Methods II Preview Assignment (Student example answers are in re.docx

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
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
R, 3 = E)
6
42
87.5%
0
48
12.5%
0.0%
100.0%
Education
Count
0

2
4.2%
46
48
R, 3 = E)
0.0%
95.8%
100.0%
Total
Count
42
50
36.2%
46
138
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

% 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

% 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)
Running head: OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 1

Our Optimism in the Face of Death
Jane Doe
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
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
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
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
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
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”
(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_ _

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

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

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

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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 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

Methods II Preview Assignment (Student example answers are in re.docx

Methods II Preview Assignment (Student example answers are in re.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Methods II Preview Assignment (Student example answers are in re.docx

Similar to Methods II Preview Assignment (Student example answers are in re.docx (15)

More from buffydtesurina

More from buffydtesurina (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Methods II Preview Assignment (Student example answers are in re.docx