After that 2nd post, users finished another temporary questionnaire including a comparable factors given that first towards evaluation of culprit. A last part worried participants’ level of political desire, political worry about-location on 10-part remaining–right continuum, sex, age, section of residence and you can training.
Users was indeed at random assigned to one of half a dozen experimental requirements derived on 2 (perpetrator’s intercourse) ? step 3 (repairs strategy) anywhere between professionals factorial design.
All the strategies did contained in this data were in accordance with the moral conditions of your national search panel and with the 1964 Helsinki endments.
Review of your governmental star
Professionals said their around the world feelings to your fictitious politician on the an excellent 10-section size (step one = entirely negative so you can ten = totally self-confident) double, just after on T1 (post-scandal) as soon as in the T2 (post–protective response). The efficacy of the fresh new defensive strategy for the restoring reputation is actually seized from improvement in research of your own protagonist.
Investigations of politician’s communality and institution both before and after his otherwise her justification of your own scandal
The brand new participants evaluated the new scandal perpetrator to your a good 5-part scale ranging from step 1 (definitely not) so you’re able to 5 (considerably) twice, immediately following after the scandal (T1) as soon as after the perpetrator’s defensive impulse (T2). Players ranked brand new perpetrator to the around three adjectives for each on communality dimension (sincere, sensible and empathetic) and you may agency measurement (determined, competent and solid; elizabeth.g., Bauer 2017 ). Brand new indices constructed on the latest mean affairs reached satisfactory reliability: ? communality post-scandal = 0.80; ? communality blog post-reason = 0.74; ? institution post-scandal = https://datingmentor.org/escort/philadelphia/ 0.63; ? agencies blog post-justification = 0.67.
Original regression analyses for instance the politician’s elegance, respondents’ sex, respondents’ governmental positioning, respondents’ levels of demand for government and you will respondents’ criterion concerning relative trustworthiness of females and you may men did not give people fundamental neither telecommunications affect the newest mainly based variables. As a result, they don’t be considered in the after that analyses.
We tested H1 using a 3 (type of defensive tactic) ? 2 (perpetrator’s gender) ANOVA on the 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].
Mean internationally thoughts toward good scandal culprit because a purpose of his/the woman intercourse in addition to 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].