for it.

.02 .95

Mediation Pathways

Model 58 PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes 2018). Coefficients are unstandardized. Direct

effect from target product to policy attitudes is with stereotyping, judgment target, and

stereotyping X judgment target in the model. Effect of stereotyping on policy attitudes is with

target product, judgment target, and stereotyping X judgement target in the model. *p <.05, **p

< .01.

Web Appendix F: Supplementary Study 1 Materials and Analyses

Supplementary Study 1 Materials

[The ranking task and subsequent filler items were the exact same as in Study 2 except

participants ranked the following items: salty snacks (e.g., pretzels, potato chips), soda, sugary

snacks (e.g., candy, candy bars), energy drinks, dessert foods (e.g., cake, ice cream].

[Manipulation check was the same as in Study 2].

State legislators in various states are proposing that ___________ be prohibited as SNAP (aka:

food stamp) purchases. What do you think of this? [item was either the participant’s most or


(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = neither agree nor disagree, 9 = strongly agree)

These purchases should NOT be covered by welfare programs.

I would support this kind of restriction.


Making these purchases should disqualify SNAP/food stamp recipients from receiving their

benefits.

If this policy was on a ballot, I would vote for it.

To what extent do you think that someone receiving welfare (e.g., SNAP/food stamps) buying

________ reflects...

…being irresponsible with one’s money

…being impulsive



[Attention check, demographic variables, and control items were the same as in Study 2].

Method

Participants and Procedure. Two hundred and one American participants completed the

study online via MTurk. Fourteen failed an attention check, leaving a sample of 187 (92 men, 95

women, Mage = 36.34). Participants completed the materials in the order listed above.

Results

Participants saw less value in the welfare recipient’s purchase when it was the

participants’ least preferred item (M = 3.15, SD = 1.92) compared to their most preferred item (M

= 4.23, SD = 2.07), t(185) = 3.66, p < .001. Participants also stereotyped the welfare recipient

target more when buying one’s least preferred item (M = 5.83, SD = 2.35) compared to their

most preferred item (M = 4.60, SD = 2.31), t(185) = 3.58, p < .001. Finally, participants showed

more support for restrictive policy when considering their least preferred item (M = 5.95, SD =

2.46) compared to their most preferred item (M = 4.76, SD = 2.52), t(185) = 3.25, p < .001. A

simple mediation analysis was conducted to test H2b (5000 bootstrap resamples; PROCESS

Model 4, Hayes 2018). The path from target product (most preferred = -1, least preferred = 1) to

stereotyping was significant (B = .62, SE = .17, t = 3.58, p < .001), as was the path from

mediator to dependent variable (B = .78, SE = .05, t = 14.66, p < .001) and the direct path from

target product to policy attitudes (B = .60, SE = .18, t = 3.25, p = .001). Supporting H2b,

bootstrap analysis of the causal chain yielded a confidence interval that did not contain zero

(indirect effect = .48, SE = .13, 95% CI = .22 to .75).



Effect of condition on stereotyping: F (1, 175) = 12.66, p < .001

Effect of condition on policy attitudes: F (1, 175) = 11.09, p = .001

Indirect effect: LLCI = .33, ULCI = 1.29


Selected (e.g., Salty Snacks, Soda, etc.)

Stereotyping: F (1, 177) = 1.26, p = .29

Policy attitudes: F (1, 177) = .64, p = .64




Attitudes


one’s money

.51 .43

…being impulsive

.91 .03


1.00 -.06


.93 .04



programs.

.05 .91


restriction.

-.04 1.00

This policy is a good idea. -.02 .99




benefits.

.28 .40


would vote for it.

.07 .85

Mediation Pathways

Model 4 PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes 2018). Coefficients are unstandardized (direct effect

from target product to policy attitudes with stereotyping in the model indicated in parentheses).

*p <.05, **p < .01.

Web Appendix G: Study 3 Experimental Materials and Supplementary Analyses

Study 3 Materials

[Ranking task instructions and filler task were the exact same as in Studies 1a and 2. In the

necessities condition, the four items were: shampoo, dish soap, laundry detergent, and

deodorant. In the non-necessities condition, the four items were: take-out pizza, fast food, take-

out coffee/tea, take-out deli sandwiches].

