Available online at:
https://cc.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/cc%3Apsycjournal

J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.
Submitted Fall 2021; accepted June 2022.

What Factors Influence the Way We See Ourselves?
Authors: Allison Macrae* and Ty Smith
Supervising Instructor: Michael Pollock, Psyc 110 (“Experimental Psychology”)
Department of Psychology, Camosun College, 3100 Foul Bay Road, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P 5J2
*Corresponding author email: sayhitoallison@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
In this paper, we sought to understand what factors influence our self-perception, so that we
could learn to better understand our own thinking, and how to better support others. Previous
research has predicted self-perception by variables such as masculinity, quiescent silence, and
time spent on social media. In our first (correlational) study, we tested the strength of these
relationships by examining naturalistic daily changes in their variables longitudinally over a oneweek period. We measured masculinity by rating on a 5-point scale, quiescent silence by
recording number of individual instances, time spent on social media by recording number of
minutes per day, perceived self-efficacy by rating on a 7-point scale, positive self-perception of
creativity by rating on a 5-point scale and negative self-perception on a 5-point scale. Based on
the strength of correlation found between quiescent silence and perceived self-efficacy in our
correlational study, we then conducted a second (experimental) study to test for a causal
relationship between these two variables. Over a one-week period, we assigned participants on
alternating days to either a quiescent silence condition or a natural voice condition and measured
the effect this manipulation had upon perceived self-efficacy using both self-rated and otherrated methods. While data pooled across participants in our correlational study showed no
correlation of any statistical significance between the variables, data pooled across participants in
our experimental study showed a significant effect of quiescent silence upon perceived selfefficacy. Our data suggests an ongoing relationship between quiescent silence and selfperception, one practical application of which may be methods of raising perceived self-efficacy
through speech and personal engagement.
1. Introduction
1.1 Research Problem
Our goal is to delve into uncovering what
factors influence our self-perception. As one
of the authors of this paper is a counselor
(A.M.), we were interested in studying what
affects our self-image and what ways we
have to influence those perceptions. We
wanted to be able to better support others in

developing clearer and more accurate
perceptions of themselves, and overcoming
unhealthy self-image. We were also
interested in learning how social media
affects the way we think of ourselves and
others, and why we tend to compare
ourselves to other people. We hoped to gain
better understanding of ourselves and how to
use that knowledge to support others.
1.2 Literature Review
303

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

One factor previously found to predict
self-perception is masculinity. For example,
in a correlational study survey by (Grosser et
al, 2021), participants in a contest of creative
skill (a gingerbread making competition)
were asked to rate their gender on a twopoint scale (0 = female, 1 = male) and to rate
their creative self-perception using a thirty
item adjective checklist. Respondents who
rated themselves as masculine were also
found to possess a higher level of creative
self-perception. Based on these results, the
researchers suggested that identifying as
male significantly predicted more positive
creative self-perception.
Another factor previously found to
predict self-perception is quiescent silence.
For example, in a correlational study survey
by (Chou & Chang, 2021), participants were
asked to rate, on a three item 7-point Likert
scale, how likely they were to stay silent or
withhold important information in a work
environment to protect themselves from
negative consequences: their quiescent
silence. They were also asked questions to
rate, on a seven item 7-point scale, their job
self-efficacy: how well they saw themselves
performing at their work. A higher level of
quiescent silence in a work environment was
found to correlate with lower job selfefficacy. Based on these results, the
researchers suggested that increased
quiescent silence significantly predicted
lower job self-efficacy.
A third factor previously found to predict
self-perception is social media. For example,
a study conducted by de Vries and Kuhne
(2015) examined the negative social
perception that arises from social media use.
Researchers asked participants to rate on a
five-point scale (5 = totally agree) their
agreement to the following two questions: 1.
if they thought that others had better lives
than them and 2. if they thought that others

were doing better than they were.
Researchers used another method using the
five point scale to measure social
competence and self appearance. The second
set of questions asked participants 1. if they
thought they had a lot of friends and 2. if
they were satisfied with the way they look.
To measure time spent on social media,
researchers used a five-point scale asking
the questions 1. I would be sorry if
Facebook shut down and 2. Facebook has
become part of my everyday activity.
Participants rated the degree to which they
agreed to the statements. The study found
that the more time people spent on social
media the more unhappy they became.
1.3 Hypotheses
Based on the above literature review, we
predicted the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis #1: If masculinity increases then
positive self-perception of creativity will
increase.
Hypothesis #2: If quiescent silence increases
then perceived self-efficacy will decrease.
Hypothesis #3: If time on social media
increases then negative self-perception will
increase.
2. Methods
2.1 Participants
The two authors of this paper served as
the participants in its studies. The
participants ranged in age from twenty-four
years old, with an average age of twentyeight years, and included one man and one
woman. The participants were all
undergraduate students at Camosun College
who completed the current studies as an
assignment for Psyc 110 (“Experimental
Psychology”) and were grouped together
304

