Cell phones, clothing, and sex: first impressions of power using older African Americans as stimuli.

Psychological reports · 2003 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream
UnclearLow evidencePaper 3744

In a 2 (cell phone present/absent) × 2 (clothing jacket/no jacket) × 2 (sex) between-subjects design, multivariate analysis of variance showed a three-way interaction among clothing, cell phone, and sex of the stimulus person on perceived power ratings.

Study snapshot

PublicationPsychological reports · 2003
Study typeother
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Sex, material possessions, and race have long been associated with prestige or status in American society, yet little research has examined this idea. Little is known about the effect of cell phones on first impressions. In a 2 (cell phone: present, absent) x 2 (clothing: jacket, no jacket) x 2 (sex) between-subjects design, 160 women from a predominantly Black college rated stimuli of older, African Americans on 15 items measuring perceived power on three power subscales: expert, legitimate, and coercive. Multivariate analysis of variance showed a 3-way interaction for clothing, cell phone, and sex of stimulus person.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother
Effect directionunclear
Population160 women from a predominantly Black college rating stimuli of older African Americans
Sample size160
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a 2 (cell phone present/absent) × 2 (clothing jacket/no jacket) × 2 (sex) between-subjects design, multivariate analysis of variance showed a three-way interaction among clothing, cell phone, and sex of the stimulus person on perceived power ratings.

Outcomes measured

  • Perceived power (expert, legitimate, coercive subscales)
  • First impressions related to prestige/status

Limitations

  • No details provided in the abstract on the direction or magnitude of effects within the three-way interaction.
  • Study concerns social perception of cell phone presence rather than EMF exposure or health outcomes.
  • Participants were 160 women from a predominantly Black college, which may limit generalizability (not further described in abstract).
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "160 women from a predominantly Black college rating stimuli of older African Americans",
  "sample_size": 160,
  "outcomes": [
    "Perceived power (expert, legitimate, coercive subscales)",
    "First impressions related to prestige/status"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a 2 (cell phone present/absent) × 2 (clothing jacket/no jacket) × 2 (sex) between-subjects design, multivariate analysis of variance showed a three-way interaction among clothing, cell phone, and sex of the stimulus person on perceived power ratings.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "No details provided in the abstract on the direction or magnitude of effects within the three-way interaction.",
    "Study concerns social perception of cell phone presence rather than EMF exposure or health outcomes.",
    "Participants were 160 women from a predominantly Black college, which may limit generalizability (not further described in abstract)."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "cell phone",
    "first impressions",
    "perceived power",
    "prestige",
    "status",
    "clothing",
    "sex differences",
    "older African Americans",
    "social perception"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.2466/pr0.2003.93.3.879
PubMed: 14723458

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library