Search

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672231171435 for Socioeconomic Status and Meta-Perceptions: How Markers of Culture and Rank Predict Beliefs About How Others See Us by Holly R. Engstrom, Kristin Laurin, Nick R. Kay and Lauren J. Human in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

This registration includes a PDF of the preregistration as well as the survey materials for a study on morally motivated reasoning.

Previous research has shown that body positive content, while having beneficial effects (increased body appreciation, increased positive mood, and so on), also increases state self-objectification in women. Since self-objectification limits the cognitive resources we can use to perform tasks, we seek to investigate: if body positive content increases self-objectification, can it have the same negative effects on our cognitive resources, as self-objectification does? We will be comparing the effects of body positive messages and non-body-related positive messages on cognitive and attentional performance. We expect that participants are more likely to have depleted cognitive resources and thus poorer performance when exposed to body positive content rather than non-body-related positive content and the control condition.

Study Name: Rationalization and Outcome Awareness (Study 4) 1) Have any data been collected for this study yet? No data have been collected yet. 2) Hypothesis: What’s the main question being asked or hypothesis being tested? When we rationalize a negative state of affairs in the world, how aware are we that we have done this? That is, when we change our beliefs in order to make an unwanted state of affairs in the world more palatable and consistent with our other beliefs and desires, are we aware that we have engaged in this cognitive process, or do we think our new beliefs are the ones we have held all along? We predict that people have little awareness of having engaged in rationalization. 3) Give a brief overview of the methods. American Prolific Academic workers will begin by reporting their attitudes towards three social issues—one critical issue (the wealth of political leaders) and two filler issues (space exploration and social media). For each issue, all participants will respond to three items measuring attitudes (i.e., 9 items total). After this, they will read a news article informing them that the typical congressperson is much wealthier than the typical American, that this has been true for at least the past century, and that this state of affairs is unlikely to change. Following the articles, participants will again report their attitudes about the target issue and the two filler issues, using the same items from the beginning of the study. Participants will then try to recall their original attitudes on the target issue and on the two filler issues, by reporting how they had responded to each of the items they rated first, prior to the articles. To ensure they try hard to report their most accurate memory, they will learn that good performance on this memory task can earn them extra money. Participants will then report using explicit items whether and in what direction they changed their attitudes toward each of the topics in response to the news articles. Finally, participants will complete the System Justification Scale (Kay & Jost, 2003). 4) Variables: We have not divided these into dependent and independent variables, since this study is correlational. Attitude Variables, including Rationalization: Rationalization will be operationalized as the degree to which attitudes toward political leaders being wealthy become more positive after reading the news articles. Specifically, for each participant, we will calculate their pre-article attitude (mean of items rated prior to reading the news articles), and their post-article attitude (mean of items rated after reading the news articles) toward the target issue. All items will be scored such that agreement with the item indicates more positive attitudes towards wealthy political leaders. That is, all items that represent negative attitudes toward wealthy political leaders will be reverse scored. To capture rationalization, we will compute the difference score scored such that more positive scores mean more rationalization. Recall Errors: Following the same strategy, we will first calculate participants recalled attitude (mean of the items rated during the memory task). We will then compute the difference between their recalled attitude and their pre-article attitude. On this index, scores greater than 0 mean that participants mis-remembered their initial attitude as being more positive than it actually was; scores below 0 mean that participants mis-remembered their initial attitude as being more negative than their initial attitude. Perceived Attitude Change: To capture participants’ self-reports of having changed their attitudes for each issue, they will report their level of (dis)agreement with an item that explicitly asked them if reading the news article changed the way they thought about wealthy political leaders, and in what direction it changed their mind if it did. Individual Differences in System Justification: Individual differences in system justification will be captured by averaging scores on the System Justification Scale. 