After this 2nd blog post, users completed the next temporary questionnaire including a similar things as first to your testing of perpetrator. A final point worried participants’ quantity of governmental interest, political self-position to the ten-part kept–best continuum, sex, years, part of home and you will studies.
Participants have been randomly allotted to certainly one of half dozen experimental standards derived regarding the 2 (perpetrator’s intercourse) ? 3 (restoration tactic) ranging from people factorial structure.
All actions did contained in this investigation was according to the moral standards of federal browse panel and with the 1964 Helsinki endments.
Analysis of your governmental star
People said their all over the world feelings to the fictitious politician on the a 10-area measure (1 = totally negative in order to 10 = entirely confident) double, after from the T1 (post-scandal) and once on T2 (post–protective effect). The power of new protective strategy inside the fixing character are grabbed through the change in investigations of protagonist.
Research of one’s politician’s communality and you may agency both before and after his otherwise this lady excuse of the scandal
The brand new participants evaluated the new scandal perpetrator on a 5-area measure ranging from 1 (not really) to 5 (quite) double, immediately after pursuing the scandal (T1) and when following the perpetrator’s defensive response (T2). Participants rated the fresh culprit into around three adjectives for every on the communality dimensions (sincere, practical and empathetic) and you can institution measurement (calculated, competent and you will strong; age.g., Bauer 2017 ). New indicator built on the brand new indicate things hit sufficient precision: ? communality post-scandal = 0.80; ? communality blog post-excuse = 0.74; ? company article-scandal = 0.63; ? department article-excuse = 0.67.
First regression analyses like the politician’s attractiveness, respondents’ intercourse, respondents’ political orientation, respondents’ levels of demand for government and you may respondents’ expectations concerning the comparative honesty of women and you can boys did not yield any head neither correspondence influence on the brand new depending parameters. As a result, they won’t qualify inside after that analyses.
We tested H1 using a 3 (type of defensive tactic) ? 2 (perpetrator’s gender) ANOVA on the wikipedia reference global attitude toward the politician after his/her defensive reaction including the previous attitude (T1) as a covariate. The hypothesised two-way interaction between the independent variables proved to be the only significant effect, F (2, 185) = 6.06; p = 0.003; ? 2 p = 0.06 (Figure 1 ). Further inspection of this interaction revealed that the ‘diffusion of responsibility with accusation of another person’ was effective only when used by the man, simple slope = 0.11, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.03, 0.19], whereas the ‘excuses with claims of mitigating circumstances’ was effective only when used by the woman, simple slope = 0.09, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.00, 0.17]. Finally, contrary to our expectations, ‘mortification with request for forgiveness’ did not vary its efficacy as a function of the politician’s gender, simple slope = 0.00, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [–0.08, 0.08].
Suggest in the world ideas with the a good scandal perpetrator given that a function of his/the lady intercourse as well as the communicative strategy accustomed defend him/by herself.
Regarding H2, the ANOVA including the agentic and communal dimensions measured at T2 as a repeated factor (and those measured at T1 as covariates) revealed the main effect of the repeated factor, F (1, 184) = 9.13, p = 0.003, ? 2 p = 0.05, signalling that the defensive reactions were globally more effective in improving the perpetrator agentic traits (M = 0.30, SD = 0.17) than the communal ones (M = 0.27, SD = 0.18). This analysis also elicited the two-way interaction between the type of defensive tactic and the repeated factor, F (1, 184) = 9.13, p 2 p = 0.14, indicating that the ‘diffusion of responsibility’ improved the evaluation of the perpetrator on agentic traits more than the other defensive tactics, that did not differ from each other at the LSD post-hoc test, whereas none of the tactics differed from each other as for the efficacy in improving the perceived perpetrator communality. In addition, the two-way interaction between the gender of the politician and the repeated factor, F (1, 184) = , p 2 p = 0.15 showed that the defensive reactions, irrespective of the type, improved the communality traits of the female politician (M = 0.31, SD = 0.19) more than those of the male one (M = 0.23; SD = 0.17), simple slope = 0.06, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.02, 0.10], whereas they were equally effective in improving the agentic traits of the male politician (M = 0.32, SD = 0.18) and those of the female one (M = 0.28, SD = 0.16), simple slope = 0.04; SE = 0.02, 95% CI [–0.01, 0.08].