S for every single situation had been multiplied after which averaged across the
S for each and every scenario had been multiplied and after that averaged across the four scenarios. Pilot testing revealed that responses on the 4item measure were highly correlated with the original 2item measure of racerejection sensitivity (MendozaDenton et al 2002). SOMI was positively and drastically correlated with racerejection sensitivity (r .30, p .0). Responses to manipulation checks given at the finish from the experiment revealed that all participants properly indicated that their companion was White, but 4 participants inside the ethnicityunknown condition incorrectly indicated that their partner knew their race ethnicity. Furthermore, 4 participants inside the raceknown condition refused to possess their picture taken, and a single participant did not total the measure of racerejection sensitivity. These nine participants have been excluded from analyses, resulting within a final sample of 72 participants. The final sample had 58.68 ( .05) energy to detect an interactive effect in between SOMI and experimental condition on indices of selfesteem, 53.85 power to detect an interactive effect on uncertainty, and 78 power to detect an interaction on perceived insincerity. ProcedureParticipants anticipated to take part in an “Online PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25295272 Impressions” study. Upon arrival in the lab, they learned that their “partner” (who didn’t truly exist) was scheduled to participate in yet another part of the creating, and they would be connecting by means of a web-based method. Participants learned that the on the web method would randomly assign them to either construct a profile or evaluate their partner’s profile. The system was rigged to ensure that participants have been often assigned to construct the profile. Prior to doing so, every single participant saw a picture of her ostensible companion and learned that she was a 9 year old, White, female, psychology student.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript8Participants had been randomly assigned to view one of three different images; no differences in outcomes as a function of picture had been observed (ps .50).J Exp Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; offered in PMC 207 January 0.Important et al.PageConstructing the profile needed participants to create an “about me” essay and answer supplemental inquiries (i.e age, important, year in school, and hometown). Participants in the ethnicityknown condition also had their image taken and indicated their raceethnicity on their profile, though participants in the ethnicityunknown condition did not have their image taken and did not indicate their raceethnicity. Participants submitted their profile to their partner by means of the online system. Though waiting for their evaluation, participants indicated how they expected their companion to evaluate them. All participants received precisely the same very optimistic feedback by way of the buy Evatanepag on-line method indicating that the partner strongly agreed with statements like “I would like to get to understand my companion additional,” “My companion is definitely the kind of person I could see myself hanging out with,” and “I assume my partner is generous.” Participants also saw that their companion had written, “You look terrific! I would enjoy to operate with you!” After viewing the feedback, participants indicated their feelings, selfesteem, and perceptions of their partner in that order, answered manipulation checks, and have been debriefed. See on the internet supplementary materials for added measures completed. Dependent Measures Interactionspecific Evaluation Expectations: Just prior to receiving feedback, we asked participants ho.
