HANDSHAKES.   Term Paper ID:29783 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Report of a study on effects of handshakes on first impressions.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 1 sources, 1 Citations, APA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Report of a study on effects of handshakes on first impressions. Critical review of a 2000 journal article on the study. Discusses previous research, study limitations, rationale for the study, nature of the problem and study goals. Methodology of the study. Its weaknesses. Study limitations. Findings, particularly as to firmness of handshakes. Paper Introduction: Article Review Introduction “Handshaking, Gender, Personality, and First Impressions” by Chaplin, Phillips, Brown, Clanton, and Stein (2000) is a journal article which reports a study of the effects of handshakes on first impressions. The authors begin with a presentation of previous literature relevant to the current study. While it was noted that previous systematic study of the variables was limited, only a brief description of studies available, was provided. Chaplin et al. began the introduction with a summary of previous findings, and did not include citations. Following this, literature that was relevant to handshaking in general, was presented. For example, literature, in the form of books, regarding handshaking and Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. It was valid to note that thesituation may have resulted in specific types of handshakes, since it wasformal and there was no expectation that the interaction would result in along association. Chaplin et al. The authors concluded that the findings implied that in at least thisone instance, the strong female handshake resulted in the positiveimpression that the subject was extroverted and open to experience. A weakness of this article is its lack of clarity in presentation andbrevity of the introduction and method sections. The procedure section was more thorough, however,presentation made it difficult to follow. A significant moderating effect ofgender on relations between Firm Handshake and Openness to Experience, wasfound; regression coefficients were noted with a p of . However, regarding the relationship between handshakecharacteristics and impression, it was reported that the coders did notdifferentiate among the eight personality characteristics, but instead theyused general first impressions to find differences. While the authors stated that their study was an effort to overcomeprevious study limitations, their literature review provided limitedsupport for this conclusion. began the introduction with a summary of previousfindings, and did not include citations. 31. Goal 1: to assess consistency of handshakecharacteristics across time and situations; coefficient alphas, means, andstandard deviations were presented and it was concluded that ratings were"generally consistent" across time, gender, and individual coders. The only indicationof statistical significance was the occasional but inconsistent mention ofp values. In addition, the sample size wassmall, which also limits findings. Findings from this early research were used to provideoperational definitions of personality characteristics, for the currentstudy. Ethical considerations were notdiscussed. Opposing viewswere not provided. Goal 3: to assess the relationship between personality characteristicsand handshaking characteristics; "simple" correlations were noted in atable, statistical significance was not mentioned in the text. Findings related to the study goals were presented more clearlyin the discussion section, as were the conclusions. They also noted the significance oftheir study, since the handshake is the source of an initial behaviorsample in many situations and its direct impact on first impressions formedmust be understood. Correlations among the ratingsfor handshaking characteristics were noted with coefficient alphas; thepurpose of this analysis is not clear at this point. Goal 2: to describe gender differences in handshake characteristics;Analysis of Variance was used. (2 ). Whilethis study and its presentation are limited, the findings are worthy offuture study, with improved methods and procedures. Methodology Subjects were 112 college undergraduates (48 men and 64 women) froman introductory psychology class. Raters who served as experimenters were four advanced psychologyundergraduates (2 women and 2 men), who were trained as handshake coders,and who were authors of the article. However, another study limitation, not noted, was thefact that social desirability which may be present in this formalsituation, could also have affected results. At this point theexperimenters formulated a First Impression Composite for measurementinstead of the original personality assessment tool. An analytic description of each study goal along with the statisticused is necessary. For example, the first study was simply listed as "restricted to29 psychiatric inpatients, so its generality is somewhat limited" (p. Communicating Findings The authors summarized their findings and stated that: handshakecharacteristics are consistent across time and situations; five of thehandshake characteristics covaried (out of eight); gender differences inhandshake characteristics differed for most dimensions and on the FirmHandshake Composite with males handshakes being more firm; some personalitycharacteristics are related to handshaking characteristics, with firmhandshake being related to extraversion and open to experience, and lessrelated to neurotic or shy traits (gender factors were partialed out ofthese correlations); and handshaking characteristics were related to codersinitial impressions. Data Analysis Readability of the data analysis also lacked clarity. A more comprehensive study of the variables would have allowedfor a comparable situation (less formal handshaking conditions). Since findings regarding impressions were not accuratelyassessed, and confounding variables were not controlled, speculationregarding a finding that is inconsistent with previous research, may not beconsidered valid. While the authors did provide comparisons to previousresearch and explanations for their speculations, they may still have beena leap beyond this study's findings, and opposing explanations were notpresented. The authors present limitations of the study, with a major one beingthe restricted experimental situation. Future research suggestions are lacking. Therefore it remains unclear whether the study is limited inexternal validity (generalizabilty). L. An experimentalcondition was set up, and it is assumed that subjects were not randomlyselected and there was no control group. Handshaking, gender, personality, and first impressions. Following this, literature thatwas relevant to handshaking in general, was presented. The dimensions of time and situationwere defined by the study conditions, which were described in theprocedures section. For example,literature, in the form of books, regarding handshaking and etiquette waspresented; in fact this literature was used to provide operationaldefinitions of handshaking characteristics, for the present study. The statisticsused were briefly stated as they related to the testing of studyhypotheses, in some cases they were not stated and only the outcome wasnoted (such as the mention of a coefficient alpha, without mention of thestatistic used). It isunclear what statistic was used. Despite the limited background information, the authors did provide asupported rationale for their study. While the study was not trulyexperimental, the quasi-experimental design allows for the empiricalinvestigation of study variables. While the overall impression of what was to be studied was clear,presentation was less clear. It is not clear whether effects were large orsmall. Anearly study (in 1957) was cited as a reference that handshaking is linkedto personality. Handshake characteristics were broken downinto different handshake composites such as Firm Handshake Composite; thisis the presumed reason for the study of handshaking correlates (mentionedin the Goal 1 information). While it was noted that previous systematic study of thevariables was limited, only a brief description of studies available, wasprovided. