Running Head: I Loathe Thee 1

I Loathe Thee:
A Study on the Dislike






A Project Write-!
Presented to
the "aculty o# the De!art$ent o# Psychology
Ateneo de %anila ni&ersity






In Partial "ul#il$ent
'# the Re(uire$ents #or the Su)ject
*uantitati&e %ethods I






)y
Aylin %+ ,ello
Daniella S+ %orga
Dianna S+ -a!
.nd Se$ester ./10

I Loathe Thee .
Ta)le o# 1ontents
A)stract222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222220
I Loathe Thee: A Study on the Dislike222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222223
%ethod222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222224
Partici!ants2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222224
%easures222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222224
Procedure22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222225
Data Analysis22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222226
Results2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222226
Discussion2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222227
Su$$ary22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222226
Li$itations and Reco$$endations22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222226
Re#erences2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222211
I Loathe Thee 0
A)stract
This study in&estigates the #actors that !redict the identi#ication 8ith the disliked9 seeing the
disliked as a role $odel and disliked as the antagonist a$ong 1.: "ili!ino adults ;%ean age < 0/
years old=+ Partici!ants ans8ered the sur&ey in either a >oogle Docs online or a !a!er-and-!en
!lat#or$+ A con&enience and sno8)all sa$!ling 8ere utili?ed to gather !artici!ants+ Star %atri@
and a 05-ite$ Person 'ne Dislikes ;P'D= (uestionnaire 8hich 8as constructed 8ere used as
instru$ents+ Data 8as analysed using A@!loratory "actor Analysis 8hich re&ealed a nine-#actor
e@traction+ Reali)ility analysis suggests that only se&en #actors ;antagonis$9 lack o# credi)ility9
!honiness9 i$$orality9 #a$iliarity and en&y= are internally consistent+ These 8ere used #or
#urther Ste!8ise %ulti!le Regression Analysis to ans8er the three !ri$ary ai$s o# the study+
Results indicate that lack o# credi)ility !redicts identi#ication 8ith the dislike9 8hereas
antagonis$ and !honiness !redicts dislike as a role-$odel+ "urther$ore9 i$$orality is a
signi#icant !redictor o# antagonis$+ I$!lications o# the results 8ere discussed+
I Loathe Thee 3
I Loathe Thee: A Study on the Dislike
The acti&ity o# talking a)out oneBs dislike is co$$on !lace9 8hether it )e in co##ee sho!s9
co$$uter &ehicles and dining ta)les+ While it is al$ost al8ays !art o# con&ersation to!ics9
talking a)out 8ho9 8hy and ho8 $uch one dislikes a !erson is $ostly done in hushed tones and
a8ay #ro$ !u)lic consu$!tion+ While intriguing in itsel#9 !eo!le o!t to study liking and
attraction instead9 and si$!le gla?e on the to!ic o# dislike+ As such9 &ery #e8 ha&e studied the
!heno$enon o# disliking in and )y itsel#+
Tho$as and -oung ;1605= sur&eyed traits that 8ere the $ost identi#ied reasons #or liking
and disliking so$eone+ "ro$ a sa$!le o# 474 college undergraduates9 their results sho8 that
conceit9 sel#-centeredness9 sel#ishness9 dishonesty9 unintelligence9 deceit#ulness9 ill-
te$!eredness9 )eing o&er)earing9 and loudness are the $ost $entioned traits #or disliking a
!erson+ The study also suggested that9 to so$e e@tent9 !eo!le dislike others #or the a)sence o# the
traits they do like or the !resence o# traits o!!osite o# those that they like9 such as stu!idity as the
o!!osite o# intelligence+ %oreo&er9 8o$en in !articular9 are disliked )ecause o# gossi!ing9 )eing
silly9 talkati&e9 inconsiderate9 hy!ocritical9 i$$oral and unattracti&e+ Whereas9 $en 8ere
disliked )ecause o# )eing un$annerly9 )oast#ul9 $eddleso$e9 and narro8-$inded+ The study
#urther suggested that !eo!le ha&e tendencies to dislike others o# the sa$e se@ due to e@!osure
and (uantity9 and like !ersons o# the o!!osite se@ due to a##ection and se@ual #actors+
Another study )y Hayes in 1675 a$ong !reschoolers 8as done to disco&er reasons #or
liking and disliking in children+ He #ound that rule &iolation9 aggression9 and a)errant )eha&ior
8ere reasons o# disliking 8hile !ro!in(uity9 co$$on acti&ities9 general !lay9 e&aluation and
