Experimentální studie



Opakování
•Co je experiment?
•Kvaziexperiment a ex post facto?
•
•
•Within/between subject design
•A kombinace
•
•A 2x3 design?
•

Něco k analýze
•Jednoduché experimenty (1 NP, 1 ZP):
•Porovnávání průměrů/šancí
•
•Komplexnější experimenty  (Více NP) – faktoriální designy
•Hlavní efekty – celkový efekt podmínky
•Interakce – liší se efekty v kombinaci podmínek?
•
•Manipulovaná NP jen jako jeden z prediktivních faktorů
•Regresní a další modely
•
•Jde mít i více závislých proměnných

Naab, T. K., Heinbach, D., Ziegele, M., & Grasberger, M. T. (2020). Comments and credibility: how
critical user comments decrease perceived news article credibility. Journalism Studies, 21(6),
783-801.
•
•H1: Critical user comments will reduce the perceived credibility of a news article compared to an
article that received supporting comments or no comments
•
•To test our hypothesis, we conducted a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment. We varied the comment
valence (supportive vs. critical) and the context in which the article and the comment thread were
presented (two different German news media outlets). We also included an additional comment-free
control group.
•

•To test H1, we compared participants’ perceptions of the article’s credibility depending on the
valence of the user comments using a one-way ANCOVA model. The news outlet was included as an
additional factor, and general media trust and issue involvement were included as covariates.
•We observed a main effect of the valence of the user comments on perceived article
credibility,F(1, 162) = 29.49,p< .001,ηp2= .15.
•Planned contrasts revealed that participants who were exposed to critical user comments perceived
the related article as less credible (M= 3.06, SD = 0.68) than participants in the supportive
comments condition (M= 3.64, SD = 0.66),p< .001, 95% CI[−0.81,−0.31]. In addition, critical user
comments decreased the perceived article credibility (M= 3.06, SD = 0.68) compared to a version
without comments (M= 3.64, SD =0.42),p= .001, 95% CI [−0.90,−0.20]. Thus, H1 is supported.
•The brand of the news outlet was also significantly related to perceived article credibility, F(1,
162) =4.89,p< .001,ηp2= .08. The article was perceived more credible when it appeared to be
published by the reputable Sueddeutsche Zeitungrather than the tabloid Bild-Zeitung.
•However, there was no significant interaction effect between comment valence and news outlet, (1,
162) = 0.001,p= .98.
•The covariates media trust,F(1, 162) = 2.51,p= .12, and involvement, F(1, 162) = 1.10,p= .30, were
not significantly related to perceived article credibility.
•
•




Validita



Validita
•Základní dělení validity
•Oborově specifické
•Specifické pro danou metodu
•Mnoho druhů a dělení
•
•Zde: interní a externí
•Interní – jistota, nakolik za zjištěným vztahem stojí sledovaný faktor
•Externí – nakolik můžeme výsledek generalizovat
•
•Pozn.: Reliabilita – přesnost a stabilita měření
•Nutná podmínka validity (ne naopak)

Interní validita
•Jak moc jsme si jisti, že sledovaný efekt existuje v dané podobě?
•Záleží na metodologickém zpracování + kontrole vnějších proměnných
•
•Tj. jistota, že náš testovaný kauzální vztah má danou podobu a není způsoben další(mi)
proměnnou(ými)
•
•Pro experiment naprosto zásadní!!!!

Interní validita
•U dobrých experimentů vysoká
•Zde – míra do které způsobuje systematickou změnu pouze nezávislá proměnná
•Celkově je to přednost experimentů
•Příčina předchází důsledku (X je před Y) + „očištění“ zkoumaného efektu
•
•Ale také není dokonalá
•A je nutné dát si pozor – co ji ohrožuje?
•
•

Interní validita – hrozby a co s tím…
•Délka trvání studie – možnost vlivu dalších proměnných
•Omezení a kontrola
•Historie (události) a zrání
•Random selection, random assignment, matching, randomization
•
•