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(4), 11 -117. This was immediately followed by material from the "sheetof paper," which was then immediately followed by more study description.All sections tended to blend together, making readability difficult (theletter should have been noted and placed in an appendix). Following this section, the authors referenced three previous studiesthat were relevant to the study of handshaking effects. For example, the authors beganwith procedural statements such as the placement of participants intogroups of four and the fact that participants were then asked to read asheet of paper. Either the original measure of personality characteristics was notvalid for this experiment or the original results were an accuratereflection of the situation. 113). In fact the first half of the sentence barely describes the studygoals, and hypotheses were not to be found. Thus the new measurement tool wasformulated after the data was collected. R., & Stein, J. For example, the authors stated that theirpurpose was to assess generalizability of some handshaking characteristicsacross time and gender and to test "some hypotheses." This statement wasloose. Sinceprevious assumptions may have been that the strong female tends to beviewed as negatively aggressive, this new finding was viewed as valuable.The authors stated that this finding was particularly intriguing since acorrelation coefficient of .56 was found (implying a strong effect);firmness of handshake was concluded to be a mediating variable in firstimpressions. While theexperimental conditions did allow for the measurement of the variablesstudied, they also served as a limited situation, which may have affectedresults. Each of these variable-definitions wasderived from previous literature. ReferenceChaplin, W. Subjects were given course credit forparticipation. The authors further conclude the importance of their findings to bethe new knowledge that women may be evaluated more positively if theyexhibit a firmer handshake, compared to using a more typical femininehandshake. This is particularlyimportant to consider since it was concluded that a firm handshake wasrelated to extroversion and a lack of shyness. It appears that sincethe study results were not consistent with that was expected, the authorsformed a First Impression Composite and then reanalyzed the relationshipbetween this measure and handshaking. Briefly, the fourgoals were: to assess consistency of handshake characteristics across timeand situations; to describe gender differences in handshakecharacteristics; to assess the relationship between personalitycharacteristics and handshaking characteristics; and to assess therelationship between handshaking characteristics and initial impressions. Although large coefficients may indicate a large effect, smallcoefficients may also be significant; no discussion of these values wasoffered. The nature of the problem studied, the purpose of thestudy, and four study goals were presented. D., Clanton, N. In fact, it may be relatedto an overcompensation for extreme shyness. The goals appear to represent theimplied hypotheses and each included testable assumptions with specific andmeasurable variables to test the implied hypotheses. This conclusion is not logical orbased on study findings. The reasons for statistical analysis choices were notstated and it is therefore difficult to determine if indeed the correctstatistics were used. Gender was then controlled and therelationship was reassessed with partial correlations but again, it is notclear how this was done. Otherattempts to control for confounding variables were not made and threats tointernal validity were not discussed. No further description of subjects or subject selection wasoffered. The correlation between FirstImpression Composite and Firm Handshake Composite was noted to be .56,consistent across total sample and gender differences. Most of the findings reported were a direct result of the dataanalysis. Article Review Introduction "Handshaking, Gender, Personality, and First Impressions" by Chaplin,Phillips, Brown, Clanton, and Stein (2 ) is a journal article whichreports a study of the effects of handshakes on first impressions. Later in the article, thestudy goals were listed more coherently. It is not valid to merely formulate aconvenient assessment tool, after the fact, to result in expected outcomes. The variables were not listed or operationally defined separately.While this oversight made for a more difficult understanding of the studydesign, the authors did present their method of deriving the eightcharacteristics of handshaking, and the nine personality dimensions, whichwere assessed in their study. Goal 4: to assess the relationship between handshaking characteristicsand initial impressions; coefficient alphas were listed for results with noclear explanation of what was analyzed. Results for Goal 2 were not listed clearly,main effects were mentioned but whether they were statistically significantor not, was unclear and it is also not clear why a correlation coefficientwas the outcome. Theauthors begin with a presentation of previous literature relevant to thecurrent study. F., Phillips, J. This procedure may have biasedresults and conclusions and points to a methodological flaw in the studydesign. Overall, the presentation of results was unclear, and clarity was notassisted by the tables. The mention of these studies was brief and did notprovide enough information regarding study methodologies and relatedfindings. The coders were not blind to thehypotheses regarding relationships between personality and handshakingcharacteristics, which may have resulted in bias and measurement error.However they were not aware of participants' scores on personality measuresand they were blind to the hypothesis regarding impressions. For example, social desirability anddefense mechanisms may have been important factors affecting handshakecharacteristics; subjects may have demonstrated strong handshakes toovercome shyness or to appear desirable. Research questions orhypotheses were not clearly stated, but hypotheses were implied and thevariables to be studied were noted. The methodology sectionlacked subject descriptions or selection procedures, and the instrumentsection merely listed the assessment scales without mention of theirreliability or validity. While, it is stated that this finding may be limited to onlysimilar situations, it is also noted that many real-world situations maysimulate the experimental condition. The quasi-experimental design of the study allows for the testing ofthe implied hypotheses and completion of study goals. The authors concluded that handshakes are stable andconsistent across time and gender, and they are related to personality andimpressions. Thusstatistical significance was not provided. Moderating effects of gender were also assessed;hierarchical regression was used to assess this goal.Finally, the word "significant" was used (however, the words "statisticallysignificant" are still only implied). B., Brown, J. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.