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.

Background

• Lera Boroditsky and Caitlin Fausey (2010).

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.

Results

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.

Results

Conclusion