Action Alerts, p. 19
organization. Sixty-four individuals representing 2.5% of the respondents do not respond to
the question.
Research Question 2:
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for two independent variables,
and Tables 2-3 show frequencies and percentages for one independent and two dependent
variables of the situational theory used in the survey. The independent variables were
coded from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating strongly agree and 5 being strongly disagree. The
remaining questions were categorically derived from answers ranging from yes to no or
often to never. Results from level of involvement show respondents felt in between strongly
agree and agree (M=1.49, SD=0.712). Constraint recognition shows that there is variation
with respondents leaning more towards agrees and neither agree nor disagree (M=2.61,
SD=0.924). Over fifty percent of the respondents answered that they often (n=1360, 54.1%)
think about the issue. The next highest response was sometimes (n=904, 36%).
Nearly 80 percent of the respondents read the background information provided on
the action alert (n=1985, 79%). A majority of the individuals surveyed (n=1915, 76.2%) did
not look any further for information on the topic beyond what was written on the alert
itself. A little over twenty percent of these individuals did look for more information (n=511,
20.3%). This pattern remained the same when asked if respondents look at other resources
for additional information about the issue. Seventy percent of the individuals (n=1772,
70.5%) did not compared to those that sought out more information (n=693, 27.5%).
Research Question 3:
An empowerment measure based on Elliot’s 1997 study was created from four
questions asking if the alert made it possible for them to: communicate with
PRUH SHRSOH;
Convention