Assignment Instructions and Information: 

First, read the Methods II Preview Assignment Instructions x 

Use the checklist to make sure your paper is the best it can be! Make sure you answer “Yes” to all questions before submitting your paper or you will lose points. 

Abstract Assignment Grading Rubric-1

Paper Options to Write About (Choose One): 

Paper III – Terror Management Theory
Paper IV – Facebook Sexuality Ads x

on time urgent

Running head: METHODS II PREVIEW ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS 1

METHODS II PREVIEW ASSIGNMENT 4

Methods II Preview Assignment Instructions

(Worth 40 Points)

Methods II Preview Assignment Instructions

1). Psychological Purpose

The psychological purpose behind the Methods II Preview Assignment is to give you a brief preview to the paper you will write in Methods II next semester. Not only do I want you to see what will go into your eventual Methods II research paper, but I also want to make sure that you can write a clear, succinct paragraph for a research study that covers all of the relevant information needed to convey the important parts of a study in a single paragraph (i.e. an Abstract).

The Abstract is one of the first items readers see. You need to convey a lot of information in this very short paragraph, as the potential reader will decide whether to read your full paper based on the information in the Abstract. There are several elements needed in the Abstract about research studies, including information about: a). the research question(s), b). the participants, c). the experimental methodology, d). the findings, and e). the conclusions / implications. Being able to write a precise yet succinct Abstract takes some effort, so make sure you go through several drafts before settling on your final version. Make sure to include keywords / key phrases as well (keywords are an essential part of articles, as these are the words or phrases that library databases like PsycInfo provide to searchers interested in specific topics. Well, the authors actually recommended these keywords, so if you include them for this short Abstract Assignment).

2). APA Formatting Purpose

This Article Critique assignment should once again assess your ability to follow APA formatting guidelines. Use Chapter 14 in your Smith and Davis textbook for help, and look at the instructions on the next page for guidance with formatting

3). Writing Purpose

I want to make sure you can write clearly and specifically, summarizing what might be a 20 page paper in a single paragraph. This assignment serves that purpose.

Methods II Preview Assignment (Worth 40 Points)

You will read a paper written by an actual Research Methods and Design II student from a prior semester. This paper includes two studies the student conducted, with Study One introducing the main variables and Study Two offering an extension with replication of Study One. Your job is to read the whole paper and then complete your assignment in a word document, and submit it (attach the word document) to the assignment dropbox on Canvas by the due date – You can find an example of what I am looking for in Canvas as well:

In Part One, I want you to answer the following (2 points for each question, or 18 points total):

1. What is the hypothesis for study one? Please give me both the null and alternative hypotheses when you answer this question

2. What is the independent variable(s) for study one? Make sure you tell me how many IVs there are and how many levels there are for each IV

3. What is the dependent variable(s) for study one? Note: there are several of these, so focus on the ones the author analyzed.

4. What did they find in study one? Give the general outcome

5. What is the hypothesis for study two? Please give me both the null and alternative hypotheses when you answer this question

6. What is the independent variable(s) for study two? Make sure you tell me how many IVs there are and how many levels there are for each IV

7. What is the dependent variable(s) for study two? Note: there are several of these, so focus on the ones the author analyzed.

8. What did they find in study two? Give the general outcome

9. I want you to review the references and spot the reference(s) that is not in APA format and rewrite it for me according to APA rules. Note: there may be as few as zero and as many as ten incorrect references, so make sure to look at them all!

In Part Two, write an abstract for the paper! This should be fairly easy, as you can paraphrase the information from Part One. However, this time you need to write it in one short paragraph (150 to 250 word maximum!). Note: there are two studies, and you have to mention both. Yes, this is tough, but authors often summarize (in the same short abstract) papers that they wrote that may include six or seven different studies! My suggestion is to find the overlap between both studies and discuss both simultaneously. For example, “Both studies looked at X, but study two also examined Y.” That is, your abstract should include the following (2 points each, 14 points total):

1. Include the word “Abstract” at the top of your abstract

2. Identify the general problem or research question (the hypotheses) for both studies.

3. Note the participants for both studies

4. Note the IVs and DVs for the studies

5. Note the findings for both studies

6. Note the overall conclusions / implications of the two studies

7. Please include keywords for the study (at least 5 keywords or phrases – these are not included in the total word count)

Writing Quality (8 points)

1. Avoid run-on sentences, sentence fragments, spelling errors, and grammar errors.

2. The writing should be PERFECT here. You will lose a point for each writing error, so proofread, proofread, and proofread some more!

3. Get a group member to review it for you! Review their abstract!

Total points possible: 40 points

Other Instructions: this is an individual assignment.

Abstract Assignment Grading Rubric (20 points possible)

Title Page – 1 Point (Must have PERFECT APA formatting!)

Part One – Provide information for the following (1 point each, or 9 points total)

a. What is the hypothesis for study one? Please give me both the null and alternative hypotheses when you answer this question

b. What is the independent variable(s) for study one? Make sure you tell me how many IVs there are and how many levels there are for each IV

c. What is the dependent variable(s) for study one? Note: there are several of these, so focus on the ones the author analyzed.

d. What did they find in study one? Give the general outcome

e. What is the hypothesis for study two? Please give me both the null and alternative hypotheses when you answer this question

f. What is the independent variable(s) for study two? Make sure you tell me how many IVs there are and how many levels there are for each IV

g. What is the dependent variable(s) for study two? Note: there are several of these, so focus on the ones the author analyzed.

h. What did they find in study two? Give the general outcome

i. I want you to review the references and spot the reference(s) that is not in APA format and rewrite it for me according to APA rules. Note: there may be as few as zero and as many as ten incorrect references, so make sure to look at them all!

Part Two – Abstract (1 point each item, or 7 points total)

a. Include the word “Abstract” at the top of your abstract

b. Identify the general problem or research question (the hypotheses) for both studies.

c. Note the participants for both studies

d. Note the IVs and DVs for the studies

e. Note the findings for both studies

f. Note the overall conclusions / implications of the two studies

g. Please include keywords for the study (at least 5 keywords or phrases – these are not included in the total word count)

Writing Quality (3 points)

Methods II Preview! Abstract Assignment Checklist

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Header

General Paper Format
				Yes					No
1. Is everything in your paper (including headers, the main body of your mini-literature review, and your references) in 12 point Times New Roman font?
2. Is everything in your paper double spaced, including references (here I mean the spacing above and below each line, not the spaces following a period)?
3. Do you have one inch margins on all sides of the paper (one inch from the top of the page, one inch from the bottom, and one inch from each side)
4. Are the first lines of all paragraphs indented roughly ½ inch?
5. Are your paragraphs aligned left? (That is, text should be flush left, with lines lining up on the left of the page, but text should NOT line up on the right side of the page – it should look ragged)
6. Do you need help figuring out how to configure a word document in APA format (inserting headers, page numbers, proper indents, etc.)? If YES, I highly recommend watching this video which walks you through setting up an APA formatted paper! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY​
Title page (This section is identical your Article Critique Paper Title Page)
	Header
1. Do you have the phrase “Running head” in your header (with a lower case h)?
2. Is the rest of your Running head title in ALL CAPS?
3. Is your Running head in 12 point Times New Roman font?
4. Do you have a page number (1) that is flush right (also in 12 point Times New Roman font)?
Title / Name / Institution
1. Is your title 12 words or less (as recommended by the APA)?
2. Do all title words with four letters or more start with a capital letter?
3. Are your name and institution correct?
4. Are your title, name, and institution elements centered and in 12 point Times New Roman font?
Part One – Study Components
1. What is the hypothesis for study one?
2. What is the independent variable(s) for study one?
3. What is the dependent variable(s) for study one?
4. What did they find in study one?
5. What is the hypothesis for study two?
6. What is the independent variable(s) for study two?
7. What is the dependent variable(s) for study two?
8. What did they find in study two?
9. Are the references correct? If not, correct them
Part Two – Abstract
1. Is your header title present and identical to your header title on the title page?
2. Is your header title in ALL CAPS and 12 point Times New Roman font?
3. Does your header on this second page omit the phrase “Running head”
4. Do you have a page number starting on page 2
Abstract
0. 1. Is the word Abstract centered at the top of the page?
0. 2. Does the abstract start on its own page?
0. Did you identify your problem or research question?
0. Did you note the study participants?
0. Did you note the experimental or correlational method?
0. Did you note the findings?
0. Did you note the conclusions?
0. Did you identify the problem or research question?
0. Is your abstract 150-200 words?
0. Did you include at least five keywords or key phrases?

Yes

No

Writing Quality

1. Is it well written generally?

Runninghead: OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 1

Our Optimism in the Face of Death

Jane Doe

Florida International University

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 2

Abstract

Methods I Students: Make sure that YOU provide the abstract!

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 3

Our Optimism in the Face of Death

Though a truly diverse species, the one commonality we all face as a human race is the

uncertainty concerning the end of our days. Terror management theory (TMT) addresses the

universally debilitating anxiety that while we are consciously aware that we fight for survival on

a daily basis, we are mortal animals and will inevitably experience death (Schimel, Hayes,

Williams, & Jahrig, 2007). To deal with this notion, we structure our lives with self-implicated

fundamental ideals and beliefs, whether religious or worldly, that provide a cultural set of norms

and values fulfilling feelings of security and order (Rutjens, van der Pligt, & van Harreveld,

2009).

The anxiety buffer hypothesis states that when our self-esteem is reinforced, anxiety

lessens, thereby acting as a buffer from the angst provoked at the thought of death (Schimel et

al., 2007). Methods of coping include proximal, or conscious, efforts to distract our attention

from our mortality (Friedman & Rholes, 2008). Such proximal efforts can be argued to include

pro-social actions that let us attain a feeling of tranquility about the impact we want to make

before our death. Pro-social behaviors are more likely to be acted upon if one’s culture endorses

it or when reminded of their own vulnerabilities (Zaleskiewicz, Gasiorowska, & Kesebir, 2015).

Studies show that actions or characteristics that lead to the benefit of another, a seemingly

selfless act, will allow one to “soothe concerns about one’s fragility” and boost our self-esteem

(Zaleskiewicz, Gasiorowska, & Kesebir, 2015, p. 68). A common example would be seeing a

homeless man or woman begging for money at a street-light. Chances are they’re holding up a

sign describing their physical or mental affliction such as, “hungry, wounded veteran”. The sight

may have anyone wondering about how they are fighting to survive. Such death related thoughts

might elicit some sympathy for the cards life dealt them and you may decide to give them some

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 4

money or go so far as to buy them a meal. The resulting satisfaction in your altruistic act should

then allow you to be relieved of death-related thoughts.

Another line of defense against feeling the effects of TMT is the mortality salience

theory. This idea posits that our reliance on fundamental beliefs and psychological structures

only increase when individuals are reminded of the inevitability of their demise (Friedman &

Rholes, 2008). Mortality salience is cultivated when opposing thought and arguments make a

case against the values and traditions one chooses to rule their life by (Schimel et al., 2007). In a

tumultuous world where nothing is certain but the choices we make, coming in contact with

alternative conceptions to what we believe may leave us vulnerable to the anxiety described in

TMT. When given the opportunity, our defense in mounted with the depreciation of the opposing

voice in order to give ourselves confidence in the cultural foundations we identify with (Rutjens,

van der Pligt, & van Harreveld, 2009). An interesting consequence, however, is that we tend to

react paradoxically when reminded of our impermanence.

