Perceptions of Sexual Harassment (SH) METHODExperiment 2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR METHOD SECTION • Have sufficient information to replicate the study. • Follow logical progression of idea in each...

Perceptions of Sexual Harassment (SH)
METHODExperiment 2
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR METHOD
SECTION
• Have sufficient information to replicate the study.
• Follow logical progression of idea in each subsection.
• Do not omit crucial information!
• Do not mix sections!
PARTICIPANTS
• Total N (n male, n female)
• Recruited using a Convenience sample
• Age range (mean age if given)
• Ethnicity: List each category with %
• Marital status: List each category with %
• Sexual orientation: List each category with %
• Highest degree or level of education: List each category with %
• Years of work experience: List each category with %
• English-speaking adults
• No incentives
• All participants were treated in accordance with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2002)
MATERIALS
• Two Qualtrics questionnaires (SH QQ1 and SH QQ2)
• Informed consent (
iefly describe)
• Demographic questions(
iefly describe)
• Instructions (
iefly describe)
• SH scenarios – 10 vignettes adopted and modified from Terpstra and Baker (1987)
• Two sets of vignettes depicting different sexual harassment scenarios
• Male perpetrator, female victim (MPFV)
• Male perpetrator, male victim (MPMV)
• Two counte
alanced testing order: MPFV before MPMV, and MPFV after MPMV
• Counte
alancing technique was used to control for potential sequencing or ca
yover effects from
one type of gender pairing to the other type
• De
iefing Statement (
iefly describe)
MATERIALS
• Vignettes
• Associated with each vignette -
• The Likert-type scale
• Used by participants to rate degree of severity
• Scale range from - 1 (not at all harassing) to 7 (extremely harassing)
• For each set of vignettes
• Participants’ responses to the 10 severity items were averaged yielding a mean score ranging from
1 to 7
• 1 (perceived as low severity)
• 7 (perceived as high severity)
PROCEDURE
 Tested individually using online Qualtrics questionnaires.
 SHQQ1 and SHQQ2 randomly distributed
 Approximately equal number of males and females for each Qualtrics questionnaire.
 Read the informed consent form, provided consent to participate, and answered
demographic questions
 Carefully read and rated each SH vignette
 Thanked and de
iefed
DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS
 2 x 2 mixed factorial design
 2 Independent variables
 IV 1 – “Gender of victim” depicted in the scenario , 2 levels (male or female)
 Within-subjects variable
 True independent variable
 IV 2 – “Gender of participant” who responded to the scenario , 2 levels (male or female)
 Between-subjects variable
 Quasi-independent variable
 Dependent variable
 “Severity of sexual harassment” perceived
ated by participants (ranged from 1 to 7).
METHOD
– REVIEW OF IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RELATED TO THE
DESIGN
• Do Not Put this in your method section
• What is a mixed factorial design?
• A mixed design includes a within-subjects independent variable and a between-subjects
independent variable
• What is a within-subjects independent variable? What is a between-subjects independent
variable?
• If each subject is repeatedly tested under all conditions/levels of an independent variable, one at
a time, then we say the independent variable is a within-subjects variable
• “(gender of victim) depicted in the test scenario”
• If a subject is tested just one time, under one condition/level of an independent variable, then
we say the independent variable is a between-subjects variable
• “(gender of participants) who responded to the scenario.”
METHOD
– REVIEW OF IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RELATED TO THE
DESIGN
• Do Not Put this in your method section
• What is a true independent variable? What is a quasi-independent variable?
• A true independent variable is a variable that can be manipulated by an experimenter.
• The first independent variable (gender of victim) depicted in the test scenario is a “true” independent
variable.
• It is a true-independent variable because it can be precisely manipulated by a researcher.
• A quasi-independent variable is a variable that cannot be manipulated; it is a variable on which
groups of participants naturally differ.
• The second independent variable (gender of participants) who responded to the scenario is a “quasi”
independent variable.
• It is a quasi-independent variable because it is a variable on which groups of participants naturally
differ.
• A researcher cannot manipulate a quasi-independent variable (like “gender of participants”).
DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS
 Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
 Main effect of gender of victim on severity of sexual harassment
 Main effect of gender of participant on severity of sexual harassment
 Interaction effect between gender of victim and gender of participant on severity of
sexual harassment
 Two co
elated-samples t-tests—Compare mean ratings of the MPFV scenarios with mean
atings of the MPMV scenarios
 One for male participants
 One for female participants
 Criterion for significance was p <.05