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

due to their mutual interest in selfperception.
2.2 Correlational Study Methods
We first performed a correlational study
to test concurrently all of our hypotheses by
examining naturalistic daily changes in their
variables longitudinally. Each participant
kept a study journal with them at all times
over this study’s one-week period in order to
record self-observations of the following 6
variables: (1) quiescent silence, (2)
masculinity (3) time spent on social media,
(4) perceived self-efficacy, (5) positive selfperception of creativity, and (6) negative
self-perception.
2.2.1 Quiescent silence
To measure quiescent silence, each
participant recorded in their study journal
the number of times on each day of the study
that they engaged in quiescent silence. For
these records, quiescent silence was defined
as any opportunity a participant experienced
to engage in conversation, where they chose
not to engage out of fear of some negative
consequence. Negative consequences were
considered to be both external (e.g., fear of
being judged negatively or receiving lower
grades) and internal (e.g., embarrassment).
2.2.2 Masculinity
To measure masculinity, each participant
rated themselves on a 5-point Likert scale on
each day of the study. The possible values
on this scale ranged from “I do not feel
masculine” (a score of 1) to “I feel very
strongly masculine” (a score of 5). Each
participant referred to a shared list of 30
masculine traits as a reference for how
masculinity was defined for the purposes of
this study (see Appendix).
2.2.3 Time spent on social media
To measure time spent on social media,
each participant recorded in their study
journal how many minutes they engaged
with social media on each day of the study.

Social media was defined as any popular
social networking site, including Facebook,
Instagram, Snapchat and Tiktok.
2.2.4 Perceived self-efficacy
Perceived self-efficacy was measured
using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) on
each day of the study, responding to the
statement “I am effective at accomplishing
my goals”.
2.2.5 Positive self-perception of creativity
To measure positive self-perception of
creativity, each participant rated their
creativity on a 5-point Likert scale on each
day of the study. Possible responses ranged
from “Not creative at all” (a score of 1) to
“Extremely creative” (a score of 5).
2.2.6 Negative self-perception
To measure negative self perception, our
group members used a five point-scale to
measure how we were feeling about
ourselves that day. Participants recorded
their daily measurements from 0-4 for each
day of the week. 0-extremely satisfied with
how I feel about myself today 1-very
satisfied with how I feel about myself today
2-satisfied with how I feel about myself
today 3- somewhat satisfied with how I feel
about myself today 4-not satisfied with how
I feel about myself today.
2.3 Correlational Study Planned Analyses
To assess the strength and statistical
significance of associations between
variables predicted by our three hypotheses,
we performed Pearson product moment
correlations of their predictor variables
(quiescent silence, masculinity, and time
spent on social media) with their outcome
variables (perceived self-efficacy, positive
self-perception of creativity, and negative
self-perception). For testing Hypothesis #1,
we correlated total number of instances of
quiescent silence for each participant with
that participant’s score for how effective
305

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

they felt at achieving their goals that day.
For testing Hypothesis #2, we correlated
each participant’s self-reported feeling of
masculinity with that participant’s score for
how creative they felt that day. For testing
Hypothesis #3, we correlated the number of
minutes each participant spent on social
media that day with that participant’s score
for how they were feeling about themselves
that day. We performed all of the above
correlations separately for each participant
as well as using data pooled across all of the
participants. For the correlations using
pooled data, in addition to using the raw
data, we also performed correlations after
we had first transformed the data from each
participant into z-scores in order to
standardize differences in averages and
variability seen between the participants in
their data and thus make them more
comparable. A correlation coefficient was
considered statistically significant if the
probability of its random occurrence (p) was
< .05 (i.e., less than 5% of the time expected
by chance alone).
2.4 Experimental Study Methods
Based on the strength of the correlation
between quiescent silence and perceived
self-efficacy found in our correlational
study, we then chose to conduct an
experimental study to test for a causal
relationship between these two variables
from Hypothesis #1.
We manipulated the independent
variable, quiescent silence, over a one-week
period by assigning participants each day to
either a quiescent silence condition or a
natural voice condition using an alternating
ABAB design. On experimental days, each
participant performed five acts of quiescent
silence, withholding a comment or remark in
a situation where they would otherwise wish
to voice an opinion. On control days,
participants made no alteration to their daily