Thinking about death seems to shine a light on our optimistic outlook in societal progress

and what the future may bring (Kelley & Schmeichel, 2015). This development was supported in

an experimental study conducted by Rutjens, van der Pligt, and van Harreveld (2009) where they

had participants rate on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (completely) how much they agree with an

excerpt in which the main idea was that progress was an illusion. Results found support with

increased faith in progressive hope (Rutjens, van der Pligt, & van Harreveld, 2009). We tend to

focus on positive aspects of our lives in order to avoid negative thoughts that are attached to

mortality salience, such as fear for what may become of those we hold dear and have no choice

but to leave behind (Friedman & Rholes, 2008). This innate response is supported by how quick

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 5

people are to stick to their moral codes and the popularity of religious explanations of

immortality after death (Kelley & Schmeichel, 2015).

There are several variations to experiments that catechize TMT and its conjugate topics.

Most studies begin with a short answer question asking participants to describe their emotions at

the thought of their death or to write about their experience in a neutral topic therefore placing

them in either the mortality salient condition versus a control condition. They may then choose to

test optimism with the presentation of a pessimistic essay threatening their worldviews. Typical

in some studies, like that of Kelley and Schmeichel (2015), is the addition of activities in

between measured tasks to allow delay in thoughts of death so that they fade from conscious

thought. This delay is then followed by a divulging word-completion task or word search that,

unbeknown to the participant, allows them to resurface. In order to explore the effect on

individuals when faced with their demise, we constructed a three-part study modeled after these

previous research ideas.

Study One

The first part of our study asks participants to answer a self-reflective question in one of

three different conditions on what they think of their own death, dental pain, or the how they got

into college. The second task involves all participants completing the same word fragment

activity. Finally, after reading an essay concerning the progress we’ve made as humans, they are

asked to answer questions on the excerpt using a scale from 1- 6 (1 being equal to answering

they strongly disagree and 6 as they strongly agree). First, we predict that participants who wrote

about death should complete more word-fragments with death-related words (e.g. SKU_ _ with

SKULL, COFF_ _ with COFFIN, and DE_ _ with DEAD) than participants who wrote about

dental pain or getting into college (who will complete the same word fragments with neutral

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 6

words, like SKUNK, COFFEE, and DEAL). Second, we predict that participants who wrote

about death will disagree with the pessimistic position of the human progress essay’s author

more than participants in the other two conditions.

Methods Study One

Participants

This study consisted of a total of 99 participants. Forty-six of the people in this sample

were male (47%) while 53 were female (54%). The age demographic ranged from as low as 14

to a maximum of 85 years of age (M = 23.26, SD = 8.53). Thirty-two percent of participants

identified as Caucasian (N = 32), 46% as Hispanic (N = 45), 2% as Native Indian (N = 2), 11% as

African American (N =11), 6% as Asian American (N =6), and 3% reported “Other” (N = 3). Of

the people participating in this study, 86% were identified as Florida International University

students (N=85) while 14% were not (N=14). See Appendix A.

Materials and Procedures

As students of a Research Methods class at Florida International University (FIU), we

were all asked to inhabit the role of a researcher in a study that tests whether or not being aware

of one’s own mortality, or being mortality salient, can cause personal distress. This would result

in the participant’s choice to cope by portraying a more optimistic outlook about the future. The

study consists of the completion of two phases. In the first phase researchers approached people

and asked them to participate in a study consisting of completing a survey. Those participating

had to be individuals of no personal connection to the researcher and not currently enrolled in a

psychology research methods class in the Spring semester of 2018. The objective was for each

researcher to have 3 completed surveys, one in each of the following conditions acting as the 3

levels to our independent variable: “Mortality Salience” (MS), “College” (C), and “Dental Pain”

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 7

(DP). Expressed to the potential participant in the initial introduction was that there were no risks

to their person if they consented. Benefits to their involvement would be purely be their

assistance in the completion of a class assignment. Verbal consent was taken after subjects were

informed that the study was for our research methods class and that the duration of their

involvement would only last approximately 5-10 minutes. Once a verbal assertion was noted, the

next phase of the study commenced.

In phase 2, randomly assigned surveys were divided into 2 parts and were identical in all

conditions with the exception of the first 2 questions in the second part. At the top of the page,

the introduction to the survey and its already previously voiced purpose was reiterated. Part I of

the survey asked the participant their demographic information. Included were questions that

asked for the participant’s gender, age, race/ethnicity, if English was their first language, and

whether or not they were currently enrolled as an FIU student.

Part II had tasks a-e. Tasks a and b were the only short answer questions in the survey

and also introduced the independent variable for the study. Task a either asked the participant to

describe the emotions that the thought of their “own death” (MS condition), “having dental pain”

(DP condition), or “attending college” (C condition) aroused in them. Task b asked the

participant to write as specifically as they could what happens to them “physically when you die”

(MS condition), “when you have to undergo a painful dental procedure” (DP condition), or “the

physical steps you took to get to college” (C condition).

Task c, the measured dependent variable of the study, consisted of 12 word-completion

exercises asking the participant to fill in the spaces with letters that would complete the first

word they thought of (i.e. YE_ _ completed as YELL). Six of the twelve exercises were designed

so that they could only be completed with words unrelated to death (i.e. YE_ _ as YELL, FO_ _

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 8

as FORT, SHI_ _ as SHIRT, CLO_ _ as CLOWN, LI_ _ as LIES, and DRI_ _ as DRIPS). The

other six could either be completed as death-related or neutral words (i.e. STI_ _ as STIFF or

STILL, COFF_ _ as COFFIN or COFEE, SKU_ _ as SKULL or SKUNK, DE_ _ as DEAD or

DEAL, COR_ _ _ as CORPSE or CORAL, and GRA_ _ as GRAVE or GRAPE). The task was

scored by counting how many of the 6 words were completed with death-related words.

Following the word-fragment question is Task d. The instructions in all 3 conditions

introduces the following as an excerpt from a blog published some months ago that addressed the

issue of human progress:

The question of whether there is human progress is easy to answer; I think

progress is an illusion. We always seem to focus on progress in science and

technology, but meanwhile there wars and conflicts going on all around the world.

There is plenty of evidence that we haven’t witnessed any real progress since the

Middle Ages! After all, we fail to find answers to environmental problems;

political systems do not function any better than they did 100 years ago; there is

still poverty in the world; and so on. We don’t seem to learn from history, and we

keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Moreover, once we have

managed to control one disease, it always seems like there is another one to deal

with. That’s why I do not believe that our children will encounter a world that is

any better than the world we live in today. People are people. Morally, politically,

and socially, we simply do not make any progress. All in all, I think we have to

face reality: progress is an illusion!

The instructions continue by asking the participant to answer the 10 questions following

the blog excerpt. All of these questions used the same 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 9

disagree to 6 = strongly agree) as potential answers. Question 1 had the participant rate

whether they shared the author’s views about progress. Question 2 and 3 had participants

rate how they felt, if the author’s views were too pessimistic or too optimistic for them

respectively. Question 4-10 had them rate the following statements: I feel like I could

have written this essay, I do not agree with anything in this essay, this essay makes some

good points but I do not agree with all of them, the essay describes most American’s

attitudes about progress in the United States today, the essay describes most people’s

attitudes about progress throughout the world, I am optimistic about the future, and

finally, the United States still allows people to achieve their dreams. The participant’s

response for Question 4 (whether or not they agree that they could have written the essay)

is analyzed to address our hypothesis that a participant writing about death in Tasks a and

b versus in the other conditions would be more likely to disagree with the pessimistic

viewpoint of the author.

The final Task, e, simply asked the participant to recall without checking the

beginning of the survey what they were asked to write about. They had to mark with an X

one of the following options: death, dental pain, or getting into college. This serves as a

manipulation check so researchers know if the subject was paying attention to Tasks a

and b. After all parts of the survey are completed, participants were debriefed. They were

informed of Terror Management Theory concept and the main hypothesis, participant’s

optimism about human progress would be enhanced when they think about death.

Results Study One

Using the essay condition as our independent variable (Mortality Salient vs Dental Pain

vs College) and whether participants recalled what they were asked to write about as the

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 10

dependent variable, we ran a manipulation check using chi-squared in which we saw a

significant effect, X2(4) = 131.09, p < .001. Most participants recalled writing about death (85%),

dental pain (85%), and college (91%) in their respective MS, DP, and C conditions. These

findings indicate that participants were paying attention to the instructions of the short answer

task as was intended. See Appendix B.

We conducted a One-Way ANOVA with the three condition levels as our independent

variable (Mortality Salient vs Dental Pain vs College) and the number of death-related words the

participant completed as our dependent variable. Results showed a significance between the

conditions, F (2, 96) = 7.42, p = .001. Further testing by administering a Tukey LSD post hoc

test revealed that participants completed more word-fragments with death-related words in the

mortality salience condition (M = 2.91, SD = 1.01) than in both the dental pain (M = 2.15, SD =

0.62) and college (M = 2.24, SD = 0.94) conditions. Participants in the dental pain and college

conditions, however, did not differ in significance from one another. These results provide an

affirmation of our hypothesis that participants that are death-aware are more likely to complete

the word-fragment task with death related words than the dental pain or college conditions. See

Appendix C.

We ran a second One-Way ANOVA with condition as our independent variable

(Mortality Salient vs Dental Pain vs College) and the participant expression of whether they

believe they could have written the essay as our dependent variable. The purpose of this analysis

was to show if condition affects their optimism about human progress after being asked to read

the human progress essay. Results show the analysis was significant, F (2, 96) = 4.08, p = .020.

A Tukey HSD post hoc test showed that participants in the Mortality Salience condition

significantly agreed the least that they could’ve written the essay (M = 3.03, SD = 1.07) as

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 11

compared to the Dental Pain condition (M = 3.73, SD = 0.98). However, results were not

significant when compared to the College condition (M = 3.45, SD = 0.94). The Dental Pain and

College conditions did not significantly differ from one another. This data set eludes to a more

optimistic viewpoint concerning human progress when one is actively thinking of death. See

Appendix D.

Discussion Study One

The conclusion of this study reflects support for our position in our hypotheses that

mortality salience results in more death related words when doing the word-fragment completion

task and the optimism we express on progress made by the human race. The non-significant

effect of the college condition when compared to the mortality salient and dental pain conditions

leads us to the idea that the next TMT experiment may only need to be limited to the latter

conditions. Of interest for further study would be whether conscious awareness of being

provoked to think about death would affect the direction participants may take on the pessimistic

essay and the number death-related words completed in the word-fragment task.

Study Two

The premise of TMT is for humans to effectively calm the anxiety thoughts of

death

provoke within us in order to reassume normal stress levels. This begs the question; how may

our coping methods be influenced when we are previously warned about the priming effect of

the mortality salient condition?

The priming effect is a learned initial stimulus response recorded into the participant’s

implicit, or unconscious, memory that resurfaces when presented with a later stimulus (Hsu &

Schütt, 2012). Any amount of realization on the subject’s part that this effect is meant to shift the

direction of their initial analyses may cause a change in their thought process. They might

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 12

intrinsically delve deeper into the topic than they were originally meant to. To put it into

perspective, when someone with a phobia is told they are confronting their fears, they might

already have an initial reaction going into the experience.

According to Petty and Cacioppo (1979), fore-knowledge may be concerned with

revealing the position of the upcoming topic or it’s persuasive content. Taking into consideration

the positive or negative cues this knowledge may bestow upon the participant, they may change

their original position to either reflect or oppose the given information (Neimeyer et al., 1991).

