All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Media Portrayals of Mental Illness and the Third-Person Effect
Unformatted Document Text:  M c K e e v e r - P a g e | 15 between groups was significant and the effect size (calculated using eta squared) was medium (.062). Interestingly, post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated an unexpected result, as the mean score was the lowest for the highest media consumption group, Group 3 (M=3.398, SD= 0.748), and was significantly different from Group 1 (M=3.737, SD= 0.703) and Group 2 (M= 3.807, SD=0.625). However, Groups 1 and 2 did not differ significantly. This is shown in Figure 1. [Insert Figure 1 Here] To evaluate these attitudes toward media portrayals in terms of the inquiry posed by the second research question, the strength of correlations between perceived undesirability of media depictions of mental illness and estimates of the influence of those portrayals on other students as well as parents were examined. The results indicated that undesirability of media messages was positively related with perceived levels of media influence on all comparison groups as well as self. As depicted in Table 4, it was found that negative ratings of media portrayals were more positively correlated with perceptions of media influence on other students (r=.641 p<.01) than self (r=.418, p<.01) and parents (r=.378 p<.01). Thus, H2, which predicted positive associations between estimates of effects on others and message undesirability, was supported. [Insert Table 4 Here] There were no formal hypotheses made about differences in the relationships between media attitudes with perceptions of media influence self and on others (in terms of the comparative strength of these correlations). However, as shown in the appended correlation matrix, beliefs about media negativity were more strongly associated with perceived media influence on self than they were with estimated effects on parents, which is an atypical outcome

Authors: McKeever, Robert.
first   previous   Page 16 of 30   next   last



background image
M c K e e v e r   -   P a g e  | 15 
 
between groups was significant and the effect size (calculated using eta squared) was medium 
(.062).  
Interestingly, post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated an unexpected 
result, as the mean score was the lowest for the highest media consumption group, Group 3 
(M=3.398, SD= 0.748), and was significantly different from Group 1 (M=3.737, SD= 0.703) and 
Group 2 (M= 3.807, SD=0.625). However, Groups 1 and 2 did not differ significantly.  This is 
shown in Figure 1.  
[Insert Figure 1 Here] 
 
To evaluate these attitudes toward media portrayals in terms of the inquiry posed by the 
second research question, the strength of correlations between perceived undesirability of media 
depictions of mental illness and estimates of the influence of those portrayals on other students 
as well as parents were examined. The results indicated that undesirability of media messages 
was positively related with perceived levels of media influence on all comparison groups as well 
as self. As depicted in Table 4, it was found that negative ratings of media portrayals were more 
positively correlated with perceptions of media influence on other students (r=.641 p<.01) than 
self (r=.418, p<.01) and parents (r=.378 p<.01). Thus, H2, which predicted positive associations 
between estimates of effects on others and message undesirability, was supported.  
 [Insert Table 4 Here] 
There were no formal hypotheses made about differences in the relationships between 
media attitudes with perceptions of media influence self and on others (in terms of the 
comparative strength of these correlations). However, as shown in the appended correlation 
matrix, beliefs about media negativity were more strongly associated with perceived media 
influence on self than they were with estimated effects on parents, which is an atypical outcome 


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 16 of 30   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.