5) Mediator variables: Describe any variables you expect to mediate the relationship between your IV’s and DV. Specify how they will be measured. N/A 6) Moderator variables: Describe any variables you expect to moderate the relationship between your IV’s and DV. Specify how they will be measured. N/A 7) Analyses: Describe what analyses (e.g., t-test, repeated-measures ANOVA) you will use to test your main hypotheses. We will use three tests to determine if people are aware of how much they rationalized. First, we will test whether people can accurately self-report the degree to which they have changed their attitudes. To do so, we will test whether participants’ Perceived Attitude Change scores are correlated with their Rationalization scores. A positive correlation would indicate that to some degree, people who rated wealthy political leaders as more positive after reading about their prevalence (as captured by the Rationalization variable) also explicitly reported that they changed their mind to view wealthy political leaders more positively (as captured by the Perceived Attitude Change variable). Second, we will test whether people’s memory for their initial attitudes are biased by their new, post-article attitudes. To do so, we will conduct a Chi-square test based on two categorical variables: First, based on their Rationalization score, we will label participants as positive changers, negative changers, or non-changers. Second, based on their Recall Error score, we will label participants as positively biased, negatively biased, or unbiased (i.e., perfectly accurate). The chi square will test whether these variables are independent, or contingent on each other such that people who changed their minds in a particular direction tend to be biased in that direction when recalling their prior attitude. (Note: We could also test this relationship by merely examining the correlation between rationalization and recall error; however this test seems too liberal, given that rationalization and recall error will both by necessity be highly negatively correlated with the initial attitude variable) Third, we will test how much people’s memory for their initial attitudes is linked with their actual initial attitudes, and compare that with how well it is linked with their new, post-article attitudes. To do so, we will use regression to predict recalled attitudes using initial attitudes and post-article attitudes, simultaneously. In this model, accuracy is indexed by the coefficient for initial attitudes, and bias is indexed by the coefficient for post-article attitudes; we will compare their magnitudes. 8) More analyses. Are there any secondary analyses you plan to conduct? (e.g., order or gender effects). To ensure that our measure of rationalization is indeed motivated by a desire to justify the system, we will correlate attitude change on the target issue with scores on the System Justification Scale. 9) Sample. Where and from whom will data be collected? How will you decide when to stop collecting data (e.g., target sample size based on power analysis, set amount of time)? If you plan to look at the data using sequential analysis, describe that here. Participants will be recruited from Prolific Academic. All participants will live in America, have reported to Prolific that they are fluent in English, and have a 95% approval rate for at least 100 jobs on Prolific. Data collection will end when we reach the target sample size of 300 participants after the exclusion criteria below. 10) Exclusion criteria: Who will be excluded (e.g., outliers, participants who fail manipulation check, demographic exclusions)? Participants will be excluded if they fail to select the correct responses (bolded) for the following questions… English Language Comprehension Questions: Specifically, if participants fail any one of the following two comprehension questions, they will be automatically taken to the end of the survey, and will not take part in the study. 1. Please select the response choice below that CORRECTLY fills the blank. What time ____ for the ceremony? a. will she be leaving b. she will be leaving c. she going to be leaving d. she leaving going to be 2. Which word can CORRECTLY go in the space? Mrs. Thompson always works _____. a. wellness b. fastish c. carefully d. upsetly Other Exclusion Questions: Participants who fail any of these following questions will still complete the full survey. 1. 4. How does the net worth of the average congressperson compare to that of the average American citizen of the same age group? a. The net worth of the average congressperson is 3 times more than that of the average American their same age. b. The net worth of the average congressperson is 4 times more than that of the average American their same age. c. The net worth of the average congressperson is twice as much as that of the average American their same age. d. The net worth of the average congressperson is the same as that of the average American their same age. 2. Research in decision making shows that people, when making decisions and answering questions, prefer not to pay attention and minimize their effort as much as possible. Some studies show that over 50% of people don't carefully read questions. If you are reading this question and have read all the other questions, please select the box marked 'other' and type 'awareness'. Do not select "social issues". Thank you for participating and for taking the time to read through the questions carefully! What was this study about? a. Social Issues b. News c. Memory d. Other (please specify) ____________ (Correct = awareness) 3. During the study, did you believe that the news articles you read were real? It is extremely important for our study that you be both accurate and honest. a. Yes b. No Pre-registration written by (initials): WJ Pre-registration reviewed by (initials): KL