(N 21) 19.four (1.9) 13.five (1.six) 13 women, 7 males, 1 n/aLight drinking confederate (N 19) 19.3 (3.two) ten.4 (9.three) 17 girls, 2 menNote. Parentheses

De percolab 2.0
Aller à : navigation, rechercher

a Denotes that situations differ drastically at p .001 (see key text).and in principle this could have interfered with their capacity to mimic the confederate's drinking behavior. In addition, Study 1 had a relatively tiny sample size. As a result, the lack of statistically important mimicry effect under conditions of decreased ingratiation (p .28, d 0.36) may very well be attributable to a lack of statistical power. Ultimately, the design of Study 1 meant that the confederate couldn't be blinded for the ingratiation condition that the participant had been assigned to, and it truly is feasible that this could title= journal.pcbi.1005422 have impacted how they interacted with all the participant. Participants took part within a study about social problem solving, even though drinking having a confederate who consumed either a big amount of alcohol or none at all (i.e., they chose and consumed a soft drink beverage).1 By means of the use of a bogus questionnaire, and before drinking together, participants were led to think either that the confederate liked them and enjoyed their enterprise (lowered ingratiation Ith constructs of interest (e.g., criminal behavior) than the categorically motivation situation), or that the confederate was unsure just how much they liked them (heightened ingratiation motivation condition).Participants.(N 21) 19.4 (1.9) 13.five (1.6) 13 females, 7 males, 1 n/aLight drinking confederate (N 19) 19.3 (3.two) 10.4 (9.3) 17 females, two menNote. Parentheses denote normal deviation for age and units per week.SOCIAL DRINKING AND INGRATIATIONTable two Study 1: Alcohol Consumption by ConditionHeightened ingratiation condition (N Heavy drinking confederate (N 21) Mean milliliters consumed (SD) 74.7 (44.9)a 42) Decreased ingratiation condition (N Heavy drinking confederate (N 19) 55.4 (37.9) 38)Light drinking confederate (N 21) 23.4 (18.1)aLight drinking confederate (N 19) 42.8 (31.6)Note. Normal deviations seem in parentheses. a Denotes that situations differ significantly at p .001 (see principal text).and in principle this could have interfered with their capacity to mimic the confederate's drinking behavior. Furthermore, Study 1 had a comparatively small sample size. As a result, the lack of statistically considerable mimicry impact under conditions of lowered ingratiation (p .28, d 0.36) may very well be attributable to a lack of statistical energy. Finally, the design of Study 1 meant that the confederate could not be blinded to the ingratiation condition that the participant had been assigned to, and it is actually feasible that this could title= journal.pcbi.1005422 have affected how they interacted with the participant. We addressed these troubles in Study 2; we recruited a larger sample and did not limit our recruitment to psychology undergraduate students, which resulted in a larger number of male participants. Furthermore, we ensured that participants in different ingratiation circumstances completed precisely the same experimental job and confederates were blinded towards the ingratiation condition each participant was assigned to.StudyAccording to a social ingratiation motive account of mimicry (Lakin et al., 2008, 2003), social influence on alcohol consumption must be observed when an individual has yet to be socially accepted by a drinking companion (heightened ingratiation motives), but this mimicry should really be decreased if an individual believes that they've already effectively ingratiated themselves.