[Manipulation check and stereotyping measure was the same as in Study 2].

Currently, _________ is prohibited as a SNAP (aka: food stamp) purchase. What do you think of

this? [item was either the participant’s most or least preferred item, and either a necessity or

non-necessity, depending on condition]

(1 = strongly agree, 5 = neither agree nor disagree, 9 = strongly agree)

This restriction is wrong; it should be covered by SNAP.

I support the current policy; this purchase should be prohibited with SNAP funds.

If it was on a ballot, I would vote for allowing this purchase to be made with SNAP funds.

[Attention check, suspicion probe, demographic variables, and control items were the same as in

Study 2].



Stereotyping:

Purchase (most vs. least preferred) X product type (non-necessity vs. necessity): F (1,

274) = 3.12, p = .08

Non-necessities, effect of purchase: F (1, 133) = 9.98, p = .02

Necessities, effect of purchase: F (1, 137) = 1.45, p = .23

Policy Attitudes:

Purchase (most vs. least preferred) X product type (non-necessity vs. necessity): F (1,

274) = 3.12, p = .08

Non-necessities, effect of purchase: F (1, 133) = 3.81, p = .05

Necessities, effect of purchase: F (1, 137) = .18, p = .67

Moderated Mediation:

LLCI = -.8210, ULCI = .0433

Moderated mediation with all covariates excluding political orientation:

LLCI = -.8458, ULCI = -.0054

Indirect effect when target purchases are non-necessities: LLCI = .1690, ULCI = .9081

Indirect effect when target purchases are non-necessities: LLCI = -.1140, ULCI = .3495

Interaction Between Target Product (Most vs. Least Preferred), Necessity (vs. Not), and

Specific Product Selected (e.g., Take-out Pizza, Fast Food, etc.)

Stereotyping:

Three-way interaction: F (3, 272) = .1.13, p = .54


Fs < 2.10, ps > .10

Policy Attitudes:


Two-way interaction between necessity (vs. not) and specific product selected: F (3, 272)

= 4.13, p = .007. Note however that this interaction is not particularly meaningful, as it is

essentially indicates that the gap in policy attitudes for take-out pizza vs. shampoo, fast food vs.

dish soap, and take-out coffee/tea vs. laundry detergent, is larger than for take-out sandwiches vs.

deodorant. Had these items been arbitrarily coded with different numerical values, this pattern of

effects would vary. The two-way interaction between target being judged (welfare vs. middle

class) and target product (most vs. least preferred): F (4, 164) = .65, p = .63.



Item Stereotyping Policy Attitudes


one’s money

.74 .06

…being impulsive

.95 -.03


.93 .02


.97 .00

This restriction is wrong; it

should be covered by SNAP

-.01 -.74

I support the current policy;

this purchase should be

prohibited with SNAP funds.

.05 .88

If it was on a ballot, I would

vote for allowing this purchase

to be made with SNAP funds

.03 -.91

Mediation Pathways

Model 8 PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes 2018). Coefficients are unstandardized. Direct effect

from target product to policy attitudes is with stereotyping, product type, and target product X

product type in the model. Effect of target product X product type on policy attitudes is with

stereotyping in the model. *p <.05, **p < .01.

Web Appendix H: Supplementary Study 2 Experimental Materials and Analyses

Supplementary Study 2 Materials

[Ranking task instructions and filler task were the same as Studies, 1a and 2. Rankings were

made for four items: salty snacks (e.g., pretzels, potato chips), soda, sugary snack (e.g., candy,

candy bars), dessert foods (e.g., cake, ice cream)

Perspective-taking: reasons not to buy item:

Do you think that each of the following could be a reason that someone would NOT buy

__________ and instead buy other things?

They don’t like the taste.

They prefer other flavors over this one (e.g., sweet over salty, or salty over sweet).

They have a daily routine that involves some other kind of food.

They have allergies to this food so they buy other food.

The ingredients in this food cause stomach or health issues, so they buy other food.