routine. At the end of each day, each
participant recorded their perceived selfefficacy by answering the question “How
effective am I at achieving my goals?” on a
7-point scale, with 1 being not at all
effective and 7 being highly effective. Each
participant also got one associate to answer
the same question each day (answering for
their perception of the participant), without
informing them whether the day was an
experimental or control day, or what the
expected outcome was.
Using an alternating ABAB design
allowed us to minimize the impact of order
effects on this study. Placebo and
experimenter expectations could not be
entirely controlled for, but collecting a
second set of data from an associate of each
participant who was not informed of which
days were experimental or control days
allowed for some unbiased measurements.
2.5 Experimental Study Planned Analyses
To assess the statistical significance of
differences seen in quiescent silence on
quiescent silence experimental days vs.
natural voice control days, Student’s t-tests
were performed. We performed t-tests
separately for each participant as well as
using data pooled across all of the
participants. For the t-tests using pooled
data, in addition to using the raw data, we
also performed t-tests after we had first
transformed the data from each participant
into z-scores in order to standardize
differences in averages and variability seen
between the participants in their data and
thus make them more comparable. An
average difference between conditions was
considered statistically significant if, using a
one-tailed distribution (i.e., to determine if
there is a difference between groups in a
specific direction), the probability of its
random occurrence (p) was < .05 (i.e., less
306

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

than 5% of the time expected by chance
alone).
3. Results
3.1 Correlational Study Results
After one week of data collection, none
of the results of the correlational study
yielded any significant correlation using
pooled raw data or pooled standardized data,
and only one participant yielded a
statistically significant correlation (see Table
1). Quiescent silence and perceived selfefficacy were not significantly correlated for
any single participant (r = .25 and r = .08,
all p ≥ .603), and using pooled raw data (r =
.44, p = .122; see Figure 1) and pooled
standardized data (r = .17, p = .576; see
Figure 2) the variables were also not
significantly correlated. Masculinity and
positive self-perception of creativity were
significantly correlated for one participant (r
= .78, p = .038), but not for the other
participant (r = -.59, p = .171), and using
pooled raw data (r = .19, p = .525; see
Figure 3) and pooled standardized data (r =
.09, p = .76; see Figure 4) the variables were
not significantly correlated. Time spent on
social media and negative self-perception
were not significantly correlated for any
single participant (r = -.52 and r = .50, all p
≥ .249), and using pooled raw data (r = .14,
p = .63; see Figure 5) and pooled
standardized data (r = -.01, p = .97; see
Figure 6) the variables were also not
significantly correlated. In total, the
strongest correlation was found to be
between quiescent silence and perceived
self-efficacy, using the pooled standardized
data (r = .17, p = .576; see Figure 2).
3.2 Experimental Study Results

In our self-rated results, there was no
statistically significant correlation between
silence and self-efficacy on either the
experimental or control days. However, in
the results our unbiased observers produced,
there was a statistical significance, and selfefficacy was seen to be higher on days
without quiescent silence, and lower on days
with it. Our self-rated results using the
pooled standardized data showed a p-value
of .313 (see Table 2), but our other-rated
results using the pooled standardized data
showed a p-value of .049 (see Table 3).
4. Discussion
4.1 Summary of Results
Based on previous research, we
hypothesized that increases in three
variables would lead to three different
effects on self-perception: increased
instances of quiescent silence would
correlate with decreased perceived selfefficacy (Hypothesis #1), increased
masculinity would correlate with increased
positive self-perception of creativity
(Hypothesis #2), and increased time spent on
social media would correlate with increased
negative self-perception (Hypothesis #3).
Data pooled across all participants in our
correlational study did not support any of
these hypotheses. However, the results of
our experimental study indicated a casual
relationship between quiescent silence and
perceived self-efficacy when reported by
external observers.
4.2 Relation of Results to Past Research
Our correlational study failed to confirm
the relationship between quiescent silence
and perceived self-efficacy reported by other
researchers. Chou and Chang (2021)
recorded a negative relationship between
307