The participant might find themselves agreeing with the direction of the warning in an effort to

reduce threats to their self-esteem when they want to seem open to moderate views (Wood &

Quinn, 2003). However, if the statement addresses in what ways the following topic is a

persuasive priming, that would provoke a defensive opinion and the participant may want to

break away form the normative response to find freedom in a seemingly original response (Wood

& Quinn, 2003). When a participant is introduced to this revealing piece of information, it serves

as a warning. The subject is already told what their initial attitude should be or what they are

expected to feel, and what would have been their original viewpoint would change during the

completion of the assigned task (Neimeyer, MacNair, Metzler, & Courchaine,1991). An early

study conducted by Neimeyer, MacNair, Metzler, and Courchaine (1991) tested the effect of

fore-warning versus no warning in the responses of university student when they took a survey

on attitudes concerning honesty in relationships. The study’s results show that the addition of

relevant knowledge strengthened student’s argument whether they were for or against honesty

and contrasted to initial attitudes in previous entries.

When there is a resulting contrast in participant response from their actual experience,

they’ve expressed response bias (Sedgwick, 2014). In a study by McGrath, Mitchell, Kim, and

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 13

Hough (2010), it was cited from an article published by Paulhus in 1984 that response bias could,

in some cases, be motivated by the intent to purposely mislead the experimenter. On another

note, it is most common, when participants are self-reporting behaviors that may go against

societal/cultural norm or bring up feelings of embarrassment (Sedgwick, 2014). This addresses

the problem of self-reporting in surveys and questionnaires. They are limited to the amount of

information the participant is willing to unveil for fear of self-transparency despite their

anonymity in the researcher’s collective data (Schimel et al., 2007).

In our following study we continue to examine the effects of terror management theory

with two main analyses. Each examines two main effects and one interaction for each of our

main dependent variables, number of death-related words and agreement with the author of the

human progress essay. For our first dependent variable, death-related words, we predict a main

effect of condition. Participants in the mortality salience will complete more word fragments

with death-related words than participants in the dental pain condition as was supported in study

one. We do not expect the warning to have an effect on the number of death-related words, and

therefore do not predict a main effect of warning for this dependent variable. We also do not

predict an interaction of condition and warning.

For our second dependent variable, agreement with the author, we predict a main effect

of condition. Those in the mortality salience condition will agree with the author less than

participants in the dental pain condition, just as in study one. We also expect a main effect of

warning such that those in the no-warning condition will agree with the author less than

participants in the warning condition. We expect these main effects to be qualified by an

interaction effect of condition and warning, whereby mortality salience participants disagree with

the author more when they don’t get the warning than when they do.

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 14

Methods Study Two

Participants

A total of 232 people took part in this study. Eighty- nine of the people in this sample

were male (38%) while 143 were female (62%). The age ranged from as low as 16 to a

maximum of 68 years of age (M = 30.69, SD = 12.10). Eleven percent of participants identified

as Caucasian (N = 25), 72% as Hispanic (N = 167), 10% as African American (N =23), 1% as

Asian American (N =2), and 7% reported “Other” (N = 15). Of the people participating in this

study, 28% were identified as Florida International University students (N=66) while 72% were

not (N=166). Our sample included 41.8% of participants that spoke English as their first

language (n = 97) while the remaining 58.2% did not (n = 135). Also asked was the highest level

of education completed of which only 2 participants declined to provide (0.9%). Five

participants completed less than a high school education (2.2%), 35 completed high school or

had a GED (15.1%), 60 had some college education (25.9%), 52 had an associate’s degree

(22.4%), 44 had a bachelor’s degree (19.0%), 12 had some graduate education (5.2%), 12 had a

master’s degree (5.2%), and 10 had a doctorate degree or PhD (4.3%). See Appendix E.

Materials and Procedures

As an extension of study one, study two tests two independent variable and the effect that

they may have on our original dependent variables. This study has the independent variable of

condition with two levels (mortality salience condition vs dental pain condition). We introduced

a second independent variable in which subjects will have either a warning or no warning of how

being mortality salient will affect optimism. Therefore, we are testing the presence of warning

and mortality salience, presence of warning and dental pain, no warning and mortality salience,

and no warning and dental pain on our dependent variables: number of death-related words used

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 15

to complete the word fragments and responses to the “I share the author’s views about progress”

question concerning the human progress essay.

Participants were asked to take part in an online study being conducted for research

purposes. They were instructed to open the survey that was constructed through Qualtrics

software. The survey opened up to a page informing them of potential risks or benefits of their

participation in which they had to agree to participate before starting the actual study. If they

chose not to participate, the survey design was instructed to exit the survey automatically.

The first section of the survey asked the participant to provide demographic information.

They were asked about their gender, age, race/ethnicity, whether English was their first

language, if they were students at FIU, and what their highest level of education was. For

race/ethnicity the options included Caucasian, Hispanic American, African American,

Asian

American, or Other. Options for recording highest level of education were to select one of the

following: less than high school diploma, High school diploma/GED, Some college, Associate’s

degree, Bachelor’s degree, Some graduate or professional school, Master’s degree, or

Doctorate’s degree or PhD.

The following section implemented our new independent variable, presence of a warning

about mortality salience or not. The Qualtrics survey randomized which participants were given

the warning. If the participant was given no warning they read the following statement:

Recent research suggests that your feelings and attitudes about significant aspects of your

personal and community life can tell us a considerable amount about your

personality. For the following questions, we’d like your responses to a variety of issues as

well as a fun word completion task. Your honest responses to the questions that follow

are greatly appreciated.

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 16

If the participant were given the warning they read the following statement:

Recent research suggests that being reminded of one’s own mortality can make people

feel more optimistic. In this study, we’re testing this hypothesis. For the following

questions, we’d like your responses to a variety of issues as well as a fun word

completion task. Your honest responses to the questions that follow are greatly

appreciated.

The statements introduced the next section of the survey in which they answered a short answer

question that placed them in either mortality salience or dental pain condition, the condition

being the second possible main effect. The short answer question they were given was

randomized by the Qualtrics system. The mortality salience condition asked subjects to describe

the emotions that the thought of their own death arouses in them. The dental pain condition

asked them to describe the emotions that the thought of having dental pain arouses in them. The

college condition from the previous study was excluded as there was no significance between

dental pain and college condition in the results.

The next sections of the survey consist of the online version of the word fragment

exercise given in study one followed by as the same article excerpt on the issue of human

progress given in the first study and the related ten questions. The same 12 word fragments were

given, six of which could be completed with a neutral word or a death associated word (i.e.

COFF_ _ as COFFIN or COFEE). The questions pertaining to the article were to be answered

with the same 1-6 Likert scale as study one, 1 being that they strongly disagree and 6 that they

strongly agree. Question 1 asked the participant to rate whether they shared the author’s views

about progress. Question 2 and 3 had participants rate how they felt, if the author’s views were

too pessimistic or too optimistic for them respectively. Question 4-10 had them rate the

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 17

following statements: I feel like I could have written this essay, I do not agree with anything in

this essay, this essay makes some good points but I do not agree with all of them, the essay

describes most American’s attitudes about progress in the United States today, the essay

describes most people’s attitudes about progress throughout the world, I am optimistic about the

future, and finally, the United States still allows people to achieve their dreams.

After these exercises are completed, subjects answered two manipulation checks in

multiple choice format. These were added to ensure that the participants were being attentive to

the survey from the beginning. It also allowed for us to easily identify and eliminate possible

misrepresentative responses from the data. The first question asked the participants to recall

whether the short-answer question in the beginning of the survey asked about death, dental pain,

or getting into college. The second question was meant to be answered correctly only by those in

the warning condition. It asked the participant if at the beginning of the study they were told we

expected people reminded of death to be more pessimistic, optimistic, or angry. The answer

options for this question were pessimistic, optimistic, angry, or I don’t know.

Before the participants were allowed to exit the survey they were thanked for their

participation in the concluding debrief. They were informed about Terror Management Theory as

well as our hypotheses that people tend to embrace their optimism about progress if they are

reminded of their own death and that they will disagree with the pessimistic essay more than

participants not thinking about death, unless they are warned ahead of time.

Results Study Two

Using condition as the independent variable (Mortality Salient vs Dental Pain) and

whether participants answered correctly to the condition manipulation check as the dependent

variable, we conducted a chi-square test. It was significant which illustrates that participants

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 18

were paying attention to condition during this study, X2(2) = 175.89, p < .001. Ninety-three

percent of the participants remembered writing about death in the mortality salience condition

(n=106) and in the dental pain condition, 93.2% of participants recalled writing about dental pain

(n=110). Phi showed a large effect. See Appendix F

A second chi-square test was conducted with presence of warning (warning vs. no

warning) as the independent variable and participants’ responses to the warning manipulation

check as the dependent variable. This test was significant, X2(3) = 106.18, p < .001. This shows

evidence that most participants who received the warning remembered that people who are

reminded of their own death are expected to be more optimistic (88.2%). Those that received no

warning more often selected “pessimistic” (36.3%) or “I don’t know” (36.3%) as their answers

for this manipulation check than “optimistic” (21.2%) or “angry” (6.2%). Phi showed a medium

effect. See Appendix G.

Our first dependent variable, the number of death-related words used to complete the

word fragments, was tested to determine how it was affected by condition and forewarning with

a 2X2 ANOVA. Condition (mortality salience vs dental pain) and forewarning (warning vs. no

warning) were computed as the independent variables and the number of death-related words

was the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect of condition, F (1, 228) =

133.82, p < .001. Analogous to study one, those placed in the mortality salience condition

completed more word fragments with death-related words (M = 2.31, SD = .58) than participants

in the DP condition (M = .77, SD = .42). As for the presence of forewarning, there was not a

significant main effect, F (1, 228) = .54, p = .464. The number of death-related words was not

significantly different between participants in the warning condition (M = 1.64, SD = .90) and

the no warning condition (M = 1.41, SD = .93). The interaction effect of condition and

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 19

forewarning was found to be not significant, F (1, 228) = .20, p = .655. This means that

participants did not differ in their number of death related words between the mortality salient

and warning group (M = 2.28, SD = .54), mortality salient and no warning group (M = 2.36, SD =

.65), dental pain and warning group (M = .76, SD = .43), and dental pain and no warning group

(M = .78, SD = .42). See Appendix H

Using another 2X2 ANOVA we tested our second dependent variable, responses to the “I

share the author’s views about progress” question concerning the human progress essay against

the same independent variables, condition and presence of forewarning. There was a significant

main effect of condition, F (1, 228) = 5.36, p = .022. Participants placed in the mortality salience

condition agreed with the human progress essay author ‘s pessimism less (M = 2.48, SD = 1.52)

than participants in the dental pain condition (M = 2.77, SD = 1.32). There was also a significant

main effect of warning vs no warning, F (1, 228) = 14.18, p < .001. Those that didn’t receive a

warning agreed with the human progress essay author ‘s pessimism less (M = 2.32, SD = 1.46)

than participants in the Warning group (M = 2.92, SD = 1.33). Furthermore, there was a

significant interaction effect of condition and warning, F (1, 228) = 3.92, p = .049. Additional

testing of simple effects showed that for participants in the mortality salient condition they

disagreed with the author significantly less with no warning (M = 1.84, SD = 1.13) than in the

warning condition (M = 2.90, SD = 1.60), F(1, 112) = 14.72, p < .001. Participants in the dental

pain condition did not differ in their agreement with the author when there was no warning (M =

2.63, SD = 1.57) and with a warning (M = 2.96, SD = .832), F(1, 116) = 1.80, p = .183. Those in

the warning condition did not show a difference in their agreement with author in the mortality

salient condition (M = 2.90, SD = 1.60) and the dental pain condition (M = 2.96, SD = .832) ,

F(1, 117) = .062, p = .805. Alternatively, those in the no warning condition disagreed with the

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 20

author significantly less in the mortality salient condition (M = 1.84, SD = 1.13) than in the

dental pain condition (M = 2.63, SD = 1.57), F(1, 111) = 8.42, p = .004. See Appendix I

Discussion Study Two

In accordance with our hypothesis, the results showed that there was only a significant

main effect of condition in relation to number of death-related words in the word-completion

task. Those in the Mortality Salient condition completed more death-related words than those in

the Dental Pain condition regardless of the presence of a warning. There was also no significant

interaction effect just as we had initially predicted before the study was run.

