The University of Sheffield
Browse

File(s) under embargo

3

month(s)

11

day(s)

until file(s) become available

Inducing age-related disgust increases negative attitudes towards the elderly

dataset
posted on 2024-08-19, 12:41 authored by Paul OvertonPaul Overton, Philip PowellPhilip Powell, Shermy Baiju

All participants were recruited through the online research platform Prolific Academic (Prolific Academic Ltd, London). The experiment was conducted with eligibility limited to participants with a UK nationality, as previous cross-cultural studies have shown that different parts of the world have different values, such as the focus on filial piety, which can influence attitudes towards older people (North & Fiske, 2015). Participants between the ages of 18 and 50 were selected to minimize the effect of in-group biases (Martens et al., 2005). Additionally, all participants were required to have English as their first language as the study involved reading vignettes, which aimed to reduce the risk of misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

An a priori power analysis using G*Power (version 3.1; Faul et al., 2009) for an ANCOVA with three independent groups and four covariates, with a = 0.05, power = 0.8, and an effect size of = 0.25, recommended a minimum sample size of n = 269. An extra 20% was added to the minimum sample size to account for potential incomplete and/or bad data (Galesic, 2006), bringing the required sample size to n = 324. Ultimately, n = 324 participants completed the study with 49.7% identifying as female and 50% as male and 0.3% identifying as other. The mean (M) age of the participants was 34.79 (standard deviation, [SD] = 7.40) years. In terms of ethnicity, 91.7% of the participants identified as White, 2.2% as Asian or Asian British, 1.5% as Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African, 0.9% as Arab and 3.7% as Mixed or multiple ethnic groups. Participants were compensated £1.50 for the 10-min duration of the study, in line with guidance from Prolific Academic. The study was approved by the institutional Research Ethics Committee (053946).

For further information on the study, please see the attached README file.

Funding

None

History

Ethics

  • The project has ethical approval and the number is included in the description field

Policy

  • The data complies with the institution and funders' policies on access and sharing

Sharing and access restrictions

  • An appropriate embargo period has been set

Data description

  • The file formats are open or commonly used

Methodology, headings and units

  • Headings and units are explained in the files

Responsibility

  • The depositor is responsible for the content and sharing of the attached files

Usage metrics

    School of Psychology

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC