Experiment 1B: Strategy usage and types of awkward requests

5.3.1 Methods

5.3.1.1 Screening phase

A new sample of 401 full-time university students (177m, 224f) who were fluent in English and aged 18 and above was opportunistically recruited. All participants gave informed consent and completed the PPI-SF; they were entered into a prize draw and told that they might be invited to the next phase of the study, which would be paid. Total PPI-SF scores were calculated for the whole sample. Forty ‘high PPI’ participants, whose scores fell within the upper tenth percentile (18m, 22f) and forty ‘low PPI’ participants, whose scores fell within the lower tenth percentile (9m, 31f) were invited to take part in the second stage of the study.

5.3.1.2 Testingphase 5.3.1.2.1 Design

There was one between-participants factor of PPI group (high vs. low scorers) and one within-participants factor of type of cost (option vs. favour).

5.3.1.2.2 Participants

A between-groups design was again used to compare high- and low-PPI participants. Of those contacted from the screening phase, 19 high-scoring (9m, 10f) and 19 low-scoring (4m, 15f) individuals agreed to participate in the testing phase. As anticipated, the groups differed significantly on PPI-SF scores, t(36)=14.81, p< 0.0001. The mean PPI-SF scores were 155.95 (SD 9.35) and 108.37 (SD 10.43) for the high and low groups respectively. The groups did not differ significantly in age, t(36)=0.24, p =0.816; the mean ages were 19.42 years (SD 1.17) and 19.31 years (SD 1.56) for the high and low groups respectively. After giving written informed consent, participants completed the Revised Social Strategy Task with two types of personal cost, and a brief health screen. The experiment lasted approximately 30-50 minutes and participants were paid for taking part.

5.3.1.2.3 Procedure

All participants in the testing phase provided written informed consent and completed a brief health screen to ensure that nobody with a history of significant psychiatric or neurological

79

illness was included; no participants were excluded on this basis. Participants were paid for taking part.

5.3.1.2.4Materials

5.3.1.2.4.1 The Social Strategies Task: Revised

This was an extension of the Social Strategy Task described in Experiment 1A. In this version of the task, the 10 vignettes describing a character posing an awkward question each had two variants, one involving a request for a favour and the other for a favourable opinion, representing different types of personal cost; order of presentation of the two variants was counterbalanced across scenarios. See Figure 5.2 for an example scenario:

Figure 5.2: Example scenario from Social Strategies Task: Revised

______________________________________________________________________ Story Stem

“Your cousin likes to come and stay with you. She is good company but when she visits she expects you to pay to take her out to expensive places.”

OPINION ENDING: During a phone call she asks: “Do you like having me to stay?” FAVOUR ENDING: During a phone call she asks: “Can I come and visit you next weekend?”

______________________________________________________________________

5.3.1.2.4.2 Scoring

The questions and corresponding scoring system for the revised task was identical to that used for Experiment 1A. Two blind, independent raters conducted all scoring in accordance with this system, and had an agreement rate of 96%.

5.3.2 Results

The protocol for statistical analysis was identical to that specified in Experiment 1A. Means and standard deviations (SD) for each of the measures described below are presented in Table 5.2. Parametric analyses were again reported, since although there was skewness in several variables (simple acquiescence, qualified acquiescence with negative feedback, and qualified refusal with negative feedback), non-parametric tests showed a similar pattern of findings.

80

Table 5.2: Mean scores and standard deviations for the two groups for the Social Strategies Task with two personal cost variants.

______________________________________________________________________

High PPI Group Low PPI Group

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

(N=19) (N=19)

______________________________________________________________________ Positive Strategy Usage (%)

Acquiescence

Opinions 1.58 (5.01) 2.11 (4.19)

Favours 1.05 (3.15) 0.53 (2.29)

Qualification with excuse

Opinions 22.11 (13.16) 30.00 (13.74)

Favours 22.11 (15.12) 40.00 (17.00)

Qualification with negative feedback

Opinions 10.00 (12.91) 9.47 (9.70)

Favours 4.74 (8.41) 4.21 (6.07)

Negative Strategy Usage (%) Justification with excuse

Opinions 19.47 (12.24) 22.63 (15.22)

Favours 24.21 (15.02) 28.95 (12.86)

Justification with negative feedback

Opinions 12.11 (17.51) 11.05 (11.97) Favours 3.16 (7.49) 1.05 (3.15) Outright refusal Opinions 34.74 (20.65) 24.74 (20.10) Favours 44.74 (15.77) 25.26 (19.26) Awkwardness (%) Opinions 49.16 (16.85) 57.89 (9.73) Favours 47.68 (15.81) 56.16 (11.73) ______________________________________________________________________

81 5.3.2.1 Positive strategy usage

The high and low PPI groups were compared on their usage of acquiescence, qualification with excuses and qualification with negative feedback strategies for the two request type variants. For acquiescent strategies, a 2 x 2 Anova (group by type of request) showed no significant main effect of group, F(1, 36)=0.00, p= 1.00; the effect of request type was not significant, F(1, 36)=2.77, p=.105, nor the group by request interaction, F(1, 36)=0.692,

p=.411. The high PPI group used significantly fewer acceptance strategies qualified by

excuses, F(1, 36)=11.88, p=.002; the effect of personal cost was not significant, F(1, 36)=2.76,

p=.105, nor the group by cost interaction, F(1, 36)=2.76, p=.105. The effect of group was

not significant for acceptance strategies qualified by negative feedback, F(1, 36)=0.04,

p=.834; the effect of personal cost was significant, F(1, 36)=7.98, p=.008, and there was no

significant group by cost interaction, F(1, 36)=0.01, p=.999.

5.3.2.2 Negative strategy usage

The high and low PPI groups were compared on their usage of refusal justified by excuses, refusal justified by negative feedback and outright refusal strategies for the two personal cost variants. For refusal justified by excuses, there was no significant main effect of group, F(1, 36)=1.17, p=.288; there was a significant effect of personal cost, F(1, 36)=4.39, p=.043, and the group by cost interaction was not significant, F(1, 36)=0.09, p=.766. When refusals justified by negative feedback were examined, the main effect of group was not significant,

F(1, 36)=0.36, p=.550; there was a significant effect of personal cost, F(1, 36)=13.38, p=.001,

and the group by cost interaction was not significant, F(1, 36)=0.41, p=.840. For outright refusal strategies, there was a significant main effect of group, F(1, 36)=8.71, p=.006; the effect of personal cost was not significant, F(1, 36)=2.09, p=.157, nor the group by cost interaction, F(1, 36)=1.70, p=.201.

5.3.2.3 Perceived awkwardness

With respect to awkwardness, the high PPI group rated the scenarios to be significantly less awkward than did the low PPI group, F(1, 36)=4.16, p=.049; the effect of personal cost was not significant, F(1, 36)=1.10, p=.302, nor the group by cost interaction, F(1, 36)=0.01,

82 5.3.2.4 Gender

Since the gender distribution was uneven in the low PPI group, these analyses were repeated using ANCOVAs with gender as a covariate. The effect of gender did not reach significance for any of these analyses (p>.05) and did not change the overall pattern of results.