In relation to whether the presence of a warning had an effect on responses to the human

progress essay, there was a main effect of condition, as was expected. Participants in the

Mortality Salient condition agreed less with the author of the human progress essay than those in

the Dental Pain condition. Additionally, results supported our conjecture of a main effect of

forewarning. Those whom had not received a warning about how being reminded of death may

make them more optimistic agreed with the author less than those who had. Finally, there was

evidence in support of our hypothesis that there would be a significant interaction effect of

warning and condition on participant responses on the essay. Participants disagreed with the

author more when they didn’t get the warning than when they did when in the Mortality Salient

condition. In the Dental Pain condition there was no difference in between those that had or had

not received the warning. Subjects that were in the warning condition did not differ in agreement

with the author whether they were in the Mortality Salient or Dental Pain condition while in the

no-warning condition they agree with the author significantly less in the former condition.

General Discussion

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 21

Our first hypothesis stated that being mortality salient would results in more death-related

words and was backed by the results of Study one and two. We also saw evidence that we defend

our fundamental beliefs when they are being threatened as participants were more inclined to

disagree with the author of the pessimistic human progress essay when they were asked to think

about death. The opposition with the author can be viewed as an act to reinforce out self-esteem

in order to lessen our anxiety of the legacy we leave behind after death (Rutjens, van der Pligt, &

van Harreveld, 2009). Though forewarning did not seem to affect the number of death-related

words the participant completed, it did make an impact on their agreement with the author of the

excerpt. Those that didn’t receive the warning tended to disagree with the other more-so than

those that did. Also found was an interaction effect of condition and forewarning. Those in the

Mortality salience condition agreed most with the author when they were forewarned on how

being primed to think of death may boost our optimism in societal progress. This shows evidence

of response bias in the case that participants’ original viewpoint concerning the topic was skewed

due to the provided information (Neimeyer et al., 1991).

Though this study was designed as an extension of previous studies such as that of Kelley

and Schmeichel (2015) , it was conducted by a research methods class of psychology students

therefore there is bound to be errors of internal validity. Errors in our study may include that of

instrumentation in the way students approached participants for the study. Researchers may have

veered off the script provided to introduce the study and so the amount of information subjects

were given beforehand may vary. Also condition in which the subject took the surveys may vary

due to environment or mood. In order to limit these extraneous variables we could screen

participants beforehand and have them take the survey in the same room. Further testing may

also include putting the author’s credibility under scrutiny. We could include an independent

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 22

variable in which in one version of the survey the introduction of the excerpt tells the participant

the author’s credentials so they know that the author is well-versed on the human progress topic.

The other version could could be kept the same. This way we could test whether credibility in the

author plays a role in the position the participants take whether they agree or disagree with the

author.

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 23

References

Friedman, M., & Rholes, W. S. (2008). Religious fundamentalism and terror management. The

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18(1), 36-52. doi:

10.1080/10508610701719322

Hsu, N. & Schütt, Z. (2012). Psychology of priming, Hauppauge, NY, US: Nova Science

Publishers.

Kelley, Nathan. J., & Schmeichel, Bill. J. (2015). Mortality salience increases personal optimism

among individuals higher in trait self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 39(6), 926-931.

doi: 10.1007/s11031-015-9504-z

McGrath, R. E., Mitchell, M., Kim, B. H., & Hough, L. (2010). Evidence for response bias as a

source of error variance in applied assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 450-470.

doi:10.1037/a0019216

Neimeyer, G. J., MacNair, R., Metzler, A. E., & Courchaine, K. (1991). Changing Personal

Beliefs: Effects of Forewarning, Argument Quality, Prior Bias, and Personal Exploration.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 1-20. doi:10.1521/jscp.1991.10.1.1

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Effects of forwarning of persuasive intent and

involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 49(2), 173-176. doi: 10.1177/014616727900500209

Rutjens, B. T., van der Pligt, J., & van Harreveld, F. (2009). Things will get better: The anxiety-

buffering qualities of progressive hope. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

35(5), 535-543. doi: 10.1177/0146167208331252

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 24

Schimel, J., Hayes, J., Williams, T., & Jahrig, J. (2007). Is death really the worm at the core?

Converging evidence that worldview threat increases death-thought accessibility. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 789-803. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.789

Sedgwick, P. (Apr 9, 2014). Non-response bias versus response bias. BMJ : British Medical

Journal (Online), 348. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2573

Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of

forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 119-138. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.119

Zaleskiewicz, T., Gasiorowska, A., & Kesebir, P. (2015). The scrooge effect revisited:

Mortality

salience increases the satisfaction derived from prosocial behavior. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 67-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.03.005

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 25

Appendix A- Demographics- Study One

Statistics

Gender (1 =

M, 2 = F) Age

Race

FIU Student

(1 = Y, 2 =

N)

N Valid 99 99 99 99

Missin

g
0 0 0 0

Mean 1.5354 23.2626 2.2222 1.1414

Median 2.0000 21.0000 2.0000 1.0000

Mode 2.00 20.00 2.00 1.00

Std. Deviation .50129 8.52677 1.33673 .35022

Minimum 1.00 14.00 1.00 1.00

Maximum 2.00 85.00 6.00 2.00

Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Male 46 46.5 46.5 46.5

Femal

e
53 53.5 53.5 100.0

Total 99 100.0 100.0

Race

Frequency Percent

Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent

Valid Caucasian 32 32.3 32.3 32.3

Hispanic 45 45.5 45.5 77.8

Native Indian 2 2.0 2.0 79.8

African

American
11 11.1 11.1 90.9

Asian

American
6 6.1 6.1 97.0

Other 3 3.0 3.0 100.0

Total 99 100.0 100.0

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 26

FIU Student (1 = Y, 2 = N)

Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent

Valid Yes 85 85.9 85.9 85.9

No 14 14.1 14.1 100.0

Total 99 100.0 100.0

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 27

Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One

Condition (1 = MS, 2 = DP, 3 = C) * Manipulation Check (1 = MS, 2 = DP, 3 = C) Crosstabulation

Manipulation Check (1 =

MS, 2 = DP, 3

=

C)

Total

Mortality

Salience Dental Pain College

Condition (1 =

MS, 2 = DP, 3 =

C)
Mortality

Salience

Count 28 3 2 33

% within

Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)

84.8% 9.1% 6.1% 100.0%

Dental Pain Count 0 28 5 33

% within
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)

0.0% 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%

College Count 0 3 30 33

% within
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)

0.0% 9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

Total Count 28 34 37 99

% within
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)

28.3% 34.3% 37.4% 100.0%

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 28

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymptotic

Significance

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-

Square
131.089a 4 .000

Likelihood

Ratio
133.250 4 .000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

72.551 1 .000

N of Valid

Cases
99

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5.

The minimum expected count is 9.33.

Symmetric Measures

Value

Approximate

Significance

Nominal by

Nominal

Phi 1.151 .000

Cramer’s V .814 .000

N of Valid Cases 99

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 29

Appendix C – ANOVA Word Fragments – Study One

Descriptives

Number of word fragments completed with death

N

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound
Mortality

Salience
33 2.9091 1.01130 .17604 2.5505 3.2677 1.00 5.00

Dental Pain 33 2.1515 .61853 .10767 1.9322 2.3708 1.00 3.00

College 33 2.2424 .93643 .16301 1.9104 2.5745 1.00 5.00

Total 99 2.4343 .92760 .09323 2.2493 2.6193 1.00 5.00

ANOVA

Number of word fragments completed with death

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between

Groups
11.293 2 5.646 7.422 .001

Within Groups 73.030 96 .761

Total 84.323 98

Post Hoc Tests

Number of word fragments completed with

death

Tukey HSDa

Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3

= C) N

Subset for alpha =

0.05

1 2

Dental Pain 33 2.1515

College 33 2.2424

Mortality

Salience
33 2.9091

Sig. .906 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are

displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 33.000.

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 30

Appendix D – ANOVA Optimism About the Future– Study One

Descriptives

I feel could have written this essay

N Mean

Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Mortality

Salience
33 3.0303 1.07485 .18711 2.6492 3.4114 1.00 5.00

Dental Pain 33 3.7273 .97701 .17008 3.3808 4.0737 2.00 5.00

College 33 3.4545 .93845 .16336 3.1218 3.7873 2.00 5.00

Total 99 3.4040 1.02936 .10345 3.1987 3.6093 1.00 5.00

ANOVA
I feel could have written this essay

Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between

Groups
8.141 2 4.071 4.084 .020

Within Groups 95.697 96 .997

Total 103.838 98

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: I feel could have written this essay

Tukey HSD

(I) Condition (1

= MS, 2 = DP, 3

= C)

(J) Condition (1

= MS, 2 = DP, 3
= C)
Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Mortality
Salience

Dental Pain -.69697* .24579 .015 -1.2821 -.1118

College -.42424 .24579 .201 -1.0094 .1609

Dental Pain Mortality

Salience
.69697* .24579 .015 .1118 1.2821

College .27273 .24579 .511 -.3124 .8579

College Mortality

Salience
.42424 .24579 .201 -.1609 1.0094

Dental Pain -.27273 .24579 .511 -.8579 .3124

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 31

Appendix E- Demographics- Study Two

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 32

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 33

Appendix F – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 34

Appendix G – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 35

Appendix H – ANOVA Word Fragments – Study Two

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 36

Appendix I – ANOVA Optimism About the Future– Study Two

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 37

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 38

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 39

OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 40

Running

head: SEXUALITY, MEDIA, AND ATTRACTION 1

SEXUALITY, MEDIA, AND ATTRACTION 2

SEXUALITY, MEDIA, AND ATTRACTION 21

Sexual Priming, Physical Attractiveness, and the Media: An Analysis

A Prior Student

Florida International University

Abstract

Methods One Students: Typically, authors add their abstract for the paper here on the second page. As you can see, the abstract for this paper is missing. Your job is to supply that abstract!

Read over the following paper, which is an actual paper turned in by a former student taking

Research Methods and Design II at FIU. This is similar to a paper you will write next semester.

Review the studies in this paper, and spot the hypotheses, independent and dependent variables, participants, results, and implications, and write it up in one paragraph (no more than 200 words maximum). Make sure to include keywords as well (keywords are words or short phrases that researchers use when searching through online databases like PsycInfo – they need to be descriptive of the paper, so come up with three or four that seem to suit this paper). Good luck!

Keywords: Methods II Paper, Abstract Assignment, Methods II Preview

Sexual Priming, Physical Attractiveness, and the Media: An Analysis

Imagine watching the news and seeing a picture of a man with a ski mask and knife in hand. What words that come to mind with regard to this mental image? Might the man to be a murderer? Do words like “scary,” “frightening,” and “dangerous” arise unbidden? Media outlets like the news, movies, and T.V. shows off paint the image of a serial killer as one with a ski mask and knife. People have been primed to make these associations to then respond accordingly, perhaps in fear, shock, or caution. Priming is when a stimulus, in the form of a cue, triggers a reaction in our cognition and releases as set of subsequent behavior (White, Danek, Herring, Taylor, & Crites, 2018). According to Alhabash, McAlister, Wonkyung, Lou, Cunningham, Quilliam, and Richards (2017), priming makes it so that, after a participant is exposed to a cue, they respond to the following stimulus with the information related to and triggered by the cue to then make decisions. Now, if the cues were sexually-implicit, would it provoke a pattern of similarly sexual thoughts and concepts? What, then, are the effects of sexually-primed advertisements on an individual’s judgment of character?