Interní validita – hrozby a co s tím…
•Účinek opakovaného testování (větší citlivost vůči testu)
•Pretesty  - vliv na Y (stejná otázka ve znalostním testu) – zvážit
•Between subject a kontrolní skupina
•Byl odhalen cíl studie?
•Krok zpět k dřívějšímu stavu (regrese u extrémních skorů)
•Randomizace, lze je vyloučit
•Podoba a změna měřícího nástroje
•Podnětový materiál (funguje?)
•Výběr do skupin
•Random selection, random assignment
•Odstoupení ze studie
•matching i při odstoupení
•

Interní validita – hrozby a co s tím…
•Respondenti: sociální žádoucnost, bias, pomáhání atd
•Výzkumníci – experimenter bias
•
•Blind a double blind study
•Double – experimentátor neví, o kterou skupinu jde
•Např. i při data management (čištění dat pro celý vzorek)
•

Validita: konstrukty a měření
•Konstruktová validita: Reprezentuje měření daný konstrukt?
•Konstrukt – zachycen pomocí konkrétního(ch) měření (indikátorů)
•Operacionalizace!
•
•Obsahová validita: jak moc pokrývá měření celý jev?
•např. všechny dimenze?
•
•Face validity (zjevná validita): subjektivní zhodnocení, nakolik měření odpovídá jevu
•
•Co s tím: výběr měření, kognitivní testování, pilotáže
•
•
•

Externí validita
•Jak moc lze naše zjištění zobecnit?
•Bývá omezená – ne nutně!
•
•Se zvyšující se externí validitou často klesá interní
•V něčem jsou ale i velmi podobné, např. hrozby validity
•
•

„Population validity“
•Populace?
•nejprostudovanějšími subjekty jsou „studenti a laboratorní myši“
•WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic)
•Prostředí?
•Nízká ekologická validita: kritika „laboratorního“ prostředí
•Čas?
•Výsledky experimentů ze 70. let
•Temporal validity a zkoumání médií
•
•Další problémy: Efekty testování, Hawthorne effect
•
•Řešení:
•Pravděpodobnostní sampling
•Replikace
•

Ecological validity
•Odchylky od „normálního prostředí“
•Např. Chování na smartphonu vs. při testování
•
•Řešení:
•Field studies
•Cílené snížení interní validity ke zvýšení ekologické

Proměnné měřené ve výzkumu



Nezávislá proměnná
•Manipulovaná, faktor
•Má více podmínek/hodnot
•
•Jak může vypadat?
•„The range of factors that can be used as manipulated independent variables is limited only by the
creative thinking of the researcher“ (Goodwin & Goodwin, p. 132)

Nezávislá proměnná
•Situational – manipulujeme se situací/kontextem
•Bystander research
•typy médií zobrazující informace
•Task – zapojení do specifické aktivity
•Zapojení do kurzu o digitální gramotnosti
•Instructional – liší se instrukce k danému tasku
•Zapojení do kurzu o digitální gramotnosti – aktivní vs pasivní účast
•
•Nezapomeňme na kontrolní skupiny!
•
•Manipulované subjektivní proměnné – problematické
•Např. vyvolání state empathy

Nezávislá proměnná
•subject variables – ex post facto výzkumy
•
•
•

Nezávislá proměnná
•Podnětové materiály
•Převzaté či nově vyvinuté pro výzkum
•Nutné otestovat!!!
•Otázky validity
•
•
•

Nezávislá proměnná
•1) Volba měření
•Předchozí důkazy o validitě?
•Face, construct a content validity?
•
•2) Kognitivní testování
•Testujeme vnímání, chápání, funkčnost, reakce…
•S participanty ze zkoumané populace
•
•3) Pilotáž
•Ověření měření na menším vzorku
•Zaměření na měrné charakteristiky
•
•4) Manipulation (treatement) check!
•V rámci experimentu
•Liší se u/podle participantů podmínky podle předpokladu?
•Byla manipulace úspěšná?
•
•
•

