You may want to discuss or assignthe following article:
Hebl, M. R.,& Mannix, L. M. (2003). The weight of obesity in evaluating others: A mereproximity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
The author uses a mixed design to study an interesting topic(being associated with a heavy person hurts how one is judged). In addition,the article is easy for your students to obtain (students who buy the book canget it by using the Infotrac® subscription that comes with ResearchDesign Explained), and the article isrelatively easy for students to read because it is well-written and because Experiment 1 is basically a simple experiment with three dependent measures. To make reading the article even easier, give studentsTable 1.
Table 1 Helping Students Understand the Article | |
Section | Tips, Comments, and Problem Areas |
Abstract | derogate: refers to participants who wrote about a traumatic event. Stigmatized persons: people who have some characteristic that society tends to look down on, such as being unattractive. mere proximity: just being near denigrated: view as bad or worthless, harshly criticize impression formation process: how we form impressions of people |
Introduction | Pernicious: harmful void: gap, empty area implicit: unstated person perception domains: areas in which we judge people (e.g., social skills, intelligence, morality, etc.) incur: suffer from, have pushed on them proximally connected: nearby ramifications: consequences |
Method | cover story: a story—that is not true—about the reason for the study bogus: false depicting: describing albeit: although |
Results: Reduction of dependent measures | A principal …. : The authors did not want to deal with 12 different measures. Therefore, they used a technique (factor analysis, described on page 212 of your text and explained in more detail on pages 535-536) that reduces several variables into fewer variables. The idea is that several different, specific measures may all be tapping the same general underlying factor. When people make up a 50-item measure of a personality trait (e.g., shyness), they sometimes assume that the questions are measuring the same thing; if people do a factor analysis on their measure, they test the idea that the questions are measuring the same variable. Eigenvalue: an index of the degree to which a factor explains variability in participants’ responses; the bigger the eigenvalue, the more influential the factor. Note: numbers in parentheses are factor loadings (see page 536). Factor loadings are like correlation coefficients that describe the relationship between responses on the measure and the underlying factor. Cronbach’s alpha: an index (that can range from 0 to 1) of the degree to which there is consistency between how participant’s answer one question on the measure with how the participant will answer other questions on the measure (see page 104). The high alphas show that the tests are internally consistent. Composite: combined |
Results: Major analyses. | Note that the researchers could have treated the study as a simple experiment. However, they wanted to see whether weight would have a more of an effect on some types of judgments (e.g., ratings of interpersonal skills) than on others (e.g., ratings of professional qualities). |
Discussion | attributable: caused presumption of a relationship dynamic: participants deciding that that the people seen together were in a relationship. mere proximity effect: just by being close accrue: come to |
Experiment 2 | Second paragraph inferential attribution process: deciding that there was a close relationship |
Method | compensatory information: information that might offset being associated with the obese person Last paragraph Destigmatization: no longer considered socially unacceptable |
Results | Reduction of the dependent measuresSee comments made under Results: Reduction of the dependent measures for Experiment 1. Major analysesSee comments made under Results: Major analyses for Experiment 1. Five way analysis: Analysis using five predictor variables (weight, relationship strength, compensating information, anti-fat attitude scores, participant gender). Dunnett’s tests: post hoc tests especially designed to compare experimental conditions with a control condition (see page 314) |
General discussion | priming and impression formation: recently presented information affects how people will perceive someone. For example, participants hearing the word “polite” just before learning about someone will tend to make participants perceive that person as more polite than participants hearing the word “rude” just before learning about that person. Future researchaffect driven: caused by mood reverse halo: knowing that someone who has one negative characteristic and then making the overgeneralization that the person has many negative characteristics. (In the halo effect, observers who see one positive characteristic or behavior may make the overgeneralization that the person is good in everything [an angel]. The reverse halo effect is sometimes called the “pitchfork effect.”) |
Back to Featured Articles Main Menu