Chapter 5 Experimental Findings on the Influence of Pride and Guilt on Intentions and Behaviour in the Context of
5.3 Descriptive statistics and manipulation checks .1 Respondents profile
5.3.3 Manipulation checks and preliminary findings across groups Before engaging in the data analysis required for testing the hypotheses, a series of
manipulation checks and general tests were carried out as presented below (see Appendix 5.4 for detailed information).
A one-way ANOVA (Table 5.5) showed that there are significant difference between the groups in terms of the guilt index and pride index (from now on simply referred
T
experienced the highest level of pride (M= 2.90) compared to the control group (M=
M A L
W
redeemed the test significant (F= 89.84, p<.000)39. Alternatively, the guilt group reported the highest level of guilt (M= 3.15) as compared to the control group (M=
M W
between the three groups (F= 23.77, p< .000). The significant differences between the groups on the basis of emotional stimuli was also confirmed by a series of post-hoc tests i.e. Tukey, Scheffe and Bonferroni. The tests showed that all the groups were different significantly from each other (see Appendix 5.4)
39 A F W en the assumption for
homogeneity of an ANOVA test is violated.
Table 5.5 ANOVA test for differences in guilt and pride between groups (N=90)
The results indicated that the groups which received treatment experienced medium levels of pride and guilt respectively (i.e. 5-point Likert where 3 = somewhat). This demonstrates that the two conditions are comparable. Moreover, the literature on guilt appeals has demonstrated that, in order to motivate behaviour, moderate levels of guilt are desirable instead on high ones (e.g. Coulter and Pinto, 1995).
Overall, these findings proved that the emotional treatment was successful and the differences between groups were significant. The mean plots are presented below in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Means of pride and guilt across groups
Pride group
Guilt group
Other emotions
Table 5.6 shows the ratings of all other emotions in the all the experimental groups.
I M M
rated emotions, while M M
emotions. This indicates that the
pride-attention and generated mainly positive emotions i.e. negative emotions scored very
low. In the guilt group, the seco M
which highlights the fact that the guilt-
T M
M T o presented to the control group instilled positive affect as the subjects reported medium levels of happiness (M=
3.26) and below average level of interest (M= 2.66). The scores for all other emotions were very low in the control group.
Table 5.6 Mean ratings for other emotions in the experimental groups
Group S E AS SC H SA A SU D I C
Control 1.33 1.16 1.10 1.06 3.26 1.33 1.13 2.03 1.06 2.66 1.16
Guilt 1.63 2.33 2.76 2.83 2.13 2.60 2.90 2.00 2.73 3.23 1.70
Pride 1.36 2.10 2.30 1.73 2.90 2.06 2.16 2.03 1.76 3.46 1.80
Total 1.44 1.86 2.05 1.87 2.76 2.00 2.06 2.02 1.85 3.12 1.55
S= shy; E= embarrassment; AS= ashamed; SC= scared; H= happy; SA= sad; A= angry; SU= surprised; D=
disgusted; I= interested; C= condescending
Correlation between pride, guilt and other emotions
The findings also showed medium and high levels of correlation between guilt and
T G
T
-.48). The results are aligned with the findings of previous studies. They confirm the high correlation (i.e. strong link) between guilt and other negative SCEs (see Tangney et al., 1996).
Table 5.7 Correlations of all measured emotions in the guilt group
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Guilt (1)
Shy (2) .37*
Embarrassed (3) .68** .36*
Ashamed (4) .83** .28 .77**
Scared (5) .68** .18 .66** .70**
Happy (6)
-.48** .02 -.14 -.33 -.38*
Sad (7) .70** .41* .70** .75** .52** -.28 Angry (8) .49** -.10 .63** .61** .61** -.08 .38*
Surprised (9) .40* .70** .25 .43* .28 -.17 .34 .07 Disgusted (10) .37* -.07 .49** .67** .51** -.07 .46** .64** .25 Interested (11) .15 -.14 .39* .40* .48** .04 .27 .64** .03 .52**
Condescending (12)
.22 .27 .33 .29 .01 .46** .16 .29 .12 .35 .16
**p< 0.01 level (2-tailed); * p<. (2-tailed); N.B. Index of guilt is reported above.
Table 5.8 shows that there is a medium level of correlation between pride and
T
expected because according to the literature (Tracy and Robins, 2007) they correspond to two types of pride authentic and hubristic.