Manipulation check
•Důležitý důkaz o validitě
•Obzvláště v případě nesignifikantních výsledků
•
•Závisí na podobě nezávislé proměnné
•Byla manipulace vůbec „přítomna“?
•Přímé dotazy („Všimli jste si loga média?“)
•Fungovala manipulace dle předpokladu?
•Měření předpokládaných rozdílů („Jak byste ohodnotili kredibilitu tohoto deníku“?)
•
•Na základě MC se rozhodujeme o tom, jestli a nakolik byla úspěšná
•Porovnání napříč podmínkami
•Signifikantní rozdíly?
•Vždy se najde „šum“ - lze vyřadit některé respondenty
•
•
•

Nezávislá proměnná
•For the treatment check, we asked the participants how they perceived the valence of the user
comments toward the article (five-point scale from 1 =very negative to 5 =very positive,M= 2.65, SD
= 1.22) and the extent of criticism toward the article (e.g.,“the user comments criticized the
credibility of the article”, 3 items,α= .89,M= 3.17, SD = 1.20)
•An ANOVA showed that the manipulation of the valence of the user comments was successful:
Participants exposed to supportive comments perceived the comments as more positive toward the
article (M= 3.45, SD = 1.21) than participants who read the critical comments (M= 1.95, SD =
0.66),F(1, 183) = 112.67,p< .001,ηp²= .38. In addition, readers of the critical comments perceived
these comments as more critical towards the article (M= 4.12, SD = .53) than readers of supportive
comments (M= 2.01, SD =0.89),F(1, 183) = 359.89,p< .001,ηp²= .66.
•
•

Vnější a další proměnné
•Extraneous
•
•Kontrola ve vnitro/mezisubjektových designech
•
•Měření vnějších proměnných
•Kontrola v rámci analýzy
•
•Ad kauzalita – víme že jevy jsou způsobovány více faktory
•Často bývají další součástí analýz a zjištění
•ALE nejsou podpořeny exp designem jako takovým

Závislá proměnná
•Opět různé podoby
•Self-reported
•Pozorované chování
•Kódované jevy
•
•Musí variovat! Opatrně na efekty podlahy a stropu
•Procedura podobná jako u NP (mimo manipulation checku :-)
•
•Závislých proměnných může být více
•MANOVA, MANCOVA

Galbava, S., Machackova, H., & Dedkova, L. (2021). Cyberostracism: Emotional and behavioral
consequences in social media interactions. Comunicar, 29(67).


•VO1: Liší se lidé v experimentální a kontrolní podmínce v satisfakci potřeb avnáladě?
•H1a.Ostrakizovaní lidé budou mít nižší hodnoty satisfakce sounáležitosti, sebehodnocení,
smysluplné existence akontroly než zapojení jedinci.
•H1b.Ostrakizovaní lidé budou mít horší náladu než zapojení lidé.
•VO2: Je reflexivní reakce na zážitek ostrakismu na sociálních sítí rezistentní vůči moderaci
sociální úzkostností?
•H2.Efekty ostrakismu na satisfakci potřeb jsou moderovány sociální úzkostností tak, že
ostrakizovaní jedinci svyšší sociální úzkostností zažívají nižší satisfakci potřeb.
•VO3: Jakou reakci budou volit lidé po zážitku ostrakismu?
•H3a.Ostrakizovaní lidé, kteří jsou více ohrožení v potřebách sounáležitosti a sebehodnocení, budou
spíše volit prosociální reakci.H3b.Ostrakizovaní lidé, kteří jsou více ohrožení v potřebách
kontroly a smysluplné existence, budou spíše volit antisociální reakci.
•H3c.Ostrakizovaní lidé s vyšší mírou sociální úzkostnosti budou spíše volit vyhýbavou reakci.