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

quiescent silence and perceived selfefficacy: the more often an employee
remained silent out of fear for negative
consequences, the lower they reported their
feelings of being effective in their position
and their ability to achieve their goals. In
contrast, our study demonstrated no
significant correlation between silence and
self-efficacy. Our study on quiescent silence
and self-efficacy differed in scope, with far
fewer data points than the Chou and Chang
(2021) study. That study also focused
specifically on job based self-efficacy, while
our study was not restricted to a work
environment. Further studies could restrict
the scope of the environment in which data
was collected and/or in which perceived
self-efficacy was measured. It would also be
important for further research to be
conducted on a larger scale with more data
points to ensure a greater diversity of
participants.
When we tested this hypothesis
experimentally, self-rated self-efficacy
showed no casual relationship with
quiescent silence, but there was a
statistically significant difference in otherrated self-efficacy between quiescent silence
and natural voice. While participants rated
themselves similarly to their external
observers on experimental days, external
observers tended to rate participants as
having higher self-efficacy on control days.
One possible explanation for this might be
that external observers were more objective
judges of behaviour. We recommend that
future studies attempt a longer study period
with more time between experimental and
control days, as the effect of lowering
perceived self-efficacy through quiescent
silence may persist in self-perception for
longer than a single day.
Our correlational study on masculinity
and self-perception of creativity only
partially succeeded in reproducing the

findings published by Grosser et al. (2021)
and was not statistically significant in any of
our pooled data. Grosser et al. (2021) found
that participants tended to have a higher selfperception of their creativity when they
identified as masculine. In our study, one of
our participants demonstrated a statistically
significant correlation between masculinity
and positive self-perception of creativity.
However, our other participant demonstrated
the inverse correlation. Our study differed in
terms of how we recorded masculinity:
Grosser et al. (2021) sampled a large set of
participants and asked them to identify
themselves as masculine (male) or not
(female) on a simple two-point scale. They
then examined the results of self-perception
over the two different groups of participants.
In contrast, we asked each participant to
record their self-perception of masculinity
each day and did not use a binary scale.
However, the participant who showed a
positive correlation does identify as male,
and the participant who showed an inverse
correlation identifies as female, so further
research could use a larger data set with
more participants and record masculinity the
way Grosser et al. (2021) did, or build upon
both to explore the relationship between
self-perception and both measures of
masculinity. This would be an interesting
study as it might further explore whether the
relationship between masculinity and selfperception is dependent or independent of
gender identity.
Our correlational study failed to confirm
the relationship between social media use
and self-perception reported by previous
research. De Vries and Kuhne (2015) found
that negative self-perception arises from
extreme social media use. Specifically, they
reported that the more time people spent on
social media the more unhappy with
themselves they became. In contrast, our
participants did not find that their self308

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

perceptions, specifically how they feel about
themselves, was related to the time they
spent on social media per day. The
methodology of our correlational study
differed from that of the De Vries and
Kuhne (2015) study. In their study, they
measured a lot more people than in our
study that only had 14 data points. They
measured self-perception by asking
participants to reflect on specific topics of
how they look and if they thought they were
popular, whereas we asked a more general
question about how we felt that day. Future
studies could consider a different way to
measure self-perception by including a
question that asked participants to reflect on
themselves compared to other people. This
modification would be interesting especially
looking at how self-perception with a social
comparison component might vary by age
and perhaps gender. It might also be
important for researchers to aim to include a
larger sample of people and also ensure that
people of different demographic groups are
represented (e.g., ages, cultures, genders).
4.3 Implications of Results
Two particular points stand out from our
research that could be the basis for future
studies. While not the subject of experiment
in this paper, closer analysis of the results of
our hypothesis on the correlation between
masculinity and positive self-perception of
creativity demonstrated a statistically
significant correlation with participant one,
and a nearly statistically significant inverse
correlation with participant two. However,
since participant one identifies as male and
participant two identifies as female, further
research could be done on the relationship
between masculinity and positive selfperception of creativity across male and
female participants, the initial data suggests
the possibility of a positive and negative

correlation in males and females,
respectively.
Secondly, the results of our experimental
data showed a statistically significant effect
of quiescent silence on perceived selfefficacy, but only based on measurements
from external observers. Further research
into what factors caused this might examine
the ongoing effects of quiescent silence on
self-perception. A practical effect of this
finding might be the development of active
speech and voicing feelings as a tool for
improving self-efficacy and developing
positive self-esteem.
We originally conducted these studies as
a way to better understand self-image and to
develop tools to help overcome unhealthy
and inaccurate self-perception. Based on our
results, one possible tool for accomplishing
those goals could be a focus on reducing
instances of quiescent silence, which further
studies could develop further.
References
Chou, S. Y., & Chang, T. (2021). Feeling
capable and worthy? Impact of employee
silence on self-concept: mediating role of
organizational citizenship behaviors.
Psychological Reports, 124(1), 266-298.
De Vries, D. A., & Kühne, R. (2015).
Facebook and self-perception: Individual
susceptibility to negative social
comparison on Facebook. Personality
and Individual Differences, 86, 217-221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.02
9
Grosser, T. J., Gilson, L. L., Dong, Y., &
Madjar, N. (2021). Creative selfenhancement in a team context: the role
of gender, creative self-concept, and trait
hypercompetitiveness. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000430

309

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Table 1
Correlations for Study Variables

Variables

Participant
#1

Participant
#2

Pooled raw
data

r

n

r

n

r

n

Pooled
standardized
data
r
n

.25

7

.08

7

.44

14

.17

14

.78*

7

-.59

7

.19

14

.09

14

-.52

7

.50

7

.14

14

-.01

14

Quiescent silence &
Perceived selfefficacy
Masculinity &
Positive selfperception of
creativity
Time spent on social
media & Negative
self-perception
* p < .05.

