Post on 24-Jul-2015
The Effect of Linguistic Framing and Facial Attribute to Social
Judgment
Capacio, Krista Kae T.Genobiagon, Feliz Lorraine R.Larrazabal, Ma. Amale Y.
Capacio, Krista Kae T.Genobiagon, Feliz Lorraine R.Larrazabal, Ma. Amale Y.
Abstract
This research focuses on the domain of language on psychology to find out if language changes people’s judgment to an event. Moreover, this research seeks to find out if facial attributes as well change participants’ judgment. To achieve this, the researchers aim to determine how canonical agentive text and non-agentive text descriptions, and baby-faced and matured-looking faces affect social judgment measured by ratings of blame and financial liability to a given incident.
Related Literature
• Linguistic Framing– Across studies, the differences in linguistic framing
depending on agentivity in language has been studied (e.g. Fausey, et al., 2010; Fausey & Boroditsky, 2010; Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011).
– Agentive (use of transitive verbs) and nonagentive (use of intransitive verbs) language shape how people attribute blame to individuals involved in accidental incidents (Fausey & Boroditsky).
Related Literature
• Agentive Description– a way of describing a change of state in certain context
including the person as the subject in a transitive expression (e.g, Mae dropped her phone) (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2010).
– It is often used in intentional actions where the agent is liable to an action.
– involves a subject person in the linguistic framing, giving attention to him/her other than the events.
– reportedly used in the English language in intentional and accidental actions, but more in intentional actions
Related Literature
• Non-agentive Description– uses intransitive expressions not directly indicating the
involvement of the subject person (e.g., The phone fell), (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2010)
– are commonly used in accidental actions and often sound evasive.
– frequently used to distinguish accidental from intentional actions (Dorfman, 2004; Filipovic, 2007; Maldonado, 1992; Martinez, 2000; Slovin & Bocaz, 1988; as cited by Fausey & Boroditsky).
– sets the attention of the readers to the event rather than the subject person.
Related Literature
• Facial Attribute– Upon a single glance of a face, people automatically engage to
different judgments and make a host of social attribution (Olson and Marshuetz, 2005; Willis and Todorov, 2006;).
– people hastily and effortlessly form impressions from mere facial appearance (Todorov & Engell, 2008; Zebrowitz and Montepare, 2008).
– shown to predict significant outcomes which range from electoral voting (Olivola and Todorov, 2010), extend to criminal verdict, (Zebrowitz and McDonald, 1991) and even to mate choices.
– people’s faces “provide adaptive information about the social interactions they afford” (Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2008, p.1)
Related Literature
• Baby-Faced– are perceived to have childlike traits such as being
naïve, submissive, weak, warm and honest (Montepare & Zebrowitz, 1998).
• Mature-Faced– people with decline cognitive and physical functioning
which usually give negative impression due to their similarity to anomalous faces-when perceiver recognizes the bad genes or diseases through facial qualities and therefore mark low fitness (Zebrowitz, 2003).
Related Literature
• Based on the study of Montepare and Zebrowitz (1998), baby faced people are more likely to be found at fault when charged with negligence while mature faced are charged with intentional crimes.
Statement of the Problem
• What is the effect of linguistic framing and facial attribute in social judgment? – Is there a significant main effect of linguistic framing on social
judgment?• Is there a significant main effect of linguistic framing on the
amount of financial liability?• Is there a significant main effect of linguistic framing on
ratings on blame? – Is there a significant main effect of a physical facial attribute
on social judgment?• Is there a significant main effect of physical facial attribute
on the amount of financial liability?• Is there a significant main effect of physical facial attribute
on ratings on blame? – Is there a significant interaction effect between linguistic
framing and physical attribute?
Hypothesis
• Participants with canonical agentive description– A matured face actor presented in the text
with a canonical agentive description will have higher ratings of blame and amount of financial liability.
– A baby face actor presented in the text with a canonical agentive description will have lower ratings of blame and amount of financial liability.
Independent Variable
• Linguistic Framing– Canonical Agentive text
– Canonical Non-agentive text
• Facial Attribute– Baby-faced
– Mature-looking
Dependent Variable
• Rate of Blame– In a 7-point scale
• Financial Liability– Amount of money to be paid by the actor in
the passage.