They just prefer other kinds of foods over this kind of food.

They didn’t grow up with it.

They have negative memories or associations with the food.

Perspective-taking: reasons to buy item:

Do you think that each of the following could be a reason that someone would buy ___________

as opposed to other things?

They like the taste.

They prefer this flavor over others (e.g., sweet over salty, or salty over sweet).

They have a daily routine that involves this food.

They have allergies to other foods, so their options are limited.

The ingredients in other foods cause stomach or health issues, so their options are limited.

They just prefer this kind of food over other kinds of food.

They grew up with it.

They have positive memories or associations with this food.

[Manipulation check, stereotyping items, and policy attitude items, were the same as in Study 2].

[Attention check, demographic variables, and control items were the same as in Study 2 and 4].

Method

Participants. Four hundred American participants completed the study via MTurk.

Twenty-one failed an attention check asking what product they answered questions about in the

study, leaving a sample of 379 American participants (178 men, 201 women; Mage= 37.21).

Procedure. Participants completed the product ranking task followed by the same filler

items as in earlier studies. Participants were then presented either with reasons why someone

would buy the target item, or would not buy it. On average, participants agreed with 6.78 of the

items out of eight, suggesting that disagreeing with these reasons to buy/not buy a product is not

a likely explanation for this perspective-taking task failing to reduce egocentrism. They then

completed the same manipulation check as Studies 2 and 3, and the same stereotyping items (α =

.95), policy items (α = .93), demographic, and control items as in Study 2.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation check. The manipulation check addresses the important question of

whether or not the perspective-taking task reduces egocentric judgments of value. The two-way

interaction between target product (participant’s most vs. least preferred) and perspective-taking

task (reasons to buy item vs. reasons not to buy item) was not significant, F (1, 375) = .18, p =

.68. Instead, there was a main effect of target product (most preferred: M = 4.73, SD = 1.96;

least preferred: M = 3.63, SD = 1.97, F (375) = 28.85, p < .001). Therefore, when considering an

item that one does not value, even salient and sensible reasons why others still buy it did nothing

to reduce egocentrism compared to when reasons not to buy it were salient.

Stereotyping. Given the results of the manipulation check, our theory predicts only a

main effect of target product on stereotyping. In line with this reasoning, the two-way interaction

between target product and perspective-taking on stereotyping was not significant, F (1, 375) =

.43, p = .51 and only a main effect of target product emerged. Supporting H1, participants saw

welfare recipients as more irresponsible for buying one’s least preferred (M = 5.67, SD = 2.53)

as opposed to most preferred item (M = 4.78, SD = 2.31), F (1, 375) = 12.44, p < .001.

Policy attitudes. The same two-way interaction on policy attitudes was not significant, F

(1, 375) = .16, p = .69, and only a main effect of target product emerged; participants showed

increased support for policy that would ban their least (M = 5.46, SD = 2.77) as opposed to their

most preferred item (M = 4.68, SD = 2.71), F (1, 375) = 7.53, p < .01. These results support H2a.

Mediation. Collapsing across perspective-taking conditions, a simple mediation analysis

was conducted to test H2b (5000 bootstrap resamples; PROCESS Model 4, Hayes 2018). The

path from target purchase (most preferred = -1, least preferred = 1) to stereotyping was

significant (B = .44, SE = .12, t = 3.55, p < .001), as was the path from mediator to dependent

variable (B = .77, SE = .04, t = 17.93, p < .001) and the direct path from target purchase to policy

attitudes (B = .39, SE = .14, t = 2.74, p = .01). Supporting H2b, bootstrap analysis of the causal

chain yielded a confidence interval that did not contain zero (indirect effect = .34, SE = .10, 95%

CI = .15 to .54).



Effect of purchase (most vs. least preferred) on stereotyping: F (1, 366) = 14.27, p < .001

Effect of purchase (most vs. least preferred) on policy attitudes: F (1, 366) = 10.65, p = .001

Indirect effect: LLCI = .26, ULCI = .88


Selected (e.g., Salty Snacks, Soda, etc.)