310

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Self-Rated Self-Efficacy Across Different Quiescent Silence Conditions

Condition

Statistic

Quiescent Silence

M

1.5

3.5

Pooled
raw
data
2.5

SD

1

1.29

1.51

.94

n

4

4

8

8

M

2.33

3.33

2.83

.15

SD

1.53

1.15

1.33

1.06

n

3

3

6

6

Natural voice

Participant Participant
#1
#2

Pooled
standardized
data
-0.12

Note. M, SD, and n, represent mean, standard deviation, and sample size, respectively. Quiescent
silence rated on a scale of 1-7, from 1 = not at all effective to 7 = extremely effective.
* p < .05 for comparison of quiescent silence condition with its respective natural voice
condition.

311

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Other-Rated Self-Efficacy Across Different Quiescent Silence
Conditions

3.25*

Pooled
raw
data
2.38

Pooled
standardized
data
-.35*

Condition

Statistic

Participant
#1

Quiescent Silence

M

1.5 3.25

SD

1

1.26

1.41

1.04

n

4

4

8

8

M

1.67

5.33*

3.5

.47*

SD

.58

.58

2.07

.65

n

3

3

6

6

Natural voice

Participant
#2

Note. M, SD, and n, represent mean, standard deviation, and sample size, respectively. Quiescent
silence rated on a scale of 1-7, from 1 = not at all effective to 7 = extremely effective.
* p < .05 for comparison of quiescent silence condition with its respective natural voice
condition.

312

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 1
Association between Quiescent silence and Perceived self-efficacy Using Pooled Raw Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1 and orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

313

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 2
Association Between Quiescent silence and Perceived self-efficacy Using Pooled Standardized
Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1 and orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

314

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 3
Association Between Masculinity and Positive self-perception of creativity Using Pooled Raw
Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1 and orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

315

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 4
Association Between Masculinity and Positive self-perception of creativity Using Pooled
Standardized Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1 and orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

316

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 5
Association between Time spent on social media and Negative self-perception Using Pooled Raw
Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1 and orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

317

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 6
Association between Time spent on social media and Negative self-perception Using Pooled
Standardized Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1 and orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

318

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 7
Average Self-Rated Self-Efficacy Across Different Quiescent Silence Conditions Using Pooled
Raw Data

Notes. Self-rated self-efficacy scores are shown for quiescent silence and natural voice
conditions using pooled raw data from all participants. Errors bars show ± 95% confidence
levels. Overlapping scatterplot shows data from each participant. Marker colour differentiates
participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2, and yellow = participant #3.

319

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 8
Average Self-Rated Self-Efficacy Across Different Quiescent Silence Conditions Using Pooled
Standardized Data

Notes. Self-rated self-efficacy scores are shown for quiescent silence and natural voice
conditions using pooled raw data from all participants. Errors bars show ± 95% confidence
levels. Overlapping scatterplot shows data from each participant. Marker colour differentiates
participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2, and yellow = participant #3.

320

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 9
Average Other-Rated Self-Efficacy Across Different Quiescent Silence Conditions Using Pooled
Standardized Data

Notes. Other-rated self-efficacy scores are shown for quiescent silence and natural voice
conditions using pooled raw data from all participants. Errors bars show ± 95% confidence
levels. Overlapping scatterplot shows data from each participant. Marker colour differentiates
participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2, and yellow = participant #3.

321

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Figure 10
Average Other-Rated Self-Efficacy Across Different Quiescent Silence Conditions Using Pooled
Standardized Data

Notes. Other-rated self-efficacy scores are shown for quiescent silence and natural voice
conditions using pooled raw data from all participants. Errors bars show ± 95% confidence
levels. Overlapping scatterplot shows data from each participant. Marker colour differentiates
participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2, and yellow = participant #3.

322

Macrae & Smith - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 303-323.

Appendix
List of 30 Masculine Traits Used as a Reference for How Masculinity Was Defined for the
Purposes of This Study

323