•Participants were told that the study examined SNS users’ online behavior and that they would be
asked to complete a questionnaire and contribute to a group task with other online participants.
They were assured of their anonymity and their right to quit at any time. Participants provided
informed consent by entering the survey.
•The first part of the study was comprised of questions about demographics, anxiety, positively
worded self-esteem items (Rosenberg, 1965) (to alleviate the effect of anxiety items),and a
question about their use of SNS.
•Then they engaged in a group task (section 2.2.1), after which they completed the reflexive
need-satisfaction and mood questionnaire, and manipulation checks.
•Then, participants interacted with the group again in a cooperative financial task (section
2.2.3). To fulfill the aim of the study, the participants were misled to believe that they were
interacting with real people. In reality, the other participants and their reactions were
pre-programmed, and they differed according to the assigned experimental condition. The
manipulation was explained after the survey.

Nezávislá proměnná
•In their original study, Wolf et al. (2015) created 11 pre-programmed profiles and tried to
achieve the maximum diversity in terms of age, gender, and race by asking people from different
backgrounds to write an introductory paragraph about themselves. In this study, we followed a
similar procedure, though only people from the considered population –the users of SNS, aged 18 to
30 (n=10)– were addressed. They were mostly university students. The descriptions were then revised
and piloted in the cognitive interviews (n=5).
•In the experiment, a total of nine profiles (including the participant’s) were displayed, with the
participant’s profile in the upper left corner. In both conditions, the pre-programmed members
received the same amount of “Likes” (ranging from two to seven). In the experimental condition, the
participants received only one “Like” on their profile (i.e., the least amount of “Likes” in a
group) and, in the control condition, participants received four “Likes” (i.e., the average
amount).










Závislá proměnná 1
•Belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control were measured with the Reflexive
Need-Satisfaction Questionnaire (Williams, 2009). The tool assesses four dimensions of the feelings
experienced during the manipulation with 20 items and a five-point Likert scale (1=Strongly
disagree,5=Strongly agree).
•Belongingness was measured with five items(e.g., “I felt I belonged to the group”), M=3.3,
SD=0.95,=.842.
•Self-esteem was measured with five items(e.g., “I felt liked”), M=3.0, SD=0.83,=.792.
•Meaningful existence was measured with 5 items(e.g., “I felt invisible (R)”), M=3.3,
SD=0.89,=.812.
•Control was measured with four items (e.g., “Ifelt powerful”), M=2.5, SD=0.85,=.724.
•Mood was measured with four items (“I feel good/friendly/angry/sad”) on a five-point Likert
scale(1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree) adapted from Williams’ (2009). The items “angry” and
“sad”were reversed, and the final score was computed as an average (M=3.94, SD=0.88,=.827).

Závislá proměnná 2
•Reflective reactions
•The second group task was in the form of a cooperative financial game measuring reflective
reactions(e.g., prosocial, antisocial, evasive). The task was to collectively manage money in order
to maximize the group’s overall profit. Participants were told that everyone was randomly assigned
a game credit of a different amount. The minimum amount (500CZK – approximately 19€) was required
to play the game. The participant received credit of 800CZK. Seven of the pre-programmed players
received a sufficient amount of game money (e.g., 500CZK to 1,000CZK). One received only 200CZK;
this player then asked the participant for a 300CZK loan, which would allow both to play the game.
Refusing the loan meant the other player would not be able to play the game, which strengthened the
participant’s position in the game.The participant could respond in three ways. Their response was
coded as prosocial when they provided the money (82%), antisocial when they refused the request
(16%), and evasive if they chose not to play the game (1.7%). Due to the low prevalence, the
evasive response was not included in the analysis and H3c could not be tested. After participants
responded to the request, the manipulation was ended, followed by debriefing.




Manipulation check
•To verify the effect of ostracization, we included four control items about the internalization of
manipulation (Wolf et al., 2015). The first question was: “If we consider that there was an average
number of ‘Likes’ in the group (for example, around four), how would you consider the number of
‘Likes’ you received?” Participants answered Below average, Around average, or Above average. They
generally answered accordingly, 94% of the ostracized group chose the option “below average” and
94% of the non-ostracized group chose either “around average” or “above average”

Další proměnné
•Social anxiety was measured with the 10-item Short Form of Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
(Kupper& Denollet, 2012) (e.g., “I am nervous mixing with people I don’t know well”) with answers
on a four-point Likert scales (1=Strongly disagree, 4=Strongly agree). The final score was computed
by summing the items (M=23.06, SD=7.38,=.915).

