All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Multilevel Study of Interpersonal Influence in Academic ‘Influence Networks’
Unformatted Document Text:  Influence Networks 18 The decision to treat variables as fixed or random was based on determining whether the levels of the variables in this study were replaceable with equally acceptable levels (Jackson & Brashers, 1994). At the first level, the multiple observations were treated as random because they were expected to vary across individuals across a series of measurements and the levels themselves held no unique interest in the analysis. By definition, behavioral intention, attitude, and subjective norm were also random. However, multilevel analysis of random-effect multilevel models fixes the variation of these variables because the random variation is “absorbed” into the random effect variable (Bryk et al., 1992). Centrality was treated as fixed in this model because departmental membership was aggregated, consequently removing the variation among departments on this variable. Results The first hypothesis specified a positive association between received motivation to comply scores and structural centrality. Correlations were computed between Centrality 1 , Centrality 2 , and both indegree and outdegree motivation to comply for each participant who completed the survey instrument (N=115). The correlation between Centrality 1 and indegree likelihood to comply was statistically significant (r = .80, p < .01, 2-tailed). The correlation was positive, indicating that structurally central individuals, when calculated based on normalized indegree scores, receive higher reports of motivation to comply, a finding that is analogous to being attributed interpersonal influence. The correlation between Centrality 2 and indegree motivation to comply was not statistically significant (r = .12, p > .01). The second hypothesis specifies a negative association between motivation to comply and centrality. Pearson Product-Moment correlations were computed for the Centrality 1 , Centrality 2 , and outdegree likelihood to comply variables. The correlation was run with the

Authors: Wolski, Stacy.
first   previous   Page 18 of 39   next   last



background image
Influence Networks 18
The decision to treat variables as fixed or random was based on determining whether the
levels of the variables in this study were replaceable with equally acceptable levels (Jackson &
Brashers, 1994). At the first level, the multiple observations were treated as random because
they were expected to vary across individuals across a series of measurements and the levels
themselves held no unique interest in the analysis. By definition, behavioral intention, attitude,
and subjective norm were also random. However, multilevel analysis of random-effect
multilevel models fixes the variation of these variables because the random variation is
“absorbed” into the random effect variable (Bryk et al., 1992). Centrality was treated as fixed in
this model because departmental membership was aggregated, consequently removing the
variation among departments on this variable.
Results
The first hypothesis specified a positive association between received motivation to
comply scores and structural centrality. Correlations were computed between Centrality
1
,
Centrality
2
, and both indegree and outdegree motivation to comply for each participant who
completed the survey instrument (N=115). The correlation between Centrality
1
and indegree
likelihood to comply was statistically significant (r = .80, p < .01, 2-tailed). The correlation was
positive, indicating that structurally central individuals, when calculated based on normalized
indegree scores, receive higher reports of motivation to comply, a finding that is analogous to
being attributed interpersonal influence. The correlation between Centrality
2
and indegree
motivation to comply was not statistically significant (r = .12, p > .01).
The second hypothesis specifies a negative association between motivation to comply
and centrality. Pearson Product-Moment correlations were computed for the Centrality
1
,
Centrality
2
, and outdegree likelihood to comply variables. The correlation was run with the


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 18 of 39   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.