Stereotyping: F (1, 320) = .08, p = .78

Policy attitudes: F (1, 320) = .25, p = .62




Attitudes


one’s money

.73 .13

…being impulsive

.92 .02


.97 -.02


.93 .03



programs

.06 .92


restriction

.00 .99

This policy is a good idea

.03 .95




benefits

.06 .69


would vote for it

.01 .94

Mediation Pathways

Model 4 PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes 2018). Coefficients are unstandardized (direct effect

from target product to policy attitudes with stereotyping in the model indicated in parentheses).

*p <.05, **p < .01.

Web Appendix I: Study 4 Experimental Materials and Supplementary Analyses

Study 4 Materials

[Ranking task was the exact same as in Supplementary Study 2].

Baseline condition:

Tim Garrett is 32 years old, and lives in Kansas City Missouri. He has a diploma from a

community college. Tim is unemployed and is receiving assistant (i.e., welfare) from the

government. He receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds (SNAP, i.e., "food

stamps").

Responsible condition:

Tim Garrett is 32 years old, and lives in Kansas City Missouri. He has a diploma from a

community college. Tim is unemployed and is receiving assistant (i.e., welfare) from the

government. He receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds (SNAP, i.e., "food

stamps"). Tim spends a lot of time budgeting the funds that he receives. He divides his funds so

that he knows how much he has to spend each week on food and whether or not he is on track to

finish the month with enough groceries to get by. He also clips coupons from flyers and pays

attention to sales. He prioritizes his purchases accordingly, avoiding less necessary purchases

until he knows he has enough money for them.

[The same image of Tim from Studies 1a, 1b and 4 was also included].

In your opinion, how likely is it that Tim…

(1 = not at all, 5 = moderately, 9 = extremely).

…is irresponsible with his money

…is impulsive



How likely do you think it is that Tim is also buying?

(1 = not at all likely, 5 = moderately likely, 9 = very likely).

Fast food

Lottery tickets

Casino gambling

Beer

Cigarettes

[Egocentrism manipulation check, and policy attitude items were the exact same as in Studies 1a

and 2]:

[Attention check was the same as Study 1a, demographic variables, and control items were the

same as in Studies 2, 3, and 4].



Stereotyping:

Purchase (most vs. least preferred) X target info (baseline vs. responsible): F (1, 590) =

3.12, p = .08

Baseline, effect of purchase: F (1, 300) = 7.17, p = .008

Responsible, effect of purchase: F (1, 286) = .09, p = .76

Policy Attitudes:

Purchase (most vs. least preferred) X target info (baseline vs. responsible): F (1, 590) =

1.38, p = .24

Baseline, effect of purchase: F (1, 300) = 24.93, p < .001

Responsible, effect of purchase: F (1, 286) = 9.05, p = .003

Mediation with baseline information about target: LLCI = .08, ULCI = .67

Mediation with responsible information about target: LLCI = -.13, ULCI = .18

Interaction Between Target Product (Most vs. Least Preferred), Target Info (Baseline vs.

Responsible) and Specific Product Selected (e.g., Salty Snacks, Soda, etc.)

Stereotyping:

Three-way interaction: F (3, 593) = 1.07, p = .36


Fs < .81, ps > .32.

Policy Attitudes:

Three-way interaction: F (3, 593) = 1.16, p = .82


Fs < 1.64, ps > .18.




Attitudes

…is irresponsible with one’s

money

.74 .14

…is impulsive

.85 -.00


.87 .00


.88 .01

Fast food

.79 -.02

Lottery tickets

.84 .00

Casino gambling

.82 .00

Beer

.85 -.02

Cigarettes

.84 -.01



programs

-.04 .97


restriction

-.03 .96

This policy is a good idea

-.01 .97




benefits

.17 .65


would vote for it

.00 .93

Mediation Pathways

Model 8 PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes 2018). Coefficients are unstandardized. Direct effect

from target product to policy attitudes is with stereotyping, target person info, and target product

X target person info in the model. Effect of target product X target person info on policy

attitudes is with stereotyping in the model. *p <.05, **p < .01

Date post:	22-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Web Appendix A: Proof of Concept Facebook Study

Documents