!hysical !ossessions 8ere )ases #or liking #riends+ Hayes ;1675= #ound that children are Cnot
highly idiosyncratic in their reasons for disliking and suggested that the re&erse o# the reasons
I Loathe Thee :
#or liking and the o!!osite di$ensions on 8hich #riendshi!s are #or$ed 8ere in #act not the
reasons #or disliking+ He suggested that9 e&en at this age9 there is already cogniti&e )ases #or
disliking other !eo!le+
Light of the Star
The Star %atri@ is considered a tool used to #acilitate a gli$!se into oneBs su)jecti&e
reality in the ho!es o# gaining dee!er sel#-a8areness9 intros!ection and re#lection ;,ulatao D
Dans- Lo!e?9 ./1/=+ It e@!lores oneBs su)conscious !rocesses )y !ro&iding nu$)ers that one can
reading $eanings into9 a)out their !ersonal relationshi!s ;,ulatao D Dans- Lo!e?9 ./1/=+ The
researchers explored the workings of their consciousness through their o8n Star %atrices and
8as $ade a8are o# their o8n !erson ty!es and relationshi! thinking !atterns that9 !re&iously9
8as not 8ithin their conscious a8areness+ Persons in oneBs li#e that one actually !ercei&es to
have a similar feel9 alike or al$ost the sa$e are $ade kno8n through the use o# correlations
;,ulatao D Dans- Lo!e?9 ./1/=+ A re&elation that $ade an i$!ression on the$ 8ere their results
on their Cdisliked !ersonE+ To the researchersB astonish$ent9 their Cdisliked !ersonsE correlated9
so$eti$es $oderately9 highly9 !ositi&ely or negati&ely9 to !eo!le closest to the$9 to the$sel&es
and e&en the sel&es they 8ant to )eco$e+ These enlightening results dro&e the researchers to
#urther study the Cdisliked !ersonE+
I Loathe Thee 4
Statements of the problem
This study ai$s to #ind !redictors o# identi#ication 8ith the Cdisliked !ersonE9 o# seeing
Cdisliked !ersonE as a role-$odel and or !redictors o# dislike as an antagonist+ S!eci#ically9 this
study addresses the #ollo8ing (uestions:
1+ Do !honiness9 en&y9 antagonis$9 lack o# credi)ility9 un#a$iliarity9 i$$orality and oneBs
shado8 !redict identi#ication 8ith the dislikeF
.+ Do !honiness9 en&y9 antagonis$9 lack o# credi)ility9 un#a$iliarity9 i$$orality and oneBs
shado8 !redict seeing the dislike as a role-$odelF
0+ Do !honiness9 en&y9 lack o# credi)ility9 un#a$iliarity9 i$$orality and oneBs shado8 !redict
seeing the dislike as the antagonistF
Method
Participants
Taking !art in the study 8ere 1.: adults9 .: to 33 years old ;$ean age < 0/ yrs oldG SD <
:+1:=+ '# these9 04H 8ere $ale and the rest 8ere #e$ale+ %ost o# the res!ondents 8ere single
;74H=9 8hile .1+4H 8ere $arried and the rest 8ere se!arated or di&orced + %ost attained
college le&el education ;40+.H= 8hile a good nu$)er reached graduate le&el ;.4+3H %astersG
:+4H Doctorate=+ All !artici!ants 8ere "ili!ino e@ce!t #or one A$erican and one "ili!ino-
A$erican+ %ost o# the res!ondents 8ere 1atholics ;70+4H= and the re$aining co$!rised o#
other religious !re#erence such as 1hristian Protestant9 Agnostic9 ,uddhist and no religion+
Measures
%ajority o# the res!ondents ;55+5H= o!ted to ans8er the online sur&ey9 8hile the rest
!artici!ated using !a!er-and-!en sur&ey+ The (uestionnaire can )e #inished in 1/ to 1: $inutes+
I Loathe Thee 7
The sur&ey is introduced )rie#ly as $erely a study on !erce!tion then #ollo8ed )y a instruction
to think o# a !articular disliked !erson+ The #ollo8ing general descri!tion o# the disliked 8as
gi&en: You may have feelings of animosity, irritation, or anger with this person or perhaps you
simply have ill feelings toward this person You may !ust consider the person that first came to
mind after reading the instructions The res!ondents 8ere re$inded that there are no right and
8rong ans8ers9 and con#identiality and anony$ity 8ere e$!hasi?ed in the instructions+
Star "atrix ;,ulatao D Dans-Lo!e?9 ./1/=+ Section A o# the sur&ey is the Star %atri@9 a
chart consisting o# 04 traits+ It is used to !ortray inner !rocesses in indi&idual consciousness+
Partici!ants 8ere asked to rate the a!!lica)ility o# the 04 traits on their sel# and their ideal sel#
and then #inally to the !erson they dislike+ Deri&ed #ro$ the Star %atri@ ratings 8ere
identi#ication 8ith the disliked and seeing the dislike as oneBs role-$odel+ The PearsonBs