Perceptions of Sexual Harassment (SH)
Perceptions of
Sexual Harassment
Results
Fall 2021
PSYC 3311 La
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
for the Participants Section
Number of participants N = 323
n %
Gende
Male XXXXXXXXXX%
Female XXXXXXXXXX%
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
for the Participants Section
n %
Age
18 to 29 years old XXXXXXXXXX%
30 to 39 years old XXXXXXXXXX%
40 to 49 years old 24 7.4%
50 to 59 years old 8 2.5%
60+ years old 6 1.9%
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
for the Participants Section
n %
Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 0.3%
Asian or Asian American 12 3.7%
Black or African American 22 6.8%
Hispanic or Latino XXXXXXXXXX%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 4 1.2%
White or Caucasian 11 3.4%
Other XXXXXXXXXX%
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
for the Participants Section
n %
Marital Status
Single XXXXXXXXXX%
Ma
ied XXXXXXXXXX%
Living common 16 5.0%
Separated 3 0.9%
Divorced 8 2.5%
Widowed 2 0.6%
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
for the Participants Section
n %
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual XXXXXXXXXX%
Homosexual 11 3.4%
Bisexual 26 8.0%
Missing 2 0.6%
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
for the Participants Section
n %
Education
Some High School 3 0.9%
High School XXXXXXXXXX%
Some College, No Degree XXXXXXXXXX%
Associate Degree XXXXXXXXXX%
Bachelor’s Degree XXXXXXXXXX%
Master’s Degree 9 2.8%
Other 4 1.2%
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
for the Participants Section
n %
Work Experience
None 15 4.6%
Less than one year 15 4.6%
1 to 2 years XXXXXXXXXX%
3 to 4 years XXXXXXXXXX%
4 to 5 years 30 9.3%
5+ years XXXXXXXXXX%
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
for the Participants Section
n %
Victim of sexual
harassment
Yes XXXXXXXXXX%
No XXXXXXXXXX%
REVISITING THE DESIGN
2 x 2 mixed factorial design
The First Independent Variable
“Gender of Victim”
depicted in the test scenarios
(within-subjects)
Female Male
The Second Independent Variable
“Gender of Participant”
who responded to the test scenarios
(between-subjects)
Female
Male
REVISITING THE HYPOTHESES
• Hypothesis 1: It is hypothesized that there will be a significant main effect for gender of
victim. Scenarios with male perpetrators and female victims (MPFV) will be viewed as
more severely harassing than similar scenarios with male perpetrators and male
victims (MPMV).
Evaluate the outcome regarding the main effect of the first independent variable “gender of
victim” on the dependent variable “severity of sexual harassment.”
REVISITING THE HYPOTHESES
• Hypothesis 2: It is also hypothesized that there will be a significant main effect for
gender of participant. Compared to males, females will view scenarios depicting
sexual harassment as more severely harassing.
Evaluate the outcome regarding the main effect of the second independent variable “gender
of participant” on the dependent variable “severity of sexual harassment.”
REVISITING THE HYPOTHESES
• Hypothesis 3: Finally it is hypothesized that there will not be a significant Interaction
effect between the gender of victim” and the gender of participant on the severity
of sexual harassment. For both female participants and male participants, scenarios
involving male perpetrators and female victims (MPFV) will be viewed as more
severely harassing than similar scenarios involving male perpetrators and male victims
(MPMV).
• Evaluate the outcome regarding the interaction effect between the first independent variable
“gender of victim” and the second independent variable “gender of participant” on the
dependent variable “severity of sexual harassment.”
M
ea
n
s
ev
e
it
y

at
in
g
Gender of participant
Female =
Male =
3.5
1
Gender of victim
Male Female
7
SCORING AND ANALYSIS
• For each set of vignettes (the MPFV vignettes or the MPMV vignettes), participants’
esponses to the 10 severity items were averaged yielding a mean score that could range
from 1 to 7. High scores indicated perceived high severity; low scores indicated perceived
low severity.
• A two-way ANOVA for mixed designs was used to test the proposed hypotheses.
• Moreover, two co
elated-samples t-tests were conducted to compare ratings of the MPFV
scenarios with ratings of the MPMV scenarios.
One for the male participants; the other for the female participants
• A significance level of p < .05 was adopted to conclude statistical significance for the results
RESULTS SUMMARY
Mean
(Standard Deviation)
The First Independent Variable
“Gender of Victim”
depicted in the test scenarios
(within-subjects)
Female Male
The Second Independent
Variable
“Gender of Participant”
who responded to the test
scenarios
(between-subjects)
Female
M=6.08
SD=(.79)
5.98
(.87)
6.03
(.80)
Male
5.83
(1.06)
5.73
(1.11)
5.78
(1.06)
5.97
(.93)
5.87
(.99)
RESULTS
Report statistics in text:
F ratio
F (df-between, df-within) = xxx, p = xxx, partial η
2 = xxx
Example: F (2, 177) = 6.39, p = ,002, partial η2 = .07
t value
t (df) = xxx, p = xxx.
Example: t (df) = 3.51, p = .001. d = 0.65
df = degrees of freedom
Note: Partial eta-squared (partial η2) is a way to measure the effect
size of different variables in ANOVA. Suggested norms for partial
eta-squared: small = 0.01; medium = 0.06; large = 0.14.
RESULTS (RELATED TO HYPOTHESIS 1)
• There was a significant main effect of gender of victim on severity of sexual
harassment, F (df Gender_V, df E
or) =____, p=___, partial η2 =___. Scenarios with
male perpetrators and female victims (MPFV: M =___, SD = .___) were perceived as
more severely harassing than similar scenarios with male perpetrators and male
victims (MPMV: M = ___, SD = ____)(see Table 1).
(Note: see Slide 15 for the co
esponding means and standard deviations. Use means and standard deviations
for total male and female victims)
RESULTS (RELATED TO HYPOTHESIS 2)
• Write the results related to Hypothesis 2 according to statistical data given above
(Note: See Slide 15 for the co
esponding means and standard deviations. Use means and standard deviations for
total male and female participants)
RESULTS (RELATED TO HYPOTHESIS 2)
• There was a significant main effect of gender of participants on severity of sexual harassment, F
(df Gender_P,df