Conceptual Framework
Linguistic Framing
Facial Attribute
Matured Face Baby-FacedNon-Agentive Description
Agentive Description
Low Rating of BlameHigh Rating of Blame
Conceptual Framework
Agentive Non-agentive
Non-agentive + Matured Face
Non-agentive + Baby Face
Agentive + Baby Face
Agentive + Matured Face
Low Rating of BlameHigh Rating of Blame
Methodology
• Participants– Convenient Sampling• voluntarily participate
– 60 undergraduate students • University of the Philippines Cebu College• Varying courses
– varying sexes– different socioeconomic statuses – are able to comprehend the English language
Methodology
• Design– 2 (agentive v. non-agentive description) x 2
(baby-faced v. matured-looking) between-groups experimental design
• 4 conditions
• 15 participants per conditionAgentive Non-agentive
Baby-faced
N=15 N=15
Matured N=15 N=15
Materials
• For the manipulation of linguistic framing– Agentive
Anna and her friends were finishing a lovely dinner at their favorite restaurant. After they settled the bill, they decided to head to a nearby café for coffee and dessert. Anna followed her friends and as she stood up, she flopped her napkin on the centerpiece candle. She had ignited the napkin! As Anna reached to grab the napkin, she toppled the candle and ignited the whole tablecloth too! As she jumped back, she overturned the table and ignited the carpet, as well. Hearing her desperate cries, the restaurant staff hurried over and heroically managed to put the fire out before anyone got hurt.
Anna and her friends were finishing a lovely dinner at their favorite restaurant. After they settled the bill, they decided to head to a nearby café for coffee and dessert. Anna followed her friends and as she stood up, she flopped her napkin on the centerpiece candle. She had ignited the napkin! As Anna reached to grab the napkin, she toppled the candle and ignited the whole tablecloth too! As she jumped back, she overturned the table and ignited the carpet, as well. Hearing her desperate cries, the restaurant staff hurried over and heroically managed to put the fire out before anyone got hurt.
Materials
• For the manipulation of linguistic framing– Non-Agentive
Anna and her friends were finishing a lovely dinner at their favorite restaurant. After they settled the bill, they decided to head to a nearby café for coffee and dessert. Anna followed her friends and as she stood up, her napkin flopped on the centerpiece candle. The napkin had ignited! As Anna reached to grab the napkin, the candle toppled and the whole tablecloth ignited too! As she jumped back, the table overturned and the carpet ignited, as well. Hearing her desperate cries, the restaurant staff hurried over and heroically managed to put the fire out before anyone got hurt.
Materials
• For the manipulation of facial attribute
Pre-tested
Manipulation Check
Pre-tested
Manipulation Check
Results2 x 2 between-groups ANOVA
Agentive Non-agentive
Babyish 5 3.67 8.67 4.335
Mature 5.27 4.47 9.74 4.87
10.27 8.14 `
5.135 4.07
Ratings of Blame
ANOVA Summary Table
Source SS df MS F
SSbetA 17.067 1 17.067 7.174**
SSbetB 4.263 1 4.263 1.781
SSbetAxB 1.07 1 1.07 0.447
SSwithin 134 56 2.393
SStotal 156.4 59
F(1,56)=7.11
ResultsMain effect of Linguistic Framing on the ratings of Blame
Is there a significant main effect of linguistic framing on the
ratings of blame?
There is a significant main effect of linguistic framing on the on the ratings of blame,
F(1,56)= 7.174, p<.01.
The passage using agentive description lead to higher ratings of blame (M=5.135) than the passage using non-agentive description (M=4.07).
ResultsMain Effect of Facial Attribute to the Ratings of Blame
Is there a significant main effect of facial attribute on the ratings
of blame?
There is no significant main effect of facial attribute on the ratings of blame,
F(1,56 )= 1.781 p>.05.
ResultsInteraction effect between linguistic framing and facial attribute
on the ratings of blame
Is there a significant interaction effect between linguistic framing and facial attribute on the ratings
of blame?
There is no significant interaction effect between linguistic framing and facial attribute on the ratings of blame, F(1,56)= 0.447 p>.05.
Results2 x 2 between-groups ANOVA
Financial Liability
Agentive Non-agentive
Babyish P 4, 033.33 P 2, 766.67 P 6, 800.00
P 3,400
Mature P 3, 503.00 P 3, 080.00 P 6,583.00
3291.50
P 7, 536.33 P 5,846.67
P 3768.16 P 2743.33ANOVA Summary Table
Source SS df MS F
SSbetA 10.71 1 10.71 4.832
SSbetB 0.176 1 0.176 .079
SSbetAxB 2.082 1 2.082 .939
SSwithin 124.11 56 2.216
SStotal 137.664 59
F(1,56)= 7.11
ResultsMain effect of Linguistic Framing on Financial Liablity
Is there a significant main effect of linguistic framing on financial
liability.
There is no significant main effect of linguistic framing on the on financial liability,
F(1,56)= 4.832, p>.05.
ResultsMain Effect of Facial Attribute to the Ratings of Blame
Is there a significant main effect of facial attribute on financial
liability?
There is no significant main effect of facial attribute on financial liability,
F(1,56)=. 079 p>.05.
ResultsInteraction effect between linguistic framing and facial attribute
on financial liability
Is there a significant interaction effect between linguistic framing and facial attribute on financial
liability?
There is no significant interaction effect between linguistic framing and facial
attribute on financial liability, F(1,56)= . 939 p>.05.