correlation o# the ratings o# the sel# and the disliked !erson is then the identi#ication 8ith the
dislike9 8hile the PearsonBs correlation o# the ratings o# the ideal sel# and the disliked !erson is
then the disliked as the role $odel+
#he $%& '$erson one &islikes( )uestionnaire+ Section , o# the sur&ey is co$!osed o#
05 state$ents !ertaining to dislike+ The P'D *uestionnaire is co$!osed o# .7 sel#-$ade
state$ents9 and nine ada!ted state$ents9 si@ o# 8hich 8ere ada!ted #ro$ A)ril and Do$ingo
;nd=9 and three #ro$ Lacuesta and %ercado ;nd=+ To a&oid con#usion #ro$ the !artici!ants9
the (uestionnaire is also a 4-!oint Likert (uestionnaire 8ith 1-no no no9 .- no no9 0-no9 3- yes9 :-
yes yes and 4-yes yes yes+ The P'D consists o# se&en internally relia)le #actors or su)scales ;see
Ta)le 1= such as !honiness9 antagonis$9 lack o# credi)ility9 en&y9 i$$orality9 shado89 and
#a$iliarity+
I Loathe Thee 5
&emographics+ At the end o# the (uestionnaire9 !artici!ants 8ere asked to #ill-out a
De$ogra!hic (uestionnaire consisting o# age9 gender9 nationality9 ci&il status9 religious
!re#erence9 e$!loy$ent and educational )ackground+
Procedure
$rocedure for Scale *onstruction
A#ter deciding on the to!ic9 dislike9 8e Ithe researchersJ gathered t8o !re&ious studies
a)out dislike ;A)ril D Do$ingo9 ndG Lacuesta D %ercado9 nd= and decided to include in our o8n
scale construction the ite$s #ro$ the #actors that 8ere !redicti&e o# identi#ication 8ith the dislike
and dislike as a role-$odel in the t8o !re&ious studies+ These #actors include ad$iration
;e+g+9CThe &alues o# disliked are good ones to li&e )yE=9 de!enda)ility ;e+g+9 CI can count on
disliked to deli&erE=9 closeness ;e+g+9 CDisliked kno8s $e 8ellE=9 and )ossiness ;e+g+9 CDisliked
)ullies $eE=+ Then9 8e added our o8n ite$s that !ertain to disliked+
$rocedure of data+gathering
Partici!ants 8ere recruited through con&enience and sno8)all sa$!ling using )oth !a!er-
and-!en and online sur&ey $ethods+
In the online sur&ey9 !artici!ants 8ere sourced &ia e-$ail addresses and through social
net8orking contacts in !lat#or$s such as "ace)ook and T8itter+ The link to the sur&ey 8ere then
sent together 8ith a $essage to online !artici!ants through electronic $ail9 as 8ell as !ersonal
$essage in social net8orks+ An announce$ent a)out the need #or !artici!ants #or the sur&ey 8as
also !osted in "ace)ook and T8itter+ A si$!le $essage o# gratitude 8as included in the sur&ey
a#ter !artici!ants su)$it their #or$s+ The !artici!ants 8ere also re(uested to s!read the link to
their contacts+
I Loathe Thee 6
In the !a!er and !en sur&ey9 !artici!ants 8ere selected )ased on age and 8ere gi&en the
sur&ey 8ith the instruction to return the sur&ey a#ter they #inished ans8ering it+
Data Analysis
To deter$ine the &alidity and the relia)ility o# the #actors on the de&elo!ed P'D
(uestionnaire9 a !rinci!al co$!onent #actor analysis and relia)ility analysis8ere e$!loyed+ In
addition9 a Ste!8ise %ulti!le Regression is utili?ed to deter$ine the !redictors o# the
identi#ication 8ith the disliked9 disliked as the role $odel9 and disliked as the antagonist+
Results
,xploratory -actor .nalysis /esults
Princi!al co$!onents e@traction 8ith o)li(ue rotation 8as !er#or$ed through SPSS
#actor analysis on 05 ite$s o# the researchersB de&elo!ed (uestionnaire #or a sa$!le o# 1.:+
Initially9 8e !er#or$ed a !rinci!al co$!onent e@traction 8ith orthogonal rotation9 ho8e&er9 it
resulted to a less inter!reta)le #actors co$!ared to the out!ut 8e deri&ed #ro$ our #inal #actor
analysis+ Preli$inary analysis also re&ealed so$e #actor correlations greater than +0.9 thus
o)li(ue rotation 8as e$!loyed+ The sa$e e@traction 8as also e$!loyed to esti$ate nu$)er o#
#actors9 and #actora)ility o# the correlation $atrices+ Initial results sho8 that ite$ no+ 6 ;CI a&oid
disliked+E= has the lo8est co$$unality o# +.679 thus the researchers decided to delete it+
Ta)le 1 sho8s the loadings o# &aria)les on #actors9 co$$unalities and !ercents o#
&ariance+ Kine #actors 8ere e@tracted+ As indicated in the relia)ility analysis9 si@ out o# the nine
#actors 8ere internally consistent and 8ell de#ined )y the &aria)les ;"actor 1: Phoniness9 "actor
.: An&y9 "actor 0: Antagonis$9 "actor 3: Lack o# 1redi)ility9 "actor :: "a$iliarity9 "actor 7:
I$$orality=+ "actor 3 Clack o# credi)ilityE is the #actor 8here ite$s #ro$ the Cde!enda)ilityE and
I Loathe Thee 1/
Cad$irationE o# !re&ious studies a)out dislike loaded ;A)ril D Do$ingoG Lacuesta D %ercado=+
We decided to na$e "actor #our as Clack o# credi)ilityE )ecause it ca!tures )oth the o!!osite o#
Cde!enda)ilityE and Cad$irationE as!ects and these 8ere the ite$s that 8e originally decided to
)e the re&erse ite$s+ The ada!ted &aria)les #ro$ the #actor )ossiness o# the dislike study o#
Lacuesta and %ercado ;nd=9 loaded in the !resent studyBs #actor Cantagonis$E9 8hereas the
&aria)les ada!ted #ro$ #actor CclosenessE o# the dislike study o# A)ril and Do$ingo ;nd= loaded
in the !resent studyBs #actor C#a$iliarityE+ "urther$ore9 the ninth #actor9 Cshado8E9 yielded an
al!ha o# +3/+ Since 8e Ithe researchersJ are highly interested on the i$!ortance o# Cshado8E into
the disliking !heno$enon9 8e re$o&ed &aria)le no+05 ;CI think Disliked )elongs to $y
night$are+E= to increase the relia)ility o# this #actor to +4/9 and to include it in the regression
analysis+ With a cuto## o# +3: #or inclusion o# a &aria)le in the inter!retation o# a #actor9 ite$s 59
:9 109 049 and .3 did not load on any #actor9 thus 8e deleted these #i&e ite$s into the regression
analysis+ The &aria)le 1/ CDisliked kno8s $e 8ellE loaded on #actors : ;C"a$iliarityE= and 5
;CDis$ayaE=+ This 8as ignored and &aria)le 1/ CDislike kno8s $e 8ellE 8as !laced into the
#actor 8here it loaded the higherL#a$iliarity+ Maria)les are ordered and grou!ed )y si?e o#
loading to #acilitate inter!retation+
In su$$ary9 out o# the nine #actors e@tracted on the Dislike (uestionnaire9 only se&en
#actors ha&e acce!ta)le relia)ility9 thus these 8ere the #actors entered in the regression analysis+
These are !honiness ;e+g+9 Disliked acts di##erently 8ith other !eo!le=9 en&y ;e+g+9 I 8ant 8hat
disliked has+=9 antagonis$ ;e+g+9 I #eel like disliked )ullies $e=9 lack o# credi)ility ;e+g+9I ad$ire
ho8 disliked deals 8ith li#eBs !ro)le$s=9 #a$iliarity ;e+g+9 Disliked and I share &ery little
in#or$ation to each other=9 i$$orality ;e+g+9 So$e o# DislikedBs ideas are #oul= and shado8 ;e+g+9
I 8orry that I a$ )eco$ing like dislike=+
I Loathe Thee 11
Table 1 Factor Loadings, Communalities (h
2
), and % of Variance for Principal Factors Etraction
and !bli"ue #otation
F1 F2 F$ F% F& F' F( F) F* h
2
$2+ ,-.L-/E, acts differentl0 1it2 different people+ +)*2 +)&
$3+ - t2in4 ,-.L-/E, is plastic+ +)&( +)%
$1+ ,-.L-/E, is inconsistent+ +)2) +(*
2*+ ,-.L-/E, is pretending to be someone 2e5s2e is not+ +'** +'(
$$+ - can ne6er seem to see sincerit0 in ,-.L-/Es actions+ +'*' +'*
23+ - 1ant 12at ,-.L-/E, 2as+ +)2) +()
21+ - stri6e to reac2 t2e status of ,-.L-/E+ +(22 +(1
1*+ - compare m0self to ,-.L-/E,+ +')* +&1
)+ .eeing ,-.L-/E, brings me peace+7 +'$
2+ - feel li4e ,-.L-/E, bullies me+ 8+)(1 +(%
%+ - feel li4e ,-.L-/E, steps on me+ 8+)&) +)1
$+ ,-.L-/E, gi6es me unreasonable criticisms+ 8+(*) +')
1+ ,-.L-/E, epects me to obe0 2is52er orders+ 8+((& +'&
(+ 9ust t2e t2oug2t of ,-.L-/E, ruins m0 da0+ 8+&$* +''
&+ ,-.L-/E, ma4es m0 blood boil+ +'&
1&+ - admire 2o1 ,-.L-/E, deals 1it2 life:s problems+7 +(1( +(1
1'+ - can count on ,-.L-/E, to deli6er+7 +'($ +(&
1)+ -f gi6en a c2ance to 1or4 1it2 ,-.L-/E,, - 1ould a6oid
assigning important tas4s to 2im52er+7
8+'2
2
+'$
12+ T2e 6alues of ,-.L-/E, are good ones to li6e b0+7 +&(2 +&1
1%+ ,-.L-/E, is t2e t0pe of person - loo4 up to+7 +&%& +($
1$+ -t is a mista4e to follo1 ,-.L-/E,:s eamples+ +'%
11+ ,-.L-/E, and - s2are 6er0 little information to eac2
ot2er+
8+($(
+'1
$(+ T2at - mig2t one da0 li6e li4e ,-.L-/E, frig2tens me+ 8+'%3 +'1
13+ ,-.L-/E, 4no1s me 1ell+ +&'% +%'* +($
$'+ - can ne6er accept t2at - am e"uated to ,-.L-/E,+ +&'
2$+ !ne da0, - 1ill surpass ,-.L-/E+ 8+)3) +(1
'+ - 2a6e no reason to be angr0 1it2 ,-.L-/E,+ +&&' +')
2(+ .ome of ,-.L-/E;s ideas are foul+ +)&& +()
2'+ - am disgusted b0 some of t2e acts of ,-.L-/E,+ +('* +($
2)+ - t2in4 ,-.L-/E corrupts ot2er people+ +''' +('
2&+ ,-.L-/E, does t2ings t2at - consider immoral+ +&*3 +&$
Table 1 Factor Loadings, Communalities (h
2
), and % of
Variance for Principal Factors Etraction and
!bli"ue #otation (continuation)
F1 F2 F$ F% F& F' F( F) F* h
2
I Loathe Thee 1.
