THREAT PARADIGM - I can use for my masculinity threat over the computer in Qualtrics alone

THE ROLE OF SEXUALIZED REJECTION IN MEN’S BODY SHAME AND MALE
SEXUAL AGGRESSION
by
KRIS MESCHER


Procedure
Participants signed up for a study ostensibly about “the interpersonal factors that
build effective teamwork,” in which they believed they would compete as a dyad with a
partner over a networked computer in teamwork building tasks, with the most effective
teams earning a chance to be entered into a lottery to win $50.00. As each participant
arrived at the lab, a research assistant escorted him to a private cubicle with a computer
and provided basic instruction, indicating that computer program would provide further
information. The assistant started the program and left the participant alone to complete
the measures. The program administered the items for each measure in random order.
After consenting to the study, participants were told that their mood would be
assessed at various times throughout the study, and they completed the I-PANAS-SF
(Time 1). They were then informed that the computer would randomly assign one
member of the potential partnership to view the other’s complete personality profile and
judge whether they will continue on to perform tasks together. All participants were
“randomly assigned” to the condition in which their partner (in fact, a phantom
confederate) evaluated their materials. They then completed a bogus personality profile
(e.g., “If you could have a superpower, what would it be? and “What do you consider
your worst trait?”). This profile has been used successfully in the past as a basis for peer
rejection (Rudman et al., 2007). While participants ostensibly waited for their materials
to be evaluated by the phantom, they completed the narcissism measure and 16 filler
items to afford more time (e.g., “ I have more energy than most people” and “People say
I’m a good listener”). Once completed, they were either informed that their partner had
rejected them, or that the computer had malfunctioned and could not connect them to
their partner (control condition). In the experimental condition, their partner provided
feedback indicating that they believed the participant to be gay, and thus they would not
be an effective team (see Appendix C for a transcript). In a second control condition, the
phantom provided no reason for their rejection. Participants were then automatically
enrolled in a “second study” in order to complete their experimental obligation.
Following the rejection manipulation, the program administered the self-esteem
IAT. Participants were then informed that they were being moved to a new study and
were presented with a new consent form. They then completed a second, postmanipulation
I-PANAS-SF (Time 2), the SSES, the ARVS, HATW, rape proclivity, body
shame, the LSH, and Explicit Sex Power Beliefs Scale. The RBA was administered last
to be consistent with its cover story. Participants were then thoroughly debriefed, thanked
for their participation, and credited.


Appendix C
Sexual Shaming Rejection Feedback:
I don’t think we have anything in common and won’t be a good team. It would be a waste
of time to work on an experiment together if we can’t win the money I’d rather work with
someone else, or complete the survey for my RPUs than work with this guy on friendship
tasks. Looking at his profile, I get the impression he is gay. We won’t work well together
if he likes men