All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions
Unformatted Document Text:  Framing Public Discussion 22 what extent were these differences statistically significant? And what effect did the frame manipulation -- civil unions for gay couples, or marriage for homosexuals -- have on expressions of support or opposition to it in actual conversations? In the next section, we report results of the quantitative analyses of the discussions. Contingent Effects of Group Composition and Frame Table 1 summarizes the means and standard deviations of the various group-expression measures, by frame and group type. Note that the n in the second column represents the number of groups, rather than individuals. The first measure, a count of the average number of statements produced by a group during the discussion, indicates that most groups generated 15 statements (Grand M = 15.13). The next two columns represent counts of arguments (pro and con), and the last four columns represent counts of positively valenced, negatively valenced, or mixed-valence statements, along with an aggregate “direction” measure summarizing the balance of positive and negative statements. [Table 1 here] As these various counts are somewhat interdependent, a multivariate ANOVA was conducted. The analysis indicated significant overall effects of group type (GLM multivariate tests for group type, Wilks’ Lambda F 10,54 = 1.997, p < .043; Roy’s Largest Root F 5,54 = 3.938, p < .005), but no overall main effect of the framing manipulation (Wilks’ Lambda F 5,54 = 0.464, p < .801). However, the effect of the frame on was contingent on group type: In other words, the effect of the frame – “civil unions” or “homosexual marriage” – varied with the ideological leanings of the groups (or put differently, ideological differences were enhanced or suppressed by

Authors: Price, Vincent., Nir, Lilach. and Cappella, Joseph.
first   previous   Page 22 of 38   next   last



background image
Framing Public Discussion
22
what extent were these differences statistically significant? And what effect did the frame
manipulation -- civil unions for gay couples, or marriage for homosexuals -- have on expressions
of support or opposition to it in actual conversations? In the next section, we report results of the
quantitative analyses of the discussions.
Contingent Effects of Group Composition and Frame
Table 1 summarizes the means and standard deviations of the various group-expression
measures, by frame and group type. Note that the n in the second column represents the number
of groups, rather than individuals. The first measure, a count of the average number of
statements produced by a group during the discussion, indicates that most groups generated 15
statements (Grand M = 15.13). The next two columns represent counts of arguments (pro and
con), and the last four columns represent counts of positively valenced, negatively valenced, or
mixed-valence statements, along with an aggregate “direction” measure summarizing the balance
of positive and negative statements.
[Table 1 here]
As these various counts are somewhat interdependent, a multivariate ANOVA was
conducted. The analysis indicated significant overall effects of group type (GLM multivariate
tests for group type, Wilks’ Lambda F
10,54
= 1.997, p < .043; Roy’s Largest Root F
5,54
= 3.938, p
< .005), but no overall main effect of the framing manipulation (Wilks’ Lambda F
5,54
= 0.464, p
< .801). However, the effect of the frame on was contingent on group type: In other words, the
effect of the frame – “civil unions” or “homosexual marriage” – varied with the ideological
leanings of the groups (or put differently, ideological differences were enhanced or suppressed by


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
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 22 of 38   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.