All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions
Unformatted Document Text:  Framing Public Discussion 15 samples of 200 statements at a time. Inconsistencies between coders were resolved by discussing the examples with the principal investigators, and applying additional decision rules to the original coding scheme. For the final coding system, Cohen’s kappa values for chance-corrected intercoder agreement were generally close to .80, with assessments of directionality proving slightly more reliable ( κ values = .86) than assessments of argumentation ( κ values between .74 and .76). Group argumentation. Coded data were aggregated across each individual, yielding two variables: number of arguments supporting gay civil unions, and number of opposing arguments. Counts of both pro- and con-arguments ranged from 0 to 6. About 30% of participants voiced one or two pro-arguments, and another 60% voiced no pro-argument at all; about 40% of participants voiced one or two con-arguments, and another 50% voiced no con-argument at all. These individual-level measures were next aggregated across individuals within the 54 groups, yielding two separate variables, a group-level sum of pro- and of con-arguments, respectively. Valenced statements. Statements that reflected a favorable disposition towards gay civil unions (and metonymically gays or homosexuals in general) were coded as a +1, whereas a statement that reflected any unfavorable disposition was coded -1. We constructed several measures of valenced statements, which were aggregated across each individual, to reflect their rate of expressing valenced utterances. One such measure was a simple count of the number of valenced statements each person made (M = 3.67, SD = 2.22). Another measure was a sum of the positively and negatively valenced statements, reflecting the overall direction in which that individual expressed support or opposition to gays (Range -8 to +9; M = -.84, SD = 2.47). These individual-level measures were next aggregated to the group level, yielding several different variables: counts of the number of positive, negative, and mixed valence (ambivalent)

Authors: Price, Vincent., Nir, Lilach. and Cappella, Joseph.
first   previous   Page 15 of 38   next   last



background image
Framing Public Discussion
15
samples of 200 statements at a time. Inconsistencies between coders were resolved by discussing
the examples with the principal investigators, and applying additional decision rules to the
original coding scheme. For the final coding system, Cohen’s kappa values for chance-corrected
intercoder agreement were generally close to .80, with assessments of directionality proving
slightly more reliable (
κ
values = .86) than assessments of argumentation (
κ
values between .74
and .76).
Group argumentation. Coded data were aggregated across each individual, yielding two
variables: number of arguments supporting gay civil unions, and number of opposing arguments.
Counts of both pro- and con-arguments ranged from 0 to 6. About 30% of participants voiced
one or two pro-arguments, and another 60% voiced no pro-argument at all; about 40% of
participants voiced one or two con-arguments, and another 50% voiced no con-argument at all.
These individual-level measures were next aggregated across individuals within the 54 groups,
yielding two separate variables, a group-level sum of pro- and of con-arguments, respectively.
Valenced statements. Statements that reflected a favorable disposition towards gay civil
unions (and metonymically gays or homosexuals in general) were coded as a +1, whereas a
statement that reflected any unfavorable disposition was coded -1. We constructed several
measures of valenced statements, which were aggregated across each individual, to reflect their
rate of expressing valenced utterances. One such measure was a simple count of the number of
valenced statements each person made (M = 3.67, SD = 2.22). Another measure was a sum of
the positively and negatively valenced statements, reflecting the overall direction in which that
individual expressed support or opposition to gays (Range -8 to +9; M = -.84, SD = 2.47). These
individual-level measures were next aggregated to the group level, yielding several different
variables: counts of the number of positive, negative, and mixed valence (ambivalent)


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 15 of 38   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.