Following this next article, users done the next brief questionnaire including an identical things as very first for the review of your culprit. A final section concerned participants’ level of governmental attention, governmental care about-location into the ten-section kept–proper continuum, sex, decades, part of household and you will degree.
People was indeed at random allotted to certainly one of half dozen fresh criteria derived in the 2 (perpetrator’s intercourse) ? step three (repair tactic) between users factorial design.
All of the procedures performed inside research was in fact in accordance with the ethical criteria of your national browse committee and with the 1964 Helsinki endments.
Assessment of the political actor
Members advertised their in the world feelings towards make believe politician into good 10-part size (1 = totally bad so you can 10 = completely positive) double, immediately following from the T1 (post-scandal) and once in the T2 (post–protective response). The effectiveness of brand new defensive tactic inside fixing reputation are caught from change in evaluation of one’s protagonist.
Research of your politician’s communality and you can department before and after their or her reason of the scandal
New respondents analyzed the new scandal culprit to your a beneficial 5-part measure between step one (not at all) to help you 5 (quite) double, just after after the scandal (T1) and when following the perpetrator’s protective effect (T2). Users ranked the fresh new perpetrator into three adjectives for every single to the communality dimensions (sincere, sensible and empathetic) and you may service measurement (computed, skilled and you will good; age.g., Bauer 2017 ). Brand new indicator constructed on the latest imply situations reached satisfactory accuracy: ? communality article-scandal = 0.80; ? communality post-excuse = 0.74; ? agencies blog post-scandal = 0.63; ? department blog post-justification = 0.67.
Original regression analyses such as the politician’s appeal, respondents’ gender, respondents’ governmental orientation, respondents’ degrees of need for politics and you may respondents’ traditional about the comparative sincerity of females and you will boys failed to give any chief nor correspondence impact on the fresh new established parameters. Therefore, they will not Polyamorous dating service meet the requirements inside further 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].
Suggest international thinking on good scandal perpetrator because a purpose of his/the lady gender while the verbal tactic used to defend him/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].