Pretest-Posttest Designs
•Závislá proměnná může být rozdílem mezi jevem před a po manipulaci
•Velmi často u měření výkonu, subjektivního stavu
•
•Výhoda – velmi zvyšuje vnitřní validitu
•Snižuje bias způsobený nevyrovnaným samplingem a rozdělením do podmínek
•
•
•Problémy:
•Testování samo může narušovat validitu (+ Historie a zrání)
•Často ani nelze použít
•
•Solomon Four Group Design
•

Procedure



Procedure
•Aneb jak to celé bude vypadat?
•
•Důležité při zvažování validity
•Důležité při zvažování proveditelnosti výzkumu
•
•
•

Procedure
•1) Sampling – jak proběhne rekrutace?
•
•Je definován cílovou populací ( na koho mířím?)
•Doporučujeme spíše homogennější vzorky, hl. u malých studií
•Přílišná heterogenita – vyšší možný bias kvůli samplingu
•Je to cesta jak eliminovat vnější proměnné
•
•U experimentů málokdy random sampling (důležitý random assignement!)
•A nevadí toJ
•Rozdíl mezi cílem experimentu a např. survey
•Experiment – soustředěn na zkoumání efektu nikoli na deskripci populace!
•Generalizace zjištění – mluvte jen o vztahu, nikoli o tom, co říká váš vzorek o populaci!!!
•„The credibility is relatively high“ vs. „The credibillity is affected by media source“
•I experiment může mít random sampling, ale důležitější jsou další aspekty
•
•
•

Procedure
•2) Testovací situace
•
•Zvažování vnitřní a vnější validity
•
•Vysoce kontrolované experimenty (lab)
•Skvělá vnitřní validita, velmi nízká externí (hl. ekologická)
•Problém s rekrutací a vzorkem
•
•Mediální studie – velmi časté jsou online experimenty
•

Online experimenty
•Ještě odlišme online experiment a online rekrutaci
•
•Online experimenty – nižší vnitřní validita
•Nemáme kontrolu nad situací
•Lze částečně „ošetřit“ manipulation checkem
•Nutnost dobré instrukce a motivace respondentů
•U některých typů výzkumu nelze použít (kognitivní procesy) – jak moc na moji proměnnou působí
potenciální vnější proměnné?
•
•
•
•

Příprava experimentu



Formulace hypotéz
•Základem je teorií podložená výzkumná otázka a formulace hypotéz
•
•Hypotézy: Mohou být i explorační, ale musí definovat zkoumaný vztah!!!
•
•Hypotézy vedou celý design a možnosti analýzy
•

Plánování designu + analýzy
•Volba designu + měření + procedure
•Jsou na sobě závislé – viz limity vnitro/mezi subjektových designů
•Procedure – včetně definování cílové populace
•
•Plán analýzy – u experimentu velmi důležité dopředu specifikovat!
•Možnosti explorace, ale mnohem menší než např. u survey
•Důležité pro power analýzu (za chvíli)
•
•Dopředu byste měli mít vždy formulovány:
•Hypotézy + design + měření + analýza
•Všechny ideálně ve formě preregistrace
•
•

Příklad experimentální studie



Victim blaming and minimizing consequences of cyberhate attacks due to weight: The role of anti-fat
attitudes and body positive online content
•Experimental study
•Marie Bedrosova, Nikol Kvardova, Hana Machackova
•Pre-registered at OSF
•Data collection in November-December 2020
•

Cyberhate
Attacks on people because of their group characteristics (Hawdon et al., 2015)
Physical appearance and weight (Chandrasekharan et al., 2017; Mondal et al., 2018; Saleem et al.,
2017; Sylwander, 2019)

Bystanders of cyberhate attacks
Two mechanisms of moral disengagement – victim blaming and minimizing of consequences
Anti-fat attitudes
Experience with body positive online content
MORAL DISENGAGEMENT (Bandura, 1999).
Diffusion of responsibility
Displacement of responsibility
Euphemistic labeling
Advantageous comparison
Minimizing of consequences
Dehumanization of victim
Victim blaming
Moral justification