Alhabash et al. (2017) reported that there are about a billion people who use social networking sites like Facebook daily. As a result, marketers, particularly those in the alcohol business, are making the switch and investing more of their resources into advertising on social media, where it is both cost-effective and less-restrictive. The authors found that alcoholic ads promoted drinking behavior in those who were already predisposed to drinking at a moderate to high level. In this case, exposure to the ads served as catalysts to those who had a lower threshold and sensitivity to alcoholic cues. Their findings highlight the power of suggestion in influencing behavior.

A similar study on suggestibility and media priming is by Harris, Bargh, and Brownell (2009) on food advertisements. In their research, they conducted two studies, one on children and one on young adults, and measured how food-related commercials impacted subsequent food consumption. Both the children and adults consumed significantly more food after watching advertisements about food. From their results, they concluded that food advertisements can prime and trigger automatic eating responses, usually unknowingly, and warned about the significant implications. Again, most of the participants reported that they did not know that they were being primed to consume food, meaning that a lot of the priming was unconscious and automatic.

To reiterate, priming is when concepts in our mind are activated through a stimulus, and researchers then study the effects of priming in a following assessment. In this process, the individual is unaware of the activated cognition and associations they make thereafter, however, their behavior is due to the prime (Harris, Bargh, & Brownell, 2009). In a study by Aubrey, Gamble, and Hahn (2017), participants were randomly subjected to either self-sexualizing music videos or neutral videos of the same artist and asked to rate their opinions on scales. By selfsexualizing, they meant that the performing artist would willingly dress in scantily clad clothing and behave in a sexually provocative manner. The researchers believed that the media cues would activate schemas in the participant’s mind and alter their opinion of others. They further hypothesized that those in the sexual condition would have more sexualized thoughts than those in the neutral condition. Their hypothesis was supported, and their results aid in magnifying the effect of sexual cues in eliciting sexual thinking.

Sexual cues litter the online and virtual world around us, acting as elicitors and reinforcers towards attitudes in favor of sexual promiscuity and openness (Dillman Carpentier, 2017). As Dillman Carpentier notes, sexual cues are not limited to images alone: sexually-implicit words have also been shown to be effective in influencing an individual’s point of view on a subject. She further examined the effects of sexual versus romantic word cues on an individual’s rating towards a neutral target and found that those in the sexual condition rated the target as more flirtatious and alluring than those in the romantic condition. This provides further evidence that a sexual cue can prime the mind to unknowingly characterize a subject as sexual. In another example, people who watched sexual popular music would then judge others through sexual filters and evaluate them on sexual characteristics (Dillman Carpentier, 2017).

Study One

Having in mind the effects of mere suggestion, mere exposure, and advertisement priming, we came up with a research study that looked at the effects of primed advertisements on judgment of character. In our study, we presented our participants to Riley, a fake Facebook profile, and asked them to read Riley’s “about me” and rate them based on questions regarding their personality. We had one independent variable with three conditions, each having a different advertisement theme, either sexual, romantic, or education (neutral) in nature, to see how responses changed depending on the images provided. We had two main predictions. One, we hypothesized that individuals who saw the sexualized advertisements accompanying a fake Facebook profile would view the Facebook user in a more sexualized manner (more flirtatious, seductive, sexy and provocative) than participants who saw romantic or educational advertisements. Two, we hypothesized that participants who saw romance advertisements accompanying the fake Facebook profile would view the Facebook user in a more romantic manner (more sensitive, kind, tender, and sentimental) than participants who saw sexualized or educational advertisements.

Methods Study One

Participants

At Florida International University, a total of 138 students participated in this research study. The age range of the participants was from 17 to 59 years old (M = 25.12, SD = 7.58). Out of 138 students, 73 (52.9%) were male, 61 (44.2%) were female, and 4 (2.9%) were unidentified (as they did not mark their gender). A total of 40.6% (n = 56) were Hispanic, 25.4% (n = 35)

Caucasian, 18.1% (n = 25) African American, 5.8% (n = 8) Asian American, 2.9% (n = 4) Native

American, and 7.2% (n = 10) did not identify with these categories and marked “other”. See Appendix A.

Materials and Procedure

Consent was obtained orally, and participants were informed about the study in terms of benefits, risks, and study duration. We told participants that the study would take about five to ten minutes to finish and that there were no risks to partaking in the study. Furthermore, we said that the main benefit would be that we, the researchers, would be able to finish our assignment. Those who answered yes were given one of the three surveys, each one made up of six-parts. The six parts were marked accordingly throughout the document- e.g., Part I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.

In part one, readers were told that the research study was on the probability of a new Facebook dating option. Participants were instructed to read everything on the Facebook page because they would have to remember what they read and answer questions. They were then asked to imagine that they were single as they read about “Riley Washington” and their Facebook profile page. Riley is a made-up character; whose name and biography are purposefully neutral. Their name can be either masculine or feminine and their interests are generic and broad. In all three versions, participants were shown the same banner, a background image of a sunset on an ocean with palm trees overlapping the image. Everything on the page was made to emulate an authentic Facebook profile “About Me” page except that it excluded an image of Riley (Because the survey was testing a new dating feature in Facebook, we kept Riley gender-neutral in our stimulus materials to avoid potential confounds related to participant gender). In their “About Me”, Riley refers to themselves as a laid-back person who is funny, social, open-minded, and “up for anything.” Riley doesn’t show preference for things like music but rather, says that they’d “generally give any music a chance”. They write about how they are open to doing all kinds of things from different extremes such as going out to a club or staying at home watching a movie. We intended this to make Riley seem as neutral-minded as possible. Each survey conditions contained the same information about Riley, however, each one contained a different advertisement theme (sexuality, romance, or education) at the bottom of the page which led to a difference in responses.

In the sexuality priming condition, there were three advertisements under Riley’s profile with images meant to promote sexuality and promiscuity. In the first image there was a man spraying on Axe, a body spray, well-known for making provocative ads about “hot” woman and physical attraction. The ad alluded that the man was naked, with a smug smile as a woman was hugging him from behind (although it is not shown, the image suggests that the woman was also naked). The next image showcased a woman with high heels, a tight dress, and alcohol positioned towards a faceless man sitting in a chair with a drink in hand as well. The last image was a close-up of a shirtless woman, looking at the camera as she is being embraced by a shirtless man, while the words “Gucci Guilty” span over her. All the ads in this condition imply sexuality. The “AdChoices” logo and symbol was made visible throughout the ads to indicate that the following images were meant to be online advertisements.

In the romance ad condition, (just as in the sexuality condition) there were three advertisements placed at the bottom of Riley’s profile. They were the same size as in the sexual condition. The first ad was from Sandals, a resort known to make advertisements about the

“perfect romantic vacation”. In the image there was a smiling couple, celebrating a romantic dinner together outdoors. The advertisement in the middle also showed a couple, this time riding horses together. The last advertisement, was from e-Harmony, an online dating site. In the picture, there was a smiling couple embracing each other. Likewise, as in the sexual condition, there was the “AdChoices” logo made visible.

In the education ad condition, there are three ads, sized and placed in the same way as the other two conditions. The ads in this condition are oriented towards education, adorned with words like “go greater”, “reinvent yourself”, and “start your child off with a strong academic foundation”, accordingly from left to right. In all the ads there are signs promoting colleges such as the University of Florida and Platt College. The “AdChoices” sign, again, can be seen at the corner of the ads.

After reading about Riley, participants proceeded to part two of the study where they were given 10 questions and asked to rate their impressions of Riley from a scale of 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”). We asked participants to rate the statements “Riley seems”: educated, flirtatious, sensitive, seductive, kind, tender, sentimental, provocative, outgoing, and sexy. For our study, we primarily focused on the participant’s response regarding whether they though Riley seemed provocative and whether they thought Riley seemed sensitive. The remaining impressions ratings were included primarily to mask the goal of our study, which was focused on sexuality impressions. As such, they are not discussed further.

In part three, we asked participants to rate how well the following 10 statements describe them and recorded their answers on a scale from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”). Participants were asked to rate how assertive, sensitive, confident, emotional, businesslike, romantic, decisive, understanding, fearless, and warm-hearted they think they are. Once again, these items were primarily used to mask the presence of our true study goal: looking at impressions of the Facebook user. Participant self-ratings are this not discussed further.

In part four, participants were asked to fill out their demographic information such as their gender, age, race/ethnicity, first language (whether English was their first language or not), relationship status, and student status (whether they were an FIU student or not). Part five asked participants whether they thought that Riley was a male, female, or unknown. Lastly, part six was our manipulation check where we asked participants to recall whether the general theme of the three advertisements they saw was “focused on sexuality”, “focused on romance”, or “focused on education”. Participants were then debriefed on the true purpose of the study, our aim, and our hypotheses.

Results Study One

Using priming condition (sexuality vs. romance vs. education) as our independent variable, and whether participants recalled the general theme of the advertisements as our nominal-based dependent variable, we conducted a manipulation check on the nominal data using a chi-square test. The chi square was significant, X2(4) = 202.13, p < .001. Most of those in the sexuality condition recalled seeing sexual advertisements (86%). Most of those in the romance condition recalled seeing romance advertisements (88%). Most of those in the education condition recalled seeing education advertisements (96%). Furthermore, our Cramer’s V of 0.86 showed a very strong effect. These results imply that participants were aware of the advertisements and recognized them as we intended. See Appendix B.

For our first dependent variable, “Riley seems provocative”, we conducted a One-Way

ANOVA using advertisement condition (sexuality vs. romance vs. education) as our independent variable, which was significant, F (2, 135) = 11.16, p < .001. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that participants rated Riley significantly more provocative in the sexuality ad condition (M = 3.60, SD = 1.21) than in both the romance ad condition (M = 2.98, SD = 0.64) and the education ad condition (M = 2.60, SD = 1.10). However, there was not a significant difference between romance and education ad conditions. These findings support our hypothesis that participants exposed to sexualized advertisements are more likely to rate Riley high in provocativeness than those who are exposed to educational and romantic advertisements. See Appendix C.

For our second dependent variable, “Riley seems sensitive”, we conducted another One Way ANOVA using advertisement condition (sexuality vs. romance vs. education) as our independent variable, which was also significant, F (2, 135) = 9.17, p < .001. A Tukey post hoc test showed that participants in the romance priming condition saw Riley as more sensitive (M = 3.90, SD = 1.06) than those in both the sexuality ad condition (M = 3.07, SD = 1.06) and the education ad condition (M = 3.30, SD = 0.92). Participants did not, however, significantly differ in their ratings of Riley’s sensitivity between the education and sexuality priming conditions. Our results seem to indicate that those given romantic advertisements saw Riley in a more romantic manner, such as sensitive, than those in the sexualized and educational ad conditions. See Appendix D.

Discussion Study One

For our research paper, we hypothesized that those exposed to the sexualized advertisements would see Riley Washington, a fake Facebook profile, in a more sexualized view than those given the romantic or educational advertisements. On the other hand, we believed that those exposed to the romantic advertisements would see Riley Washington in a more romantic view than those given the sexual and educational advertisements. We specifically predicted that those who saw the sexual priming condition would rate Riley more provocative than those in the romantic and educational advertisements. Likewise, we predicted that those in the romance priming condition would rate Riley as more sensitive than those in the sexual and education condition. Our results supported both of our predictions. Yet it is possible that the ambiguity in Riley’s gender and lack of a visual image could have played a part in the participant’s responses toward Riley. This could have forced participants to create their own image of Riley using the limited contextual information given, such as the bio and the advertisements, as a rubric for judgment of character. This begs the question: what if we made Riley a female and gave participants an image of her? How would that affect participant’s judgment of character of her in terms of sexuality and attractiveness? That is what we explored in study two.