Table 5.8 Correlations of all measured emotions in the pride group
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Pride(1)
Shy (2) .01
Embarrassed (3)
.11 .36*
Ashamed (4) .03 .28 .77**
Scared (5) -.01 .18 .66** -.01 Happy (6) .45* .02 -.14 .45* .02
Sad (7) -.08 .41* .70** -.08 .41* .70**
Angry (8) .34 -.10 .63** .34 -.10 .63** .34
Surprised (9) -.09 .70** .25 -.09 .70** .25 -.09 .70**
Disgusted (10) .27 -.07 .49** .27 -.07 .49** .27 -.07 .49**
Interested (11) .23 -.14 .39* .23 -.14 .39* .23 -.14 .39* .23
Condescending (12)
.53** .27 .33 .53** .27 .33 .53** .27 .33 .53** .27
**p< 0.01 level (2-tailed); * p<. (2-tailed); N.B. Index of pride is reported above.
Intentions
C
environmental impact index as provided by the chosen measurements (Table 5.9). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to identify potential differences in terms of future intentions among the three groups (see Appendix 5.4). Though the homogeneity
L
recycling for the three groups were insignificant (F (2, 87) = 1.31, p>.05). The ANOVA test conducted to assess the differences between the groups related intentions
about the environmental impact also revealed these differences were insignificant (F (2, 87) = 1.26, p>.05).
Table 5.9 ANOVA between groups for the recycling intentions index and environmental impact index
Treatment group M SD F Sig.
Recycling intentions
Control 5.68 5.68
1.31 .273
Guilt 5.97 5.97
Pride 6.13 6.13
Environmental impact
Control 5.93 5.93
1.26 .287
Guilt 5.08 5.08
Pride 4.60 4.60
The lack of difference can be explained by the social desirability bias which often impacts on intention scales and questionnaires. The literature acknowledges the reliability issues of this instrument and on intentions measurements (see discussion about behaviour Section 3.5.4). As a result the present experiment was designed to
Behaviour
T
two types of chocolate. A crosstabulation table for emotional stimulus and the chosen chocolate pointed out that the product with recyclable packaging was chosen more often in the guilt group (83.3%) than in the pride group (73.3%) and the control group (50%) (see Table 5.10) The chi-square test also indicated that the assumption of cell count was not violated and that there appeared to be an association between the type of emotional treatment the students received and the chosen chocolate
(X2(2, 90) = 8.19, p<.05). However, these findings display certain limitations since the test could not identify where the exact differences lie. Additionally, the results are
limited by the
product attributes rather than the recyclable feature of the packaging. This is why the findings for the product choice must be corroborated with the results about the reasons given by students.
Table 5.10 Crosstabulation table for emotional stimulus and the chosen chocolate
Chocolate with
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.33.
The answer to the question that asked students to provide reasons for their choice represented the measurement of actual product choice and of ethical behaviour. If the subject mentioned the recyclable packaging among the provided justifications
le any
A -square
test was conducted to test for significant difference between the groups in terms of
T sumption
was met and the chi-square test was significant (X2 (2, 90) = 13.98, p<.001). In other words there is a significant difference between the groups in relation to actual choice. 20.00% of subjects within the control group made an ethical choice (i.e.
mentioned the recyclable packaging among their justifications) as compared to 60.00% in the guilt group and 63.30% in the pride group (see Table 5.11). This reveals that the pride advert was marginally more efficient in terms of encouraging an ethical choice than the guilt advert.
T C
Ethical reason Other reasons Total
n % n % n %
Group control 6 20 24 80 90 100
guilt 18 60 12 40 90 100
pride 19 63.3 11 36.7 90 100
Total 43 47.8% 47 52.2% 90 100
X2 = 13.983, df=2
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.33.
Overall, these results suggest that the participants exposed to adverts inducing self-conscious emotions made more ethical choices than those who did not receive an emotional stimulus.