All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.

Communication Mediation Model of Late-Night Comedy
Unformatted Document Text:  COMMUNICATION MEDIATION MODEL OF LATE-NIGHT COMEDY 10 Measures Political Participation. Respondents were asked about their intent to participate in three forms of political activities (the entire question wording is available upon request). Respondents reported the likelihood of engagement in each type of activity on a 7-point scale, and responses were averaged to form an index of political participation (M = 3.68, SD = 1.74, α = .88). Interpersonal Talk. To measure discussion frequency, respondents were asked to report on a 7-point scale their likelihood of conversation over the government’s bailout with neighbors, friends, and family. Reponses were averaged to form an index (M = 4.55, SD = 1.71, α = .92). The level of online interaction was measured by asking the respondents’ inclination to take part in three types of communicative activities via web-based technologies on a 7-point scale, and responses were averaged to form an index (M = 4.08, SD = 1.79, α = .89). In order to operationalize heterogeneous discussion, participants were first asked about their opinion pertaining to the expansion of the government’s stimulus plan. Then, participants reported on a 7-point scale their inclination to discuss the issue with four hypothetical types of individuals: a friend supporting the expansion of the stimulus plan; a stranger supporting it; a friend opposing the expansion; or a stranger opposing it. For those who supported the expansion (n = 384), the level of heterogeneous discussion was computed by averaging their responses on the likelihood of discussions with a friend or a stranger who opposed it (M = 4.49, SD = 1.54, α = .83). For the participants who opposed the expansion (n = 253), the degree of heterogeneity summarized their intents to converse with a friend or a stranger who supported it (M = 4.27, SD = 1.65, α = .82). For the participants who neither supported nor opposed it (n = 131), the

Authors: Lee, Hoon.
first   previous   Page 11 of 33   next   last

background image
Political Participation.  
Respondents were asked about their intent to participate in three forms of political 
activities (the entire question wording is available upon request).  Respondents reported the 
likelihood of engagement in each type of activity on a 7-point scale, and responses were 
averaged to form an index of political participation (= 3.68, SD = 1.74, 
 = .88).
Interpersonal Talk.  
To measure discussion frequency, respondents were asked to report on a 7-point scale 
their likelihood of conversation over the government’s bailout with neighbors, friends, and 
family.  Reponses were averaged to form an index (= 4.55, SD = 1.71, 
 = .92).  The level of 
online interaction was measured by asking the respondents’ inclination to take part in three types 
of communicative activities via web-based technologies on a 7-point scale, and responses were 
averaged to form an index (= 4.08, SD = 1.79, 
 = .89).  
In order to operationalize heterogeneous discussion, participants were first asked about 
their opinion pertaining to the expansion of the government’s stimulus plan.  Then, participants 
reported on a 7-point scale their inclination to discuss the issue with four hypothetical types of 
individuals: a friend supporting the expansion of the stimulus plan; a stranger supporting it; a 
friend opposing the expansion; or a stranger opposing it.  For those who supported the expansion 
(n = 384), the level of heterogeneous discussion was computed by averaging their responses on 
the likelihood of discussions with a friend or a stranger who opposed it (= 4.49, SD = 1.54, 
= .83).  For the participants who opposed the expansion (n = 253), the degree of heterogeneity 
summarized their intents to converse with a friend or a stranger who supported it (= 4.27, SD 
= 1.65, 
 = .82).  For the participants who neither supported nor opposed it (n = 131), the 

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 11 of 33   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.