Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Study Protocol Background Recently, the use of “political correctness” has come under fire across the nation. Those from many walks of life, from comedians to politicians, private citizens and celebrities, have expressed their frustration and aversion to political correctness. While previous studies have examined the impact of political correctness on creativity (Goncalo et al. 2014), few studies have examined the conditions or mechanisms that impact the type of reaction to the usage of political correctness. Study Objective and Hypothesis In in the current study we aim to discern the conditions under which individuals dislike the usage of politically correct language, as well as the mechanism for this dislike. Specifically, we will test whether the valiance of a statement about two topics (both of which we pilot tested for equal responses of agreement and disagreement) and the political correctness content impact perceptions of the speaker. The primary analysis is 2 (agreement vs disagreement) x 2(PC vs not PC). We will check to make sure topic doesn't interact with this but we don't expect it will (we are just including two topics for the purpose of generalizing). The primary DV here are the behavioral measures (voting, etc.). We expect these will be mediated by authenticity - when politicians seem more authentic people are more likely to vote for them. Warmth and competence is secondary. We will also test whether the reason for the liking or disliking of those using politically correct language is due to attributions of influence and authenticity. Study Design The current study is a survey-based experiment. In this study participants will be randomly assigned to one of four conditions, whereby they will be asked to make judgments about a speaker whose statement they will read. The conditions are: a politically correct statement about LGBTQ issues, a politically correct statement about immigration and the economy, a politically incorrect statement about LGBTQ issues, and a politically incorrect statement about immigration and the economy. We pilot tested for equal responses of agreement and disagreement. All participants will then be asked about their agreement with the statement, their thoughts about the speaker who used or did not use political correctness, their thoughts on political correctness in general, and their thoughts about people who are obese. Finally, they will be surveyed on their demographic characteristics. Study Site Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants and Recruitment Participants will be recruited from a for-pay participant pool at the MTurk website. Participants take part in social science experiments in order to receive pay; they will be notified of this study by checking the MTurk website. They will receive $1.00 for the study. Inclusion Criteria: • 18 years of age or older • English as a first language or an equivalent level of fluency Exclusion Criteria: • We will exclude those who fail the manipulation check (those who thought the PC statement was not PC or vice versa). Sample Size Determination Based on previous studies, we conducted a power analysis assuming a small to moderate effect size and power at 90%. For example, in one past study the average difference in PC norm salience was .90 between the conditions (n=219). Taking a conservative approach, we plan to recruit 50 participants per condition (400 total), of which there are nine (politically correct, politically incorrect, and a control for each of two issue topics) for the present study. Measures Key Dependent Variable: The extent to which the participants rate their likelihood of various political behaviors (i.e voting, campaign volunteering, etc.). Mediation Variable: The extent to which the participants rate the authenticity of the speaker of the statement they read. Secondary Dependent Variable: The extent to which the participants rate the competence and warmth of the speaker whose statement they read. Thoughts On Political Correctness: We will ask participants about their general thoughts about the usage of political correctness. Political Ideology: We will ask participants about their political ideology. The options will be: very conservative, slightly conservative, slightly liberal, or very liberal. Procedure In this study participants will be randomly assigned to one of four conditions, whereby they will be asked to make judgments about a speaker who made one of four types of statements: a politically correct statement about LGBTQ issues, a politically correct statement about immigration and the economy, a politically incorrect statement about LGBTQ issues, and a politically incorrect statement about immigration and the economy. After reading the statement, participants will be asked about their feelings regarding the speaker. Participants will then be asked about their thoughts on persons who are obese and about political correctness in general. Finally, they will be surveyed on their demographic characteristics Planned Analysis We will analyze the results to determine if the condition impacted participant responses relating to the degree to which they believed their target was influential, authentic, competent, and kind. To do this, we will run an ANOVA analysis with politically correct vs. incorrect as the DVs described in the “measures” section above. The primary analysis is 2 (agreement vs disagreement) x 2(PC vs not PC). We will check to make sure topic doesn't interact with this but we don't expect it will (we are just including two topics for the purpose of generalizing). We are predicting a crossover interaction: participants who agree will have more positive impressions of the Senator in the not PC (vs. PC) condition, but when they disagree we will find the opposite. We are also predicting a main effect of agreement: people have a more positive impression of those with whom they agree not disagree. We predict no main effect for PC. There are two possible exceptions to our prediction where we may find main effects of PC: 1) not PC (vs. PC) targets may always seem more authentic, regardless of whether Ps agree or disagree and 2) PC (vs. not PC) targets may always seem more warm regardless of whether Ps agree or disagree. As another analysis, we will run a linear regression model with the same factors but also controlling for participants’ general thoughts about political correctness. We expect no changes in the primary findings. As an additional final (and more exploratory) analysis, we will also analyze the data to determine if political ideology moderates these effects. That is, we will add political ideology as another factor in the ANOVA analysis. We expect that there may be an effect of political ideology such that those who identify as more conservative show a stronger effect of condition on ratings of the influence, authenticity, competence, and kindness of the speaker than those who identify as more liberal. Hypothesis 1: Participants who agree will have more positive impressions of the Senator in the not PC (vs. PC) condition, rating the non-PC-speaker as being more influential, authentic, and competent, but less warm/kind than those who rate the speaker making a politically correct statement. Hypothesis 2: Participants who disagree will have more positive impressions of the Senator in the PC (vs. not PC) condition, rating the PC-speaker as being more influential, authentic, and competent, but less warm/kind than those who rate the speaker making a politically incorrect statement. Hypothesis 3: Political ideology will moderate the effects, such that those who identify as more conservative will have a larger difference in their ratings of influence, authenticity, competence, and kindness between conditions than those who identify as more liberal.