2%+ ,-.L-/E, lac4s integrit0+ +(2
1(+ T2e 1a0 ,-.L-/E, performs disappoints me+ +(2* +')
22+ -t irritates me 12en - see t2e ac2ie6ements of ,-.L-/E+ +&)& +'*
$%+ - 1orr0 t2at - am becoming li4e ,-.L-/E,+ +'13 +''
$)+ - t2in4 ,-.L-/E belongs in m0 nig2tmares+ +&%1 +'$
$&+ -t surprises me t2at - am capable of doing t2ings
,-.L-/E, does+
+%($
+(1
Cronbac2:s alp2a +*1 +(' +(' +)' +&% +$' +'3 +%& +'3
% of Variance 2(+$3
13+3
1
)+%1 &+1$ %+)* $+() $+%$ $+1( $+3'
Pattern Matrix
a
Factor Labels<
F1 = P2oniness>
F2 = En60>
F$ = ?ntagonism>
F % = Lac4 of Credibilit0>
F & = Familiarit0>
F' = Competiti6eness>
F( = -mmoralit0>
F) = @,isma0aA>
F* = .2ado1
Etraction Bet2od< Principal Component ?nal0sis+ #e6erse -tems
#otation Bet2od< !blimin 1it2 /aiser CormaliDation> a+ #otation con6erged in 2$ iterations> *reverse items
"ultiple /egression /esults
Ta)le . sho8s the descri!ti&e statistic and correlation o# #actors and de!endent &aria)les+
Preli$inary analysis sho8s that the three DMs used in this study are not ske8ed and that en&y
#a$iliarity9 and shado8 8ere not correlated to any o# the DMs so these three 8ere not included in
the regression analysis+
I Loathe Thee 10
Table 2 ,escripti6e statistics and correlation of factors and dependent 6ariables
.4e1ness r 1it2 ,V
1
r 1it2 ,V
2
r 1it2
,V
$
Bean ., .tatistic .td+
Error
?ntagonism $+)3 1+1% 8+1' +22 8+1(7 8+2)77 =
En60
a
2+1$ 3+*( +'2 +22 +3* +11 8+11
Familiarit0 %+3) 1+3& +3( +22 8+31 8+3& +1$
-mmoralit0
a
%+2' 1+&3 $+$' +22
8+3' 8+1*7 +
$2777
P2oniness
b
%+%1 1+11 8+$% +22 8+3* 8+2$77 +217
.2ado1
a
2+&% 1+1% +%& +22 +3* 8+3( +3)
Lac4 of Credibilit0 %+'% 3+*' +3$ +22 8+1)7 8+2277 +1(7
-dentification 1it2 t2e
disli4e
83+12 3+$( +23 +22
= +
'*777
8+1(
,isli4e as a role8model 83+21 3+%1 +1' +22 +'*777 = 8+2)77
N E 12&, 7pF+3&, 77p F +31, 777pF+331> ,V
1
E identification 1it2 t2e disli4e, ,V
2
E disli4e as role8model, ,V
$
E antagonism> positi6el0 s4e1ed
a
> negati6el0 s4e1ed
b
>
/esearch )uestion 01 Do !honiness9 en&y9 antagonis$9 lack o# credi)ility9 un#a$iliarity9
i$$orality and oneBs shado8 !redict identi#ication 8ith the dislikeF
A ste!8ise $ulti!le regression 8as e$!loyed to deter$ine i# lack o# credi)ility and
antagonis$ 8ill !redict identi#ication 8ith the dislike+ Analysis 8as !er#or$ed using SPSS
RA>RASSI'K and SPSS ANPL'RA #or e&aluation o# assu$!tions+
Results o# e&aluation o# assu$!tions re&ealed that no trans#or$ation 8as needed )ecause
the de!endent &aria)le identi#ication 8ith the dislike is not ske8ed ;OSke8ness is /+6.=+ Arrors
8ere nor$ally distri)uted )ecause residuals a!!ro@i$ate a nor$al cur&e9 all !oints on the
nor$al !ro)a)ility !lot a!!ro@i$ately lie on the line and the scotter!lot re&ealed that dots 8ere
e&enly dis!ersed around ?ero+ The !redictor &aria)les are integers and !redictors ha&e no
&ariances o# ?ero+ Ko outliers a$ong the cases 8ere identi#ied in the case8ise diagnostics+ There
is ho$oscedasticity )ecause the )and enclosing the residuals is a!!ro@i$ately e(ual in 8idth at
all &alues o# !redicted identi#ication 8ith the dislike+ There is also linearity )ecause the o&erall
I Loathe Thee 13
sha!e o# the dots on the residual scotter!lot is not cur&ed+ A$ong the #actors deri&ed #ro$ the
#actor analysis9 only lack o# credi)ility and antagonis$ 8ere used in testing the !redictors o#
identi#ication 8ith the dislike )ecause these t8o #actors 8ere the only #actors that correlated 8ith
the identi#ication 8ith the dislike+ 1orrelation analysis a$ong &aria)les re&ealed that lack o#
credi)ility and antagonis$ ha&e correlations o# not greater than +5/ 8ith the identi#ication 8ith
the dislike9 thus there is an a)sence o# $ulticollinearity ;see Ta)le .=+ Lastly9 there is an ade(uate
sa$!le si?e ;K<1.:=+ "ield ;./1/= suggested that 1/ or 1: cases !er !redictor are ade(uate !er
one !redictor+ '&erall9 all regression re(uire$ents 8ere $et indicating that generali?ation can )e
dra8n #ro$ the regression results #or the result o# the #irst hy!othesis+
Ta)le 0 dis!lays the unstandardi?ed regression coe##icients ;2=9 the standard error
coe##icient ;S, 2=9 the standardi?ed regression coe##icient ;3=9 and the /
.
