An intro about the electoral college, background, and problems associated with the electoral college, how the electoral college in a “perfect world” should work, alternative ideas that could potentially replace the electoral college.
Cronbach’s alpha was greater than 0.7 ( α = .752), and thus reliable. There were no significant differences in attitudes toward menstruation by condition (F>0.05).. Descriptive statistics among all variables included in the study are shown in Table 1. At the bivariate level, it was found that women who displayed greater state self-objectification had more negative attitudes toward menstruation. The frequencies and percentages for scores on the feminist identity measures are presented in Table 2. A multivariate linear regression was conducted to examine the extent to which menstrual knowledge, taboo messages, and attitudes toward menstruation predict state self-objectification (see Table 3). Also, to test the moderating effect of knowledge on the relationship between taboo messages and self-objectification. The model accounted for 3.8% of the variance in self-objectification, F(3, 60) = 1.832, p >.005 . Significant predictors were attitudes toward menstruation. Those who had negative attitudes toward menstruation were significantly more likely to self-objectify than those who had positive attitudes toward menstruation, β = 0.285, t = 2.245, p = .029. In addition, those who reported higher levels of menstrual knowledge did not have a significant effect on self-objectification, β = -.024, t = -0.192, p = .849. The type of message that was shown (taboo vs non-taboo) did not have a significant effect on self-objectification, β = .012, t = .095, p = .925. Finally, we tested the interaction between condition and menstrual knowledge on and adding the interaction effect did not significantly improve the variance accounted for. Thus, there was not moderating effect which was inconsistent with our hypothesis. We then examined whether women who are feminists will be less likely to self-objectify due to menstrual taboo than women who are egalitarians and non-feminists by conducting a 2(condition) X 3(feminist identity) factorial ANOVA to examine the effects on self-objectification (see Table 4). Condition included two levels (taboo [N=33] vs non taboo [N=35]) and feminist identity consisted of three levels (feminist, egalitarian, and non-feminist). The ANOVA revealed that there was no main effect of condition on self-objectification , F(1,65) = .104, p = .749, suggesting that women who were in the taboo condition (M = 4.045, SD = .138) did not differ in state-self objectification in comparison to the non-taboo condition (M = 3.981, SD = .143). The ANOVA revealed that there was no main effect of feminist identity on self-objectification, F(2,65) = .487, p = .617, suggesting that non-feminists (M = 4.161, SD = .204), egalitarians (M = 3.888, SD = .192) and feminists (M = 3.990, SD = .105) did not differ on self-objectification. There was also no significant interaction between the two factors, F(1,65) = .525, p = .757. The nature of this interaction suggested that for non-feminists , taboo messages (M = 4.183, SD = .301) versus non-taboo messages (M = 4.139, SD = .275) did not have an effect on self-objectification. For egalitarians, taboo messages (M = 4.068, SD = .238 ) versus non taboo messages (M = 3.708, SD = .301) did not have an effect on self-objectification. For feminists, taboo messages (M = 3.884, SD = .159) versus non-taboo messages (M = 4.095, SD = .137) similarly did not have an effect on self-objectification.>GET ANSWER