Study Two

In situations where there is sexually suggestive data, either in the form of an image or word, cues in the mind are triggered (Dillman Carpentier, 2017). Neural patterns of thinking are then activated and lead the subject to make associations based on the triggered cue. For something to be sexually provoking, one could argue that it must be attractive and stimulating to the eye. In the first study, we found that sexualized ads affected participants’ view on our subject’s perceived sexuality. For the second study, we looked at the role of physical attractiveness in judgment of character. We further inspected the relational interaction between advertisement theme and photo attractiveness in ultimately deciding how provocative, or sexy, our subject seems.

Physical attractiveness is positively associated to being more successful in the social world in respect to relational, social, and economic mobility (Little, Jones, & DeBruine, 2011).

Although all physical attraction boils down to the individual and their personal preferences, objective, physical beauty can be measured by gathering individual ratings on the same subject and averaging out the scores (Feingold, 1992). Furthermore, according to Little, Jones, and DeBruine (2011), even with individual and cultural differences in mind, there seems to be a consistent, global agreement on what is generally attractive. Shen, Chau, Su, Zeng, Jiang, He, Fan, and Hu (2016) found that areas in the mind including the orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, and anterior cingulate cortex (areas high in reward and emotion-related thinking) are activated in response to differing levels of attractiveness. There was greater activation in the ventral ventromedial prefrontal cortex (and its subcortical rewarding system) when participants saw a “beautiful” face compared to a “non-beautiful” one: there seems to be a connection made between facial attractiveness and reward (Shen et al., 2016).

There is overwhelming research on the effects of beauty on judgment of character. Cash and Duncan (1984) conducted a study on stereotypes and physical attractiveness and measured the responses of black participants. In their research report, they used images of African Americans who varied in levels of attractiveness from high, average, to low. Their study found that those who were considered highly attractive were rated higher in social desirability qualities. Among these qualities, was the likelihood of being successful in the future both economically and socially, where those in the average and high level of attractiveness scored significantly higher than those rated low in attractiveness. A statistically significant amount of people made the same assumptions and judgments of character based on physical beauty.

In addition to seeming more sociably adept and successful, physically attractive people seem more “sexually warm” than less attractive people (Feingold, 1992). In this context, sexually warm was defined by how sexually responsive a person seemed. Feingold (1992) created a meta-analysis on impression-forming and attractiveness in terms of desirability, popularity, success, and personality and found a relationship between beauty and perceived sexual permissiveness. Participants believed that physically attractive women were more sexually promiscuous than their counterparts.

Alongside to having social benefits, physical attractiveness has probable links to evolutionary and biological functions (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002). More specifically, facial attractiveness can be measured by facial cues such as the symmetry, averageness, and homogeneity of the skin (Coetzee, Faerber, Greeff, Lefevre, Re, & Perrett, 2012). According to Fink and Penton-Voak (2002), these facial cues serve as markers and indicators of good health and reproductive genes. Rhodes, Simmons, and Peters’ (2005) study on sexual behavior and attractiveness found supportive data on mating success correlated to physical beauty, alluding to a connection between physical attractiveness and sexual desirability. Sexual desirability leading to equally sexually-related thoughts.

In our present study, we extend our first study measuring the effect of advertisements on our fake Facebook subject, Riley’s perceived sexuality. For study two, we removed the romantic ad condition from our first independent variable, but included an attractiveness independent variable, thus giving us a 2 x 2 factorial design. In line with Study One, we predicted a main effect for the advertisement independent variable such that those who saw sexuality ads would see Riley as more sexual and provocative than those who saw educational ads. For our second independent variable, photo attractiveness, we predicted a main effect such that participants would see Riley as more sexual and provocative when her profile picture was attractive compared to non-attractive. Finally, we predicted an interaction between advertisement and photo attractiveness in that participants would see Riley as the most “sexual” in the sexual ad and attractive photo condition than all the other three conditions, though we also predicted that seeing a sexual ad would lead those in the unattractive photo condition to rate Riley as more sexual and provocative than those who saw educational ads.

Methods Study Two

Participants

There were 103 participants in this study. Out of these 103 participants, 31 (30.1%) were male, 70 (68.0%) were female, and 2 (1.9%) were unidentified (they did not report their gender). The participants ages ranged from 17 to 47 years old (M = 22.96, SD = 5.72). A total of 59.2%

(n = 61) were Hispanic American, 18.4% (n = 19) were African American, 11.7% (n = 12) were Caucasian, 1.9% (n = 2) were Native Indian, 1.9% (n = 2) were Asian American, 2.9% (n = 3) of the participants selected “Other”, and 3.9% (n = 4) of the participants did not report their race.

See Appendix E.

Materials and Procedure

Individuals were asked if they would like to participate in an online research study. If the individual said yes, they were given the link to the online survey operated through a software program called Qualitrics. As protocol, potential participants were presented with an informed consent form. Subjects were made aware of the potential risks (where they may feel uncomfortable due to the sensitive topics addressed in the survey, such as sexuality), benefits (they have the opportunity to learn about psychology in relation to social media), and study duration (we told them the survey would take 10 to 15 minutes to complete). Those that declined and did not want to participate were redirected to the end of the survey while those that gave consent were presented to the next page- the “Introduction”.

In the introduction, just like in Study One, participants were told that the research study was to collect preliminary data on a new Facebook dating option. They were given the same instructions as in Study One: pretend that you are single as you read about Riley Washington and make sure to read everything carefully. Similarly, Riley’s “About Me” and Facebook banner in Study Two was identical to Study One, with the same description and backdrop of a sunset on an ocean. However, in this study we removed the romance ad condition and included a new independent variable: Riley photo attractiveness. Thus, in addition to study one’s ad based independent variable (sexual vs. educational advertisements), study two looked at photo attractiveness (attractive vs. unattractive). In study one, we did not include a picture of Riley, but in this study we made Riley an African American female. The two photos chosen to represent an attractive and unattractive Riley were adapted from Coetzee, Faerber, Greeff, Lefevre, Re, and Perrett, (2012). The two images were formed from composite pictures of 10 African-American females rated by participants as the least attractive and 10 African-American females rated by participants as highly attractive. We chose the one picture that most of their participants rated as high in attractiveness as well their one picture that most of their participants rates as low in attractiveness.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: sexuality ad X attractive photo, sexuality ad X unattractive photo, educational ad X attractive photo, and education ad X unattractive photo. As an example, in the sexuality ad X attractive condition, participants would see the attractive photo of Riley paired with the three sexual advertisements (like in study one) at the bottom of the screen. In all the conditions, the advertisements remained the same as in study one, except that we removed the romantic advertisements.

Once participants finished reading about Riley, they were sent to the next page where they were asked 15 questions about Riley. They had to rate their impressions of Riley on a scale of 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (Strongly Agree”), just like in the previous study. Here we modified our questions from study one and asked participants if they thought “Riley seemed”: educated, flirtatious, seductive, provocative, outgoing, sexy, well-spoken, studious, mature, perceptive, popular, intelligent, genuine, trustworthy, and a good potential partner. For this study, we once again primarily focused on the participant’s response regarding whether they thought Riley seemed provocative and whether they thought Riley seemed sexy. Remaining ratings are not discussed further, as they were included to mask the presence of our main goal: focusing on sexuality and provocative ratings for Riley.

Next, participants were asked to rate 12 questions (on a 1 to 6 scale like the one above) on how well the following assertions described them and who they are in their everyday life. They were asked if they thought they were: assertive, confident, romantic, decisive, fearless, intelligent, energetic, friendly, popular, attractive, laid-back, and humorous. Again, we did not analyze these secondary dependent variables, so they are not discussed further.

After completing the participant self-rating, the readers were asked to recall what was the general theme of the advertisements they saw under Riley’s profile and were given the option to click: “they focused on sexuality”, “they focused on education”, or “not sure”. The next question asked subjects to answer on a scale from 1 to 6 (1 being “not at all” and 6 being “very much so”),

“to what extent do you find Riley physically attractive?” Participants answered demographic information similar to the one in study one and marked down their gender, age, race/ethnicity, first language, relationship status, and student status as well to new additional questions pertaining to their sexual preference and sexual orientation (whether they considered themselves transgender or not). Participants were then debriefed and given the real aim of the study.

Results Study Two

Using type of advertisement (sexual vs. educational) as our independent variable, and whether participants recalled the general theme of the advertisements as our nominal-based dependent variable, we conducted a chi square test. The chi square was significant, X2(2) = 82.39, p < .001. Most of the participants who were exposed to the sexual advertisements accurately recalled that the theme focused on sexuality (85.2%). Likewise, most of the participants who were exposed to the educational advertisements recalled condition accurately recalled that the theme focused on education (85.7%). Additionally, our Cramer’s V of 0.89 showed a very strong effect. These results suggest that participants did notice the advertisements and remembered them as we intended. See Appendix F.

To measure the effectiveness of our photo attractiveness manipulation (our IV) on how physically appealing Riley seemed to participants (our interval-based dependent variable), we conducted an independent samples t-Test. The t-Test was significant, t(101) = 14.33, p < .001. Participants who saw the unattractive photo of Riley rated Riley as less physically appealing (M = 1.46, SD = 0.50) than participants who saw the attractive photo of Riley (M = 3.53, SD = 0.87). The data seems to suggest that our photo manipulation was effective. See Appendix F.

For our first dependent variable, “Riley seems provocative”, we conducted a Two-Way ANOVA using advertisement theme (sexual vs. educational) and photo attractiveness (attractive vs. unattractive) as our independent variables. There was no significant main effect for advertisement type, F (1, 99) = 3.54, p > .05. This means that there was no difference between sexuality advertisements (M = 2.94, SD = 1.55) and educational advertisements (M = 2.37, SD = 1.64) on ratings of Riley’s provocativeness. However, there was a significant main effect for photo attractiveness, F (1, 99) = 10.48, p < .05, such that those who saw an attractive photo of Riley (M = 3.11, SD = 1.66) thought she was more provocative than those who saw an unattractive photo of Riley (M = 2.13, SD = 1.39). Unfortunately, there was no interaction of ad theme and photo attractiveness, F (1, 99) = 1.89, p > .05. This means that there were no difference between participants were in the sexuality ad X attractive condition (M = 3.59, SD = 1.55), the sexuality ad X unattractive condition (M = 2.20, SD = 1.19), the education ad X attractive condition (M = 2.61, SD = 1.64), and the educational ad X unattractive condition (M = 2.05, SD = 1.63). See Appendix H.

For our second dependent variable, “Riley seems sexy”, we conducted another Two-Way ANOVA using advertisement theme (sexual vs. educational) and photo attractiveness (attractive vs. unattractive) as our independent variables. We found a significant main effect for advertisement theme, F (1, 99) = 24.90, p < .001, with participants in the sexual advertisement condition (M = 3.39, SD = 1.17) rating Riley as seeming sexier than those in the educational advertisement condition (M = 2.35, SD = 1.25). There was also a significant main effect for photo attractiveness, F (1, 99) = 9.62, p < .005. Participants in the attractive condition (M = 3.18, SD = 1.28) rated Riley as sexier than participants in the unattractive condition (M = 2.54, SD = 1.28). However, both main effects were qualified by a significant interaction, F (1, 99) = 6.42, p < .05. See Appendix I. As a result, we conducted four follow-up simple effects tests for the significant interaction.