+ / #or regression is
signi#icantly di##erent #ro$ ?ero9 -;19 1.0= < 0+649 p P +/:9 8ith /
.
at +/019 8hich indicates that
0+1H o# the &ariance o# the identi#ication 8ith the dislike is e@!lained )y lack o# credi)ility+
Lack o# credi)ility is a signi#icant negati&e !redictor o# identi#ication 8ith the sel# ;3 < -+15=+ The
si?e and direction o# the relationshi! suggest that the less lack o# credi)ility the dislike a!!eared
to )e9 the $ore the identi#ication 8ith the dislike is+ "urther$ore9 antagonis$ is not a !redictor
o# identi#ication 8ith the dislike+
Table 3 Predictors of -dentification 1it2 t2e ,isli4ed
B SE B
.tep 1
Lac4 of Credibilit0 83+3( 3+3$ 8+1)7
Cote< R
2
E +3$1, 7pF+3&+
/esearch )uestion 41 Do !honiness9 en&y9 antagonis$9 lack o# credi)ility9 un#a$iliarity9
i$$orality and oneBs shado8 !redict seeing the dislike as a role-$odelF
I Loathe Thee 1:
A ste!8ise $ulti!le regression 8as conducted to deter$ine i# lack o# credi)ility9
i$$orality9 !honiness and antagonis$ 8ill !redict dislike as the role-$odel+ Analysis 8as
!er#or$ed using SPSS RA>RASSI'K and SPSS ANPL'RA #or e&aluation o# assu$!tions+
Si$ilar to the #irst hy!othesis9 results o# e&aluation o# assu$!tions re&ealed that no
trans#or$ation 8as needed )ecause the de!endent &aria)le dislike as a role-$odel is not ske8ed
;OSke8ness is /+7.=+ Although the IMs i$$orality is !ositi&ely ske8ed and !honiness is
negati&ely ske8ed9 these 8ere not trans#or$ed+ "urther$ore9 errors 8ere nor$ally distri)uted
)ecause residuals a!!ro@i$ate a nor$al cur&e9 all !oints on the nor$al !ro)a)ility !lot
a!!ro@i$ately lie on the line and the scotter!lot re&ealed that dots 8ere e&enly dis!ersed around
?ero+ The !redictor &aria)les are integers and !redictors ha&e no &ariances o# ?ero+ Ko outliers
a$ong the cases 8ere identi#ied in the case8ise diagnostics+ There is ho$oscedasticity )ecause
the )and enclosing the residuals is a!!ro@i$ately e(ual in 8idth at all &alues o# !redicted dislike
as a role-$odel+ There is also linearity )ecause the o&erall sha!e o# the dots on the residual
scotter!lot is not cur&ed+ A$ong the #actors deri&ed #ro$ the #actor analysis9 only i$$orality9
!honiness9 lack o# credi)ility and antagonis$ 8ere used in testing the !redictors o# dislike as a
role-$odel )ecause these #our #actors 8ere the only #actors 8hich correlated 8ith the dislike as a
role-$odel+ 1orrelation analysis a$ong &aria)les re&ealed that i$$orality9 !honiness9 lack o#
credi)ility and antagonis$ ha&e correlations 8ith the dislike as a role-$odel o# not greater than +
5/9 thus there is an a)sence o# $ulticollinearity ;see Ta)le .=+ Lastly9 there is an ade(uate sa$!le
si?e ;K<1.:=+ "ield suggested that 1/ or 1: cases !er !redictor are ade(uate !er one !redictor+
'&erall9 all regression re(uire$ents 8ere $et indicating that generali?ation can )e dra8n #ro$
the regression results #or the result o# the second hy!othesis+
Ta)le 0 dis!lays the unstandardi?ed regression coe##icients ;2=9 the standard error
coe##icient ;S, 2=9 the standardi?ed regression coe##icient ;3=9 and the /
.
+ / #or regression 8as
I Loathe Thee 14
signi#icantly di##erent #ro$ ?ero at the end o# each ste!9 -;.9 1..= < 7+659 p < +//1+ At ste! 19
8ith the IMs ;antagonis$9 i$$orality9 lack o# credi)ility and !honiness= entered in the e(uation9
/
.
is at +/749 8hich indicates that 7+4H o# the &ariance o# dislike as a role-$odel is e@!lained )y
antagonis$9 -inc;19 1.0= < 1/+/69 p < +//.+ A#ter ste! .9 8ith !honiness added to !rediction o#
dislike as a role-$odel9 /
.
is at +/019 8hich indicates that 0+1H increased in &ariance o# the
dislike as a role-$odel is accounted to the co$)ined !redicta)ility o# antagonis$ and !honiness+
The results indicate that the strongest !redictor o# dislike as a role-$odel is antagonis$9 < -+.39
#ollo8ed )y !honiness9 < -+15+ Antagonis$ is a signi#icant negati&e 8eak !redictor o# dislike
as a role $odel 8hich i$!lies that the less 8e !ercei&e dislike as an antagonist9 the $ore 8e
!ercei&e the dislike as a role-$odel+ Si$ilarly9 the signi#icant negati&e 8eak !rediction o#
!honiness to dislike as a role-$odel indicates that the less 8e !ercei&e dislike as !hony9 the $ore
8e !ercei&e dislike as a role-$odel+
Table % Predictors of ,isli4ed as #ole8Bodel
B SE B
.tep 1
(Constant) 3+1' 3+12
?ntagonism 83+13 3+3$ 8+2)7
.tep 2
(Constant) 3+%3 3+1(
?ntagonism 83+3* 3+3$ 8+2%7
P2oniness 83+3( 3+3$ 8+1)77
Note: R
2
= .076 for Step1 , R
2
= .031 for Step2. *p <.01, **p<.05.
