All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Authoritative Parenting and Drug-Prevention Practices: Implications for Anti-Drug Ads for Parents
Unformatted Document Text:  Drug Prevention Practices 14 independent-samples t-tests with authoritative parenting style split at the median. For H1, the independent variable was authoritative parenting with two levels, high and low; the criterion variables were the seven items measuring behavioral intentions. To reduce the chance of committing a Type I error, a Bonferroni correction to the critical value (p = .05) was divided by the number of tests (7). The adjusted alpha level was p = .007. For H2 and RQs1 and 2, multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence of attitudes and subjective norms on behavioral intentions as well as test for the interaction of attitudes and subjective norms with authoritative parenting. The interactions are represented by the product of the two variables in the interaction (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Eveland, 1997). This allowed us to retain the continuous properties of the variables, maximize the power to detect the interaction (Cohen, 1983), and minimize the chance of committing a Type I error that often accompanies interactions involving median splits (Maxwell & Delaney, 1993). Before computing the interaction, the components of the product term were centered (Cronbach, 1987) and standardized (Dunlap & Kemery, 1987). Following Cohen and Cohen (1983) and Eveland (1997), the three main effect variable in this study (attitudes, subjective norms, and authoritative parenting) were entered in block 1 and the two interaction terms (attitudes X authoritative parenting and subjective norm X authoritative parenting) were entered in block 2. The interactions were significant if a statistically significant R-square change was observed for block 2. The coefficients for the interactions were subsequently interpreted. Statistically significant interactions were plotted to aid in interpretation (see Figures 1 through 3) (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Authors: Stephenson, Michael., Atkinson, Joshua., Tschida, David. and Quick, Brian.
first   previous   Page 14 of 36   next   last



background image
Drug Prevention Practices 14

independent-samples t-tests with authoritative parenting style split at the median. For H1, the
independent variable was authoritative parenting with two levels, high and low; the criterion
variables were the seven items measuring behavioral intentions. To reduce the chance of
committing a Type I error, a Bonferroni correction to the critical value (p = .05) was divided by
the number of tests (7). The adjusted alpha level was p = .007.
For H2 and RQs1 and 2, multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the
influence of attitudes and subjective norms on behavioral intentions as well as test for the
interaction of attitudes and subjective norms with authoritative parenting. The interactions are
represented by the product of the two variables in the interaction (Cohen & Cohen, 1983;
Eveland, 1997). This allowed us to retain the continuous properties of the variables, maximize
the power to detect the interaction (Cohen, 1983), and minimize the chance of committing a Type
I error that often accompanies interactions involving median splits (Maxwell & Delaney, 1993).
Before computing the interaction, the components of the product term were centered (Cronbach,
1987) and standardized (Dunlap & Kemery, 1987).
Following Cohen and Cohen (1983) and Eveland (1997), the three main effect variable in
this study (attitudes, subjective norms, and authoritative parenting) were entered in block 1 and
the two interaction terms (attitudes X authoritative parenting and subjective norm X authoritative
parenting) were entered in block 2. The interactions were significant if a statistically significant
R-square change was observed for block 2. The coefficients for the interactions were
subsequently interpreted. Statistically significant interactions were plotted to aid in interpretation
(see Figures 1 through 3) (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
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 14 of 36   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.