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 19 participants who completed the survey (N=115). All reports of significance are 2-tailed. The correlation between Centrality 2 and outdegree likelihood to comply was not statistically significant (r = -.01, p > .05), but the correlation between Centrality 1 and outdegree likelihood to comply was statistically significant (r = .26, p < .05). Although significant, the correlation was positive, and the relationship between these two variables is not in the predicted direction. Hence, the second hypothesis is not supported by these data. Table 1 contains the Pearson Product-Moment correlations associated with these hypotheses. --- Table 1 --- The third hypothesis specifies a relationship between centrality and the regression weight for attitude: as structural centrality increases, the weights associated with attitude will increase. The measure of individual attitude was used for this test. This scale reflected good overall alpha reliability ( α = .84, N = 804) and also for each behavior, where alpha reliability ranged from .71 to .88, N = 115. This hypothesis was tested by model comparison approach, the recommended procedure within multilevel modeling (Bryk et al., 1992). The significance of the interaction is measured by the degree to which the multilevel model fits the data. The ‘model fit’ is determined by comparing the deviance score for a baseline model, in this case a model that contains the elements at the individual level, with a model that contains a cross level interaction. ---Table 2--- For both types of centrality, the model containing the hypothesized relationship between structural centrality and attitude weight did not result in a comparatively better fit of the data, as evidenced by the failure of each model to significantly reduce the model deviance score in comparison to the deviance score derived from the baseline model (Table 3 contains these

Authors: Wolski, Stacy.
first   previous   Page 19 of 39   next   last



background image
Influence Networks 19
participants who completed the survey (N=115). All reports of significance are 2-tailed. The
correlation between Centrality
2
and outdegree likelihood to comply was not statistically
significant (r = -.01, p > .05), but the correlation between Centrality
1
and outdegree likelihood
to comply was statistically significant (r = .26, p < .05). Although significant, the correlation
was positive, and the relationship between these two variables is not in the predicted direction.
Hence, the second hypothesis is not supported by these data. Table 1 contains the Pearson
Product-Moment correlations associated with these hypotheses.
--- Table 1 ---
The third hypothesis specifies a relationship between centrality and the regression weight
for attitude: as structural centrality increases, the weights associated with attitude will increase.
The measure of individual attitude was used for this test. This scale reflected good overall alpha
reliability (
α
= .84, N = 804) and also for each behavior, where alpha reliability ranged from .71
to .88, N = 115.
This hypothesis was tested by model comparison approach, the recommended procedure
within multilevel modeling (Bryk et al., 1992). The significance of the interaction is measured
by the degree to which the multilevel model fits the data. The ‘model fit’ is determined by
comparing the deviance score for a baseline model, in this case a model that contains the
elements at the individual level, with a model that contains a cross level interaction.
---Table 2---
For both types of centrality, the model containing the hypothesized relationship between
structural centrality and attitude weight did not result in a comparatively better fit of the data, as
evidenced by the failure of each model to significantly reduce the model deviance score in
comparison to the deviance score derived from the baseline model (Table 3 contains these


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
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 19 of 39   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.