Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Scientific Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Popularity continues to exist in college and bullying exists both in college and after college
(is someone here able to fix the fact that some section aren't making it onto table of contents. and the college women more sexually active section has an "equal sign" for some reason.) |
|||
| Line 6,321: | Line 6,321: | ||
* Bacon MK, Child IL, Barry IIIH. (1963). ''A cross-cultural study of correlates of crime.'' The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(4), 291. [[http://doi.org/10.1037/h0042395 Abstract]] | * Bacon MK, Child IL, Barry IIIH. (1963). ''A cross-cultural study of correlates of crime.'' The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(4), 291. [[http://doi.org/10.1037/h0042395 Abstract]] | ||
=== | ===Popularity continues to exist in college and bullying exists both in college and after college=== | ||
In a study, researchers examined the prevalence of popularity in college. The sample consists of 408 (297 women, 104 men) undergraduate students at a small liberal arts college. Participants took a short online Qualtrics survey and rated 61 potential descriptors of a popular person on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). These potential descriptors tapped into three dimensions 1) behavioral attributes ("is well liked", "is a leader", "is disliked") 2) risk taking behaviors ("drinks alcohol", "has multiple sexual partners", "does drugs") and 3) social media presence ("uses snapchat", "has lots of followers"). Participants were also asked to indicate the degree which they believed popularity exists in college on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). Most of the participants (86.3%) rated that popularity is a relevant part of the peer landscape in college. Three separate univariate factor analysis were conducted. Then, composite scores were made and used in the following analyses. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant gender and race effects (p < .05). Perceptions of the attributes associated with popularity varied as a function of gender and race. Women more than men believed that affluence, admiration, and social media presence were connected with popularity. Caucasians more than non-Caucasians believed that admiration, and sexual-, and drug-risk behaviors were connected with popularity. The results give a better understanding of the peer social landscape among young adults in college and how popularity appears different from previous stages in development. | In a study, researchers examined the prevalence of popularity in college. The sample consists of 408 (297 women, 104 men) undergraduate students at a small liberal arts college. Participants took a short online Qualtrics survey and rated 61 potential descriptors of a popular person on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). These potential descriptors tapped into three dimensions 1) behavioral attributes ("is well liked", "is a leader", "is disliked") 2) risk taking behaviors ("drinks alcohol", "has multiple sexual partners", "does drugs") and 3) social media presence ("uses snapchat", "has lots of followers"). Participants were also asked to indicate the degree which they believed popularity exists in college on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). Most of the participants (86.3%) rated that popularity is a relevant part of the peer landscape in college. Three separate univariate factor analysis were conducted. Then, composite scores were made and used in the following analyses. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant gender and race effects (p < .05). Perceptions of the attributes associated with popularity varied as a function of gender and race. Women more than men believed that affluence, admiration, and social media presence were connected with popularity. Caucasians more than non-Caucasians believed that admiration, and sexual-, and drug-risk behaviors were connected with popularity. The results give a better understanding of the peer social landscape among young adults in college and how popularity appears different from previous stages in development. | ||