Table 1

Helping Students Understand the Article

Section

 Tips, Comments, and Problem Areas

Abstract

derogate: refers to participants who wrote about a traumatic event.

Stigmatized persons: people who have some characteristic that  society tends to look down on, such as being unattractive.

mere proximity: just being near

denigrated: view as bad or worthless, harshly criticize

impression formation process: how we form impressions of people

Introduction

Pernicious: harmful

void: gap, empty area

implicit: unstated

person perception domains: areas in which we judge people (e.g., social skills, intelligence, morality, etc.)

incur: suffer from, have pushed on them

proximally connected: nearby

ramifications: consequences

Method

cover story: a story—that is not true—about the reason for the study

bogus: false

depicting: describing

albeit: although

Results: Reduction of dependent measures

 A  principal …. : The authors did not want to deal with 12 different measures. Therefore, they used a technique (factor analysis, described on page 212 of your text and explained in more detail on pages 535-536) that reduces several variables into fewer variables. The idea is that several different, specific measures may all be tapping the same general underlying factor. When people make up a 50-item measure of a personality trait (e.g., shyness), they sometimes assume that the questions are measuring the same thing; if people do a factor analysis on their measure, they test the idea that the questions are measuring the same variable.

Eigenvalue: an index of the degree to which a factor explains variability in participants’ responses;  the bigger the eigenvalue, the more influential the factor.

Note: numbers in parentheses are factor loadings (see page 536). Factor loadings are like correlation coefficients that describe the relationship between responses on the measure and the underlying factor.

Cronbach’s alpha: an index (that can range from 0 to 1) of the degree to which there is consistency between how  participant’s answer one question on the measure with how the participant will answer other questions on the measure (see page 104). The high alphas show that the tests are internally consistent.

Composite: combined

Results: Major analyses.

Note that the researchers could have treated the study as a simple experiment. However, they wanted to see whether weight would have a more of an effect on some types of judgments (e.g., ratings of interpersonal skills) than on others (e.g., ratings of professional qualities).
  h² : is a measure of effect size; can range from 0-1; like r² (see pages 165-166)

Discussion

attributable: caused

presumption of a relationship dynamic: participants deciding that that the people seen together were in a relationship.

mere proximity effect: just by being close

accrue: come to

Experiment 2

Second paragraph

inferential attribution process: deciding that there was a close relationship

Method

compensatory information: information that might offset being associated with the obese person

Last paragraph

Destigmatization: no longer considered socially unacceptable

Results

Reduction of the dependent measures

 See comments made under Results: Reduction of the dependent measures for Experiment 1.

Major analyses

See comments made under Results: Major analyses for Experiment 1.

Five way analysis: Analysis using five predictor variables (weight, relationship strength, compensating information, anti-fat attitude scores, participant gender).

Dunnett’s tests: post hoc tests especially designed to compare experimental conditions with a control condition (see page 314)

General discussion

priming and impression formation: recently presented information affects how people will perceive someone. For example, participants hearing the word “polite” just before learning about someone will tend to make participants perceive that person as more polite than participants hearing the word “rude” just before learning about that person.

Future research

affect driven: caused by mood

reverse halo: knowing that someone who has one negative characteristic and then making the overgeneralization that the person has many negative characteristics. (In the halo effect, observers who see one positive characteristic or behavior may make the overgeneralization that the person is good in everything [an angel]. The reverse halo effect is sometimes called the “pitchfork effect.”)