Study design
Two Instagram posts:
   A) Plus-size girl
   B) Thinner girl
Identical negative comments about the girl







Stimuli
Online photography databases (Shutterstock, Unsplash)
How to choose them?
How to edit them?
Obsah obrázku exteriér, obloha, voda, pláž Popis byl vytvořen automaticky Obsah obrázku voda,
obloha, exteriér, pobřeží Popis byl vytvořen automaticky

Stimuli
„Fake Instagram“ post generators
Editing an existing post‘s html code
Photoshop
Instagram platform, commenters, profile pictures, emojis, …

>
Between subject cross-sectional design with 2 conditions (thin/overweight post) distributed
randomly between girls and boys
Power analysis in G*Power (n = 262)
Part of a larger survey – online panel of 1,530 Czech adolescents (13-18 yo)
n = 658 adolescents
Households, CAWI
Analysis: two linear regression models with moderating effects
Study design

Measures
•Dependent variables.
•Victim blaming was adapted from a scale about victim blaming in cyberbullying developed by Weber
et al. (2013) and it was measured by 4 items (e.g., Therese caused it by posting a photo that was
calling for it) with a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree).
•Minimizing consequences were adapted from a scale of minimizing attitudes in cyberbullying
developed by Garland et al. (2017). The items were changed to be about negative comments and not
about bullying. Originally, it was measured by 6 items following the statement “Negative comments
on social media . . .” (e.g., . . . do not have any long-lasting effects) with a 7-point scale (1 =
Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). However, because of the low factor loading (.447), one item
(. . . are just a part of growing up) was deleted.
•

Measures
•Moderators. Anti-fat attitudes were adapted from the weight-control and blame dimensions of a
scale developed by Lewis et al. (1997). The word “overweight” was used instead of “fat” and one
item from the original scale (i.e., The idea that genetics causes people to be fat is just an
excuse) was not used because of comprehension problems. Attitudes were measured by 6 items (e.g.,
Most overweight people are lazy) with a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree).
•Exposure to body-positive online content was developed based on themes identified in a study by
Cohen, Irwin, and colleagues (2019). It was measured by 6 items that asked about the frequency of
exposure to body-positive posts on the internet, which, for example: Encourage people to value the
unique characteristics of their bodies (e.g., that they are healthy and functional). We used a
6-point frequency scale (1 = Never; 6 = Several times a day).
•Gender was coded as 0 = boys, 1 = girls.
•Control variables. We controlled for the participants’ age, body mass index (BMI; computed from
the participants’ weight and height), and time spent on Instagram measured by the frequency of use
during the preceding few months with a 7-point scale (1 = Never; 7 = Almost all the time). [Table 1
about here.]
•




H1a. Victim blaming of a plus-size victim is higher than for a thinner victim.
H1b. Minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is higher than for the thinner victim.
Experimental condition:
Thinner girl
Plus-size girl
Victim blaming
 Minimizing consequences

H1a. Victim blaming of a plus-size victim is higher than for a thinner victim.
H1b. Minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is higher than for the thinner victim.
Experimental condition:
Thinner girl
Plus-size girl
Victim blaming
 Minimizing consequences

H1a. Victim blaming of a plus-size victim is higher than for a thinner victim.
H1b. Minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is higher than for the thinner victim.
Experimental condition:
Thinner girl
Plus-size girl
Victim blaming
 Minimizing consequences
Anti-fat attitudes
H2a: Anti-fat attitudes moderate victim blaming for the plus-size victim; the effect of victim
blaming on the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat attitudes.
H2b: Anti-fat attitudes moderate the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect
on the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat
attitudes.

H1a. Victim blaming of a plus-size victim is higher than for a thinner victim.
H1b. Minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is higher than for the thinner victim.
Experimental condition:
Thinner girl
Plus-size girl
Victim blaming
 Minimizing consequences
Anti-fat attitudes
H2a: Anti-fat attitudes moderate victim blaming for the plus-size victim; the effect of victim
blaming on the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat attitudes.
H2b: Anti-fat attitudes moderate the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect
on the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat
attitudes.