/esearch )uestion 51 Do !honiness9 en&y9 lack o# credi)ility9 un#a$iliarity9 i$$orality and oneBs
shado8 !redict seeing the dislike as the antagonistF
I Loathe Thee 17
Lastly9 a ste!8ise $ulti!le regression 8as conducted to deter$ine i# lack o# credi)ility9
i$$orality9 and !honiness 8ill !redict antagonis$+ Analysis 8as !er#or$ed using SPSS
RA>RASSI'K and SPSS ANPL'RA #or e&aluation o# assu$!tions+
Si$ilar to the #irst t8o hy!otheses9 results o# e&aluation o# assu$!tions re&ealed that no
trans#or$ation 8as needed )ecause the de!endent &aria)le antagonis$ is not ske8ed
;OSke8ness is /+7.=+ Although the IMs i$$orality is !ositi&ely ske8ed and !honiness is
negati&ely ske8ed9 these 8ere not trans#or$ed+ "urther$ore9 errors 8ere nor$ally distri)uted
)ecause residuals a!!ro@i$ate a nor$al cur&e9 all !oints on the nor$al !ro)a)ility !lot
a!!ro@i$ately lie on the line and the scotter!lot re&ealed that dots 8ere e&enly dis!ersed around
?ero+ The !redictor &aria)les are integers and !redictors ha&e no &ariances o# ?ero+ Ko outliers
a$ong the cases 8ere identi#ied in the case8ise diagnostics+ There is ho$oscedasticity )ecause
the )and enclosing the residuals is a!!ro@i$ately e(ual in 8idth at all &alues o# !redicted
antagonis$+ There is also linearity )ecause the o&erall sha!e o# the dots on the residual
scotter!lot is not cur&ed+ A$ong the #actors deri&ed #ro$ the #actor analysis9 only lack o#
credi)ility9 i$$orality and !honiness 8ere used in testing the !redictors o# antagonis$ )ecause
these #our #actors correlated 8ith antagonis$+ 1orrelation analysis a$ong &aria)les re&ealed that
lack o# credi)ility9 i$$orality9 and !honiness ha&e correlations o# not greater than +5/ 8ith the
dislike as a role-$odel9 thus there is an a)sence o# $ulticollinearity ;see Ta)le .=+ Lastly9 there is
an ade(uate sa$!le si?e ;K<1.:=+ "ield suggested that 1/ or 1: cases !er !redictor are ade(uate
!er one !redictor+ '&erall9 all regression re(uire$ents 8ere $et indicating that generali?ation
can )e dra8n #ro$ the regression results #or the result o# the third hy!othesis+
Ta)le 0 !resents the unstandardi?ed regression coe##icients ;2=9 the standard error
coe##icient ;S, 2=9 the standardi?ed regression coe##icient ;3=9 and the /
.
+ / #or regression 8as
signi#icantly di##erent #ro$ ?ero9 -19 1.0= < 13+139 p P +//19 8ith /
.
at +1/09 8hich indicates that
I Loathe Thee 15
1/+0H o# the &ariance o# antagonis$ is e@!lained )y i$$orality+ I$$orality is a signi#icant
!ositi&e 8eak !redictor o# identi#ication 8ith the sel# ;3 < +0.=+ The si?e and direction o# the
relationshi! suggest that the $ore i$$oral dislike a!!eared to )e9 the $ore antagonistic 8e
!ercei&e dislike is+
Table & Predictors of ?ntagonism
B SE B
.tep $
(Constant) 2+(' 3+2*
-mmoralit0 3+2& 3+3( +$27
Note: R
2
= .103 for Step1. *p< .001.
Discussion
Lack o# credi)ility as a !redictor o# identi#ication 8ith disliked is consistent 8ith
!re&ious studies+ Ad$iration and de!enda)ility 8ere #ound to )e signi#icant !redictors in
identi#ication 8ith disliked ;A)ril D Do$ingo9 Lacuesta D %ercado=+ Results #ro$ our study
sho8 that the $ore credi)le disliked is !ercei&ed9 the $ore one identi#ies 8ith disliked+ This can
)e related to a study done )y Wort$an and Wood ;./11= 8herein traits seen as likea)le are those
connected to )ene#itting others+ As such9 )eing !ercei&ed as so$eone a !erson can de!end on is
seen as a !ositi&e trait 8orth )eing identi#ied to+
Antagonis$ and !honiness !redict disliked as a role-$odel+ Pre&ious studies )y Lacuesta
and %ercado ;n+d= o# disliked as a role $odel sho8ed !erce!tion o# disliked as )ossy yet
de!enda)le+
Wording o# ite$s under antagonis$ $ay ha&e in#luenced this result+ "indings #ro$ a
study )y Leising9 'stro&ski and ,orkenau ;./1.= sho8ed that 8ords linked to action send a
I Loathe Thee 16
higher alert le&el to a !erson leading to disliking !erson associated 8ith that action+ Ite$s under
antagonis$ such as CDisliked ste!s on $eE and CDisliked )ullies $eE are e@a$!les o# this+ Thus
it is not sur!rising that lesser !erce!tion o# antagonis$ leads to increased !erce!tion o# disliked
as role $odel+ The antagonist as an authority #igure and so$eone de!enda)le $ay also !lay a
role )ehind these #actors !redicting the role-$odel as!ect+ According to ,arell and Qourard9
;1674=9 liking so$eone is highly correlated 8ith sel#-disclosure 8hich is associated 8ith honesty+
Thus9 a !erson a!!earing as #ake or !hony is likely to )e !ercei&ed as a disliked !erson and not
as a role $odel+
As the researchers re#lect on the !ersonal results o# their o8n Star %atri@9 they reali?ed