Our first simple effects test showed that those who got sexuality advertisements did not differ in their ratings of Riley sexiness in the attractive condition (M = 3.45, SD = 1.21) and unattractive condition (M = 3.32, SD = 1.15), F (1, 52) = 0.16, p > .05. However, our second simple effects showed that those who got educational advertisements rating Riley as sexier in the attractive condition (M = 2.89, SD = 1.32) than in the unattractive condition (M = 1.62, SD = 0.67), F (1, 47) = 16.45, p < .001. In addition, our third simple effects for those in the unattractive condition showed that Riley seemed sexier to those who saw the sexual advertisements (M = 3.32, SD = 1.15) than those who saw the educational advertisements (M = 1.62, SD = 0.67), F (1, 44) = 35.97, p < .001. Lastly, our fourth simple effects for those in the attractive condition showed that Riley received similar ratings of sexiness in cases where participants saw sexual advertisements (M = 3.45, SD = 1.21) and educational advertisements (M = 2.89, SD = 1.32), F (1, 55) = 2.75, p > .05.

Discussion Study Two

In Study Two, we had three hypotheses. First, we predicted a main effect such that participants exposed to the sexualized advertisements would rate Riley in a more sexualized and provocative way than those exposed to the educational condition. Second, we hypothesized a main effect such that Riley would seem more sexual and provocative when her profile was accompanied by an attractive picture rather than an unattractive picture. Third, we predicted an interaction such that Riley would be rated the highest in terms of sexuality and provocativeness in the sexuality ad X attractive condition compared to all others, though the exposure to sexuality ads might increase ratings even for the unattractive photo condition. We measured participant’s responses to whether they thought Riley was provocative and sexy. Although the words provocative and sexy may be similar, we found results where sexual ads made Riley seem sexier but not more provocative, yet when Riley was attractive she was seen as both sexier and provocative. Our results supported our hypotheses. Interestingly, sexual ads made unattractive Riley seem as sexy as the attractive Riley. Yet, when Riley was already attractive, sexual ads didn’t make her significantly sexier than in our neutral (educational) ad. This supports previous research on the effects of sexual priming on judgment making and opens doors to possible research investigating how sexual advertisements affect judgments on unattractive people. Due to the dissimilar results in whether Riley seemed provocative and sexy, future studies should be wary of word usage to prevent further misunderstandings.

General Discussion

In both studies, we found that sexual advertisements caused participants to rate our target, Riley Washington, in a more sexualized manner, particularly sexier. However, our findings in study two contradicted the findings in study one. In the first study, where we only manipulated the type of advertisements that participants saw, those in the sexual ad condition, rated Riley as more provocative than those who were in the education and romantic conditions. Yet, in study two, there was not a significant difference between the advertisement types and how provocative Riley seemed. In the second study, we had added a photo of Riley and manipulated whether participants saw an unattractive or attractive photo of her. Nonetheless, when we examined how sexy Riley seemed, she was rated as sexier in the sexual ad condition than in the educational ad condition (regardless of the photo condition participants received). Photo attractiveness, whether Riley was shown as attractive or unattractive, made a difference in how sexy Riley seemed; Riley seemed more sexual when she was attractive than when she was unattractive. These results affirm previous research by Feingold (1992), who found that attractive women were thought of as more sexually active than woman who weren’t as attractive. Furthermore, as was hypothesized, there was an interaction between ad type and photo attractiveness in determining how sexy Riley seemed, but Riley was not rated as the “most sexual” in the sexuality ad x attractive photo than the other conditions. In fact, there was no significant difference between how sexy Riley seemed in the sexuality ad X attractive photo and sexuality ad X unattractive photo. Sexuality advertisements made unattractive Riley seem as sexy as the attractive Riley, but they did not make the attractive Riley the sexiest.

Conceivably, it seems that sexually-primed advertisements can cause an unattractive person to seem sexier. These findings are applicable in the social context, particularly social media where advertisements are commonplace and many. They support previous research by Alhabash et al. (2017), in that advertisements are highly suggestive and capable of increasing a participant’s desire to consume the advertised product. Again, in a study conducted by Harris, Bargh, and Brownell (2009), tailored advertisements about food made children go out and eat more food. Advertisements are able to favorably push agendas in the marketing field. Sexually primed advertisements could benefit social media marketers and dating applications alike, in that they can make advertisements that further promote sexuality and dating. Furthermore, like Dillman Carpentier’s (2017) use of sexual advertisements and word cues in their study, the sexual advertisements in our study primed participants to characterize Riley as more sexual. If marketers used more sexual advertisements in their applications and websites, they could cause potential consumers to be further interested in the sexual activity advertised.

The difference in responses from study one and two regarding how provocative Riley seemed could be due to a number of limitations such as the change between mediums from paper to digital and the addition of our new IV. In the first study, we made our paper to emulate a Facebook profile and tried to make the advertisements seem as if they were online advertisements. Therefore, with the switch to digital, where the advertisements were actually online, could have affected the results. Furthermore, in study one, students were asked to print out their own copies of the study and were not given any specifications on whether to print the paper in color or black and white. The differences in survey color could have affected how much attention participants gave to the advertisements. In the second study, we made Riley a female, contrary to the first study where we purposely made Riley gender-neutral. We also gave participants one of two images of her, where in the first study, we did not present any. Perhaps, when we made Riley a female, we limited the degree to which straight females and homosexual males could see Riley as “provocative” and “sexy”, in comparison to the first study where we left Riley’s gender and image up to the viewer’s perception. Riley was also made an African American woman, which could have caused some individuals to ultimately see her as less attractive or more attractive, depending on personal preference, and skewed the results.

Further attention should be given to the use of words to describe a person, where in our results, we found a difference in responses between how sexy and provocative Riley seemed. We meant provocative to mean arousing, or to provoke sexual desire or interest; however, provocative can also mean to cause annoyance or a strong emotion in a negative view. This ambiguity in meaning could explain why Riley seemed sexier in sexual advertisements but not more provocative.

In conclusion, these studies open the door to an even greater inquisition, regarding social media and the factors which affect how we perceive others. It is evident that advertisements can impact and either favorably boost or negatively skew one’s image. We recognize that primes work with the intent to trigger and activate cognitions in our mind that were formerly inactive (White, Danek, Herring, Taylor, & Crites, 2018) and causes the individual to think in terms of the associated topic. If sexually-implicit words and images can affect an individual’s judgment of character and cause them to see someone as more sexual, what would be the effect of aggressive and violent words? How about in the context of a political ad, where words are purposely chosen to slander a politician’s image? Nonetheless, these findings are a good starting point; they are indicators that several factors play a role in our decision making, and that it can be manipulated by outside sources in the context of social media.

References

Alhabash, S., McAlister, A. R., Wonkyung, K., Lou, C., Cunningham, C., Quilliam, E. T., &

Richards, J. I. (2016). Saw it on Facebook, drank it at the bar! Effects of exposure to

Facebook alcohol ads on alcohol-related behaviors. Journal of Interactive Advertising,

16(1), 44-58. DOI: 10.1080/15252019.2016.1160330

Aubrey, J. S., Gamble, H., & Hahn, R. (2017). The priming influence of self-sexualization on thoughts and beliefs related to gender, sex, and power. Western Journal of

Communication, 81(3), 362-384. DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2016.1257822

Cash, Tony Francis., & Duncan, Neil Charles. (1984). Physical attractiveness stereotyping among black American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 122(1), 71-77. DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1984.9713459

Coetzee, V., Faerber, S. J., Greeff, J. M., Lefevre, D. E., Re, D. E., & Perrett, D. I. (2012).

African perceptions of female attractiveness. PLoS One 7(10), e48116. DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0048116

Dillman Carpentier, F. R. (2017). Priming sexual and romantic representations in two media environments: Sex encourages and romance discourages sexual permissiveness … sometimes. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 706-716. DOI:

10.1080/00224499.2016.1189870

Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2),

304-341. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.304

Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 154–158. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8721.00190

Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming Effects of Television Food Advertising on Eating Behavior. Health Psychology, 28(4), 404-413. DOI: 10.1037/a0014399

Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 366(1571), 1638-59. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0404

Shen, H., Chau, D. K., Su, J., Zeng, L. L., Jiang, W., He, J., Fan, J., & Hu, D. (2016). Brain responses to facial attractiveness induced by facial proportions: Evidence from an fMRI study. Scientific reports, 6, 35905. DOI: 10.1038/srep3590

White, K. R. G., Danek, R. H., Herring, D. R., Taylor, J. H., & Crites, S. L. (2018). Taking priming to task: Variations in stereotype priming effects across participant task. Social

Psychology, 49(1), 29-46. DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000326

Appendix A – Demographics – Study One

Statistics

Gender (1 = M,
2 = F)

Age

Race

N Valid

134

138

138

Missing
Mean

4

0

0

1.4552

25.1232

2.6014

Median

1.0000

23.0000

2.0000

Mode
Std. Deviation
Minimum

1.00

23.00

2.00

.49986

7.57681

1.53090

1.00

17.00

1.00

Maximum

2.00

59.00

6.00

Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Male
Female
Total

73

52.9

54.5

54.5

61

44.2

45.5

100.0

134

97.1

100.0

Missing
Total

System

4

2.9

138

100.0

Race

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Caucasian
Hispanic
Native Indian
African American
Asian American
Other
Total

35

25.4

25.4

25.4

56

40.6

40.6

65.9

4

2.9

2.9

68.8

25

18.1

18.1

87.0

8

5.8

5.8

92.8

10

7.2

7.2

100.0

138

100.0

100.0

Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One

Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E) * Manipulation Check (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E) Crosstabulation

Manipulation Check (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 = E)

Total

Sexuality

Romance

Education

Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 =
E)

Sexuality

Count

36

6
14.3%

0

42

% within Condition (1 = S, 2 =
R, 3 = E)

85.7%

0.0%

100.0%

Romance

Count
% within Condition (1 = S, 2 =
R, 3 = E)

6

42
87.5%

0

48

12.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Education

Count

0

2
4.2%

46

48

% within Condition (1 = S, 2 =
R, 3 = E)

0.0%

95.8%

100.0%

Total

Count

42

50
36.2%

46

138

% within Condition (1 = S, 2 =
R, 3 = E)

30.4%

33.3%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value

df

Asymptotic
Significance (2sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

202.128a

4
4

.000

Likelihood Ratio

215.273

.000

Linear-by-Linear Association

116.309

1

.000

N of Valid Cases

138

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.78.

Appendix C – ANOVA Riley Seems Provocative– Study One

Descriptives

Part II: Riley seems provocative

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Sexuality

42

3.5952

1.21092

.18685

3.2179

3.9726

2.00

6.00

Romance
Education

48

2.9792

.63546

.09172

2.7946

3.1637

2.00

4.00

48

2.6042

1.08647

.15682

2.2887

2.9196

1.00

5.00

Total

138

3.0362

1.06989

.09108

2.8561

3.2163

1.00

6.00

ANOVA

Part II: Riley seems provocative

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

22.241

2

11.121

11.156

.000

Within Groups

134.577

135

.997

Total

156.819

137

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Part II: Riley seems provocative Tukey HSD

(I) Condition (1 = S, 2 = R,
3 = E)

(J) Condition (1 = S, 2 = R,
3 = E)

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Sexuality

Romance
Education

.61607*

.21096

.011

.1161

1.1160

.99107*

.21096

.000

.4911

1.4910

Romance

Sexuality
Education

-.61607*

.21096

.011

-1.1160

-.1161

.37500

.20380

.161

-.1080

.8580

Education

Sexuality
Romance

-.99107*

.21096

.000

-1.4910

-.4911

-.37500

.20380

.161

-.8580

.1080

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Appendix D – ANOVA Riley Seems Sensitive – Study One

Descriptives

Part II: Riley seems sensitive

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Sexuality

42

3.0714

.86653

.13371

2.8014

3.3415

1.00

5.00

Romance

48

3.8958

1.05668

.15252

3.5890

4.2027

2.00

6.00

Education

48

3.2917

.92157

.13302

3.0241

3.5593

2.00

6.00

Total

138

3.4348

1.01058

.08603

3.2647

3.6049

1.00

6.00

ANOVA
Part II: Riley seems sensitive

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

16.731

2

8.366

9.168

.000

Within Groups

123.182

135

.912

Total

139.913

137

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Part II: Riley seems sensitive Tukey HSD

(I) Condition (1 = S, 2 = R, 3 (J) Condition (1 = S, 2 = R,
= E) 3 = E)

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Sexuality

Romance
Education

-.82440*

.20183

.000

-1.3027 -.6985

-.3461

-.22024

.20183

.521

.2581

Romance

Sexuality
Education

.82440*

.20183

.000

.3461
.1421

1.3027

.60417*

.19498

.007

1.0663

Education

Sexuality
Romance

.22024

.20183

.521

-.2581
-1.0663

.6985

-.60417*

.19498

.007

-.1421

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Appendix E – Demographics – Study Two

Statistics

What is your gender?
(Please mark one) – Selected
Choice

What is your race/ethnicity?
(Please mark one) – Selected
Choice

What is your age?