H1a. Victim blaming of a plus-size victim is higher than for a thinner victim.
H1b. Minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is higher than for the thinner victim.
Experimental condition:
Thinner girl
Plus-size girl
Victim blaming
 Minimizing consequences
Anti-fat attitudes
H2a: Anti-fat attitudes moderate victim blaming for the plus-size victim; the effect of victim
blaming on the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat attitudes.
H2b: Anti-fat attitudes moderate the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect
on the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat
attitudes.
Body positive online content
H3a: Exposure to BPOC moderates victim blaming of the plus-size victim; the effect on the victim
blaming of the plus-size victim is stronger for those with less exposure to body-positive online
content.
H3b: Exposure to BPOC moderates the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect on
the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with less exposure to
body-positive online content.

H1a. Victim blaming of a plus-size victim is higher than for a thinner victim.
H1b. Minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is higher than for the thinner victim.
Experimental condition:
Thinner girl
Plus-size girl
Victim blaming
 Minimizing consequences
Anti-fat attitudes
H2a: Anti-fat attitudes moderate victim blaming for the plus-size victim; the effect of victim
blaming on the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat attitudes.
H2b: Anti-fat attitudes moderate the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect
on the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat
attitudes.
Body positive online content
H3a: Exposure to BPOC moderates victim blaming of the plus-size victim; the effect on the victim
blaming of the plus-size victim is stronger for those with less exposure to body-positive online
content.
H3b: Exposure to BPOC moderates the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect on
the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with less exposure to
body-positive online content.

H1a. Victim blaming of a plus-size victim is higher than for a thinner victim.
H1b. Minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is higher than for the thinner victim.
Experimental condition:
Thinner girl
Plus-size girl
Victim blaming
 Minimizing consequences
Anti-fat attitudes
H2a: Anti-fat attitudes moderate victim blaming for the plus-size victim; the effect of victim
blaming on the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat attitudes.
H2b: Anti-fat attitudes moderate the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect
on the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat
attitudes.
Body positive online content
H3a: Exposure to BPOC moderates victim blaming of the plus-size victim; the effect on the victim
blaming of the plus-size victim is stronger for those with less exposure to body-positive online
content.
H3b: Exposure to BPOC moderates the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect on
the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with less exposure to
body-positive online content.
H4a: Gender moderates the victim blaming of the plus-size victim; the effect on the victim blaming
of the plus-size victim is stronger for girls.
H4b: Gender moderates the minimizing consequences of the plus-size victim; the effect on the
minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for girls.
Gender

H1a. Victim blaming of a plus-size victim is higher than for a thinner victim.
H1b. Minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is higher than for the thinner victim.
Experimental condition:
Thinner girl
Plus-size girl
Victim blaming
 Minimizing consequences
Anti-fat attitudes
H2a: Anti-fat attitudes moderate victim blaming for the plus-size victim; the effect of victim
blaming on the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat attitudes.
H2b: Anti-fat attitudes moderate the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect
on the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with higher anti-fat
attitudes.
Body positive online content
H3a: Exposure to BPOC moderates victim blaming of the plus-size victim; the effect on the victim
blaming of the plus-size victim is stronger for those with less exposure to body-positive online
content.
H3b: Exposure to BPOC moderates the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim; the effect on
the minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for those with less exposure to
body-positive online content.
H4a: Gender moderates the victim blaming of the plus-size victim; the effect on the victim blaming
of the plus-size victim is stronger for boys.
H4b: Gender moderates the minimizing consequences of the plus-size victim; the effect on the
minimizing consequences for the plus-size victim is stronger for girls.
Gender

Výsledky



Výsledky



Výsledky



Úkol
•Úkol č. 1: kritické zhodnocení validity designu zadané studie:
•S konkrétními ukázkami a návrhy možného lepšího řešení
•1-3 normostrany
•