and con#ir$ed their s!eculations a)out their disliked !ersons+ While one cannot !re&ent other
!eo!le #ro$ disliking the$9 !erha!s )y )eing credi)le and a !erson 8ith integrity9 )y )eing kind
and sincere9 and )y u!holding the acce!ted &alues and $orals o# society9 one can so$eho8
$ini$i?e the negati&e i# not change !eo!leBs !erce!tion+ While they disliked !articular !ersons
#or so$e o# their (ualities9 the researchers so$eho8 still see the$sel&es in their dislike9
!articularly those that sho8 credi)ility through de!enda)ility and u!holding o# &alues+
Additionally9 the researchers reali?ed that9 at so$e le&el9 they desire as!ects o# their dislike and
see their dislike as !ositi&e e@e$!lars9 es!ecially 8hen these !eo!le sho8s kindness and
sincerity+ While so$e !eo!le are disliked )ecause o# their antagonistic (ualities9 the researchers
also reali?ed that the i$$oral thoughts and )eha&iors can )e attri)uted to dislikeBs and can augur
antagonis$9 e&en 8hen not directly i$!acting the researchers+ "urther re#lection o# the
researchers suggest that9 dee! inside9 disliking another #or their i$$orality is )orn out o# #ear o#
the dislike in#luencing other8ise $oral and u!right !eo!le9 as 8ell as #ear that dislikeBs thoughts
and )eha&ior are actually re#lection o# the researcherBs o8n shortco$ings and tendencies+
I Loathe Thee ./
Results sho8 that antagonis$ is not a !redictor o# dislike+ The researchers )elie&e that
there could t8o $ain 8ays o# disliking a !erson: direct and indirect+ The #irst one !ertains to
disliking a !erson )ecause the !erson has )een antagonistic to the other !erson ;direct disliking=+
The indirect disliking $ay !ertain to the tendency to dislike the !erson )ecause 8e are a#raid that
8e are )eco$ing like dislike+ The #irst result suggests that lack o# credi)ility contri)ute
signi#icantly to the identi#ication 8ith the dislike+ The identi#ication 8ith the dislike could )e a
result o# seeing the ad$ira)le characteristics o# dislike such as )eing de!enda)le+
Summary
In su$$ary9 #or identi#ication 8ith sel# only lack o# credi)ility is a signi#icant !redictor+
Antagonis$ and !honiness !redicts dislike as a role $odel and antagonis$ as a de!endent
&aria)le is !redicted )y i$$orality+
Limitations and Recommendations
Li$itations o# the study includes the sa$!le si?e ; K<1.:= used+ Res!ondents in the
sur&ey also had a 8ide age range #ro$ .: R 33 years old+ 1ritical e&ents such as $iddle age
crisis s!eci#ic to an age grou! $ay ha&e in#luenced !erce!tion o# disliked+
To increase indicators and !ossi)ly the strength o# !redicta)ility o# the #actors9 addition
o# ne8 &aria)les is reco$$ended+ Ke8 &aria)les such as si$ilarity or di##erence o# res!ondentBs
gender 8ith !erson one dislikes can )e included+ A rando$ sa$!ling $ethod o# a larger sa$!le
si?e #or each age grou! that is )ased on de&elo!$ental stages can also )e done to e@!lore ho8
dislike is seen across age grou!s+ "urther i$!ro&e$ents on the !hrasing o# so$e o# the (uestions
I Loathe Thee .1
$ay )e done9 to decrease social desira)ility res!onding and other res!onse distortion and
$ini$i?e de#ensi&eness o# the res!onder+ Testing #or $ediation can also )e done a$ong
constructs o# dislike to account #or the co$!le@ nature )ehind disliking a !erson+
I Loathe Thee ..
References
A)ril9 R+9 D Do$ingo9 %+ ;n+d+=+ $redictors of identification with disliked
and disliked as role model Psychology De!art$ent9 Ateneo de %anila ni&ersity
,arell9 Q+ D Qourard9 S+ ;1674=+ ,eing honest 8ith !erson 8e like+ 6ournal of 7ndividual
$sychology, 54 '4(, 089+0:5
,ulatao9 Q+1+ D Dans-Lo!e?9 >+ ./1/+ *onsciousness mapping1 ,xploring your relationships
through the Star "atrix *ue?on 1ity9 Phili!!ines: Ateneo De %anila ni&ersity Press
"ield9 A+ ;./1/=+ &iscovering Statistics ;sing S$SS+ 1ali#ornia: Sage Pu)lications Ltd+
Dans-Lo!e?9 >+ ;.//4=+ Structural si$ilarities a$ong signi#icant others and ac(uaintances:
%easura)leF $hilippine 6ournal of $sychology, 5:
Hayes ;1675=+ 1ogniti&e )ases #or liking and disliking a$ong !reschool children+ *hild
&evelopment, <:, 6/4-6/6+
Lacuesta9 A+ D %ercado9 Q+ ;nd=+ "e vs =1 . study of love, hate, the self, and the other
Psychology De!art$ent9 Ateneo de %anila ni&ersity
Leising9 D+9 'stro&ski9 '+ D ,orkenau9 P+;./1.=+ Moca)ulary o# descri)ing liked !ersons is $ore
di##erentiated than &oca)ulary o# descri)ing liked !ersons+ 6ournal of /esearch in
$ersonality,<>, 5:5+5:>
Tho$as9 W+9 " D -oung9 P+ T+;1605=+ Liking and disliking !ersons+ 6ournal of Social
$sychology, :, 146-155+
Wort$an9 Q+ D Wood9 D+;./11=+ The !ersonality traits o# liked !eo!le+ 6ournal of /esearch in
$ersonality, <9, :16-:.5+