N Valid
Missing

101

99

103

2

4

7

Mean

1.69

2.46
1.172

22.96

Std. Deviation

.464

5.72

What is your gender? (Please mark one) – Selected Choice

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid
Missing

Male
Female
Total
System

31

30.1

30.7

30.7

70

68.0

69.3

100.0

101

98.1

100.0

2

1.9

Total

103

100.0

What is your race/ethnicity? (Please mark one) – Selected Choice

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid
Missing

Caucasian
Hispanic American
Native Indian
African American
Asian American
Other (please specify):
Total
System

12

11.7

12.1

12.1
73.7
75.8
94.9
97.0
100.0

61

59.2

61.6

2

1.9

2.0

19

18.4

19.2

2

1.9

2.0

3

2.9

3.0

99

96.1

100.0

4

3.9

Total

103

100.0

Appendix F – Crosstabs, Chi Square, and Independent Samples t-Test – Study Two

IV Type of Ad (1 – Sexual, 2 = Educational) * What was the general theme of the 3 advertisements at the bottom of

Riley’s Facebook profile? Crosstabulation

What was the general theme of the 3 ads at the bottom of Riley’s Facebook profile?

Total

They focused on sexuality

They focused on education

Not sure

IV Type of Ad (1
– Sexual, 2 =
Educational)

Sexuality

Count
% within IV Type of Ad (1
– Sexual, 2 = Educational)
% within What was the general theme of the 3 ads at the bottom of Riley’s Facebook profile?
% of Total

46

2

6

54

85.2%

3.7%

11.1%

100.0%

100.0%

4.5%

46.2%

52.4%

44.7%

1.9%

5.8%

52.4%

Educational

Count
% within IV Type of Ad (1
– Sexual, 2 = Educational)
% within What was the general theme of the 3 ads at the bottom of Riley’s Facebook profile?
% of Total

0

42

7

49

0.0%

85.7%

14.3%

100.0%

0.0%

95.5%

53.8%

47.6%

0.0%

40.8%

6.8%

47.6%

Total

Count
% within IV Type of Ad (1
– Sexual, 2 = Educational)
% within What was the general theme of the 3 ads at the bottom of Riley’s Facebook profile?
% of Total

46

44

13

103

44.7%

42.7%

12.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

44.7%

42.7%

12.6%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value

df

Asymptotic
Significance (2sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

82.392a

2

.000
.000

Likelihood Ratio

108.329

2

Linear-by-Linear Association

42.245

1

.000

N of Valid Cases

103

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.18.

Symmetric Measures

Value

Approximate
Significance

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.894

.000

Cramer’s V

.894

.000

N of Valid Cases

103

Group Statistics

IV Attractivenes (1 = Low, 2
= High)

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

To what extent do you find
Riley physically appealing?

Low Attractiveness

46

1.46

.504

.074

High Attractiveness

57

3.53

.868

.115

Independent Samples Test

Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2tailed)

Mean
Differenc e

Std.
Error
Differenc e

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

Lower

Upper

To what extent do you find Riley physically appealing?

Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed

5.73 6

.018

–
14.33
2

101

.000

-2.070

.144

-2.356

-1.783

–
15.12
1

92.43 5

.000

-2.070

.137

-2.342

-1.798

Appendix G – ANOVA Riley Seems Provocative– Study Two

Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Riley seems provocative.

IV Type of Ad (1 – Sexual, 2
= Educational)

IV Attractiveness (1 = Low, 2
= High)

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

Sexuality

Low Attractiveness
High Attractiveness
Total

2.20

1.190
1.547
1.547

25

3.59

29

2.94

54

Educational

Low Attractiveness
High Attractiveness
Total

2.05

1.627
1.641
1.642

21

2.61

28

2.37

49

Total

Low Attractiveness
High Attractiveness
Total

2.13

1.392
1.655
1.611

46

3.11

57

2.67

103

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Riley seems provocative.

Source

Type III Sum of
Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Corrected Model

38.111a

3

12.704

5.549

.001

Intercept

690.765

1

690.765 8.112

301.703

.000

IVAdType

8.112

1

3.543

.063

IVAttractive

23.989

1

23.989
4.330
2.290

10.478

.002

IVAdType * IVAttractive

4.330

1

1.891

.172

Error

226.665

99

Total

999.000

103

Corrected Total

264.777

102

a. R Squared = .144 (Adjusted R Squared = .118)

Appendix H- ANOVA Riley Seems Sexy- Study Two

Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Riley seems sexy.

IV Type of Ad (1 – Sexual, 2
= Educational)

IV Attractivenes (1 = Low, 2
= High)

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

Sexuality

Low Attractiveness
High Attractiveness
Total

3.32

1.145
1.213
1.172

25

3.45

29

3.39

54

Educational

Low Attractiveness
High Attractiveness
Total

1.62

.669
1.315
1.251

21

2.89

28

2.35

49

Total

Low Attractiveness
High Attractiveness
Total

2.54

1.277
1.283
1.313

46

3.18

57

2.89

103

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Riley seems sexy.

Source

Type III Sum of
Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Corrected Model

47.582a

3

15.861
806.271

12.244

.000

Intercept

806.271

1

622.417

.000

IVAdType

32.260

1

32.260
12.457
8.315

24.904

.000

IVAttractive

12.457

1

9.616

.003

IVAdType * IVAttractive

8.315

1

6.419

.013

Error

128.243

99

1.295

Total

1038.000

103

Corrected Total

175.825

102

a. R Squared = .271 (Adjusted R Squared = .249)

Methods II Preview Assignment

(Student example answers are in red)

1. What are the hypotheses for study one?

There were several hypotheses, though they only analyzed two of them. First, they predicted that participants would choose a suspect more frequently in the target present condition than when told the suspect may or may not be present or when they were given no information about the suspect being present. Second, they predicted that participants would be more confident in their choice than all other conditions. Comment by Ryan Winter: They original paper also looked at an attention check variable (did they recall the instructions), and they found that participants paid attention to the lineup instructions. However, this manipulation check DV isn’t as relevant to the abstract two ANOVAs the author ran, so there is no need to write about it as a hypothesis

2. What is the independent variable(s) for study one? Make sure you tell me how many IVs there are and how many levels there are for each IV

There was one independent variable in study one with three levels: 1). Some participants were given lineup instructions which said the target was present in the lineup. 2). Some participants were given instructions in which the target “might” be present. 3). Some participants were not given any instructions.

3. What is the dependent variable(s) for study one? Note: there are several of these, so focus on the ones the author analyzed.

There were several of these, the three most important of which were 1). A manipulation check in which they were asked to recall the instruction they were given prior to the lineup. 2). Whether the participant actually chose a suspect from the lineup. 3). How confident they there were in their lineup choice.

4. What did they find in study one? Give the general outcome

As predicted, participants who were told the participant was in the lineup were more likely to choose a lineup suspect and were more confident in their choice than participants in the “might” be present or no instruction conditions

5. What are the hypothesis for study two?

Like study one, the authors predicted that participants would both choose and have more confidence in their choice than participants in the target “might” be present condition (This second study lacked the “no instruction” condition). They also predicted that participants would be more willing to choose a suspect and have more confidence in that choice when there were eight lineup members compared to four members. Finally, they predicted that those given target present instructions and an eight person lineup would be most willing to choose and have more confident in their choice than those in all other conditions.

6. What is the independent variable(s) for study two? Make sure you tell me how many IVs there are and how many levels there are for each IV

There were two independent variables in this study. The first one was lineup instructions (target present versus target “might” be present). The second one was the number of participants in the lineup (eight versus four members)

7. What is the dependent variable(s) for study two? Note: there are several of these, so focus on the ones the author analyzed.

Like study one, there were three important dependent variables. 1). A manipulation check in which they were asked to recall the instruction they were given prior to the lineup. 2). Whether the participant actually chose a suspect from the lineup. 3). How confident they there were in their lineup choice.

8. What did they find in study two? Give the general outcome

Like study one, participants in the target present condition chose and were more confident in their choice than participants in the target “might” be present condition, but only when given an eight person lineup. The target present and target “might” be present conditions had similar results for four person lineup conditions.

9. I want you to review the references and spot the reference(s) that is not in APA format and rewrite it for me according to APA rules. Note: there may be as few as zero and as many as ten incorrect references, so make sure to look at them all!

There were two incorrect APA references. They should look like the following: Comment by Lu Liang: Make sure you follow APA format, e.g., italicize journal title, vol number, but do not italicize page number and issue number, hanging indent etc…

Brigham, J., Ready, D., & Spier, S. (1990). Standards for evaluating the fairness of photographic lineups. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 149-163. doi: 12323-38271

Pezdek. K., Blandon-Gitlin, I., & Moore, C. (2003). Children’s face recognition memory: More evidence for the cross-race effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 760-763. doi: 38765-DY2972

Abstract Comment by Lu Liang: Abstract heading is centered Comment by Lu Liang: Everything in Abstract should be double-spacing, times new roman font and 12 font size

Two studies looked at eyewitness confidence in lineup studies. In study one, 551 undergraduate participants saw a picture of a target “suspect”. They then viewed an eight person lineup that altered the lineup instructions (they were told the target was either present, might be present, or they were not given any information, though in reality the target “suspect” was always missing). The authors predicted that participants would both choose a suspect and be more confident in their choice when told the target was present compared to the other two conditions. Results confirmed this prediction. In study two, 337 participants also received either the target present or might not be present instructions, though they were given a lineup that differed in size (eight versus four members). Like study one, participants in the target present condition chose and were more confident in their choice than participants in the target might be present condition, but only when given an eight person lineup. This implies that telling someone that a person is present in a lineup can lead them to find a suspect, but only if they have a lot of lineup choices. Comment by Lu Liang: First line not indent in Abstract Comment by Ryan Winter: The student wrote this in 189 words! It’s a lot of information in a short amount of space, so make sure to edit it a lot to get all relevant information in place. Comment by Lu Liang: Make sure you indicated research questions, hypotheses, IV&DV, participants, results, general conclusion/implication of the study.

Keywords
: target present, target absent, simultaneous lineups, confidence, system variables Comment by Lu Liang: Italicize “Keywords” phrase Comment by Lu: Make sure to include at least 5 EFFECTIVE keywords, that is, when writing keywords, you must think what words you could have in helping someone find your research. Independent variables, experimental design, hypotheses… are NOT good keywords. Comment by Lu Liang: Do not italicize these keywords