All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Communication Mediation Model of Late-Night Comedy
Unformatted Document Text:  COMMUNICATION MEDIATION MODEL OF LATE-NIGHT COMEDY 11 tendencies to discuss with all four groups of discussants were considered to calculate their discussion heterogeneity (M = 3.68, SD = 1.21, α = .93). The measures from these three groups were integrated into a single column (M = 4.28, SD = 1.55). Demographics. Descriptive statistics for the demographic information are as follows: age (M = 47.27, SD = 14.13); gender (51% female); household income (Median: $35,000-$59,999); education (Median: ‘some college or associate degrees’); and party affiliation (34% Republican, 36% Democrat). The effectiveness of the random assignment was assessed by one-way ANOVA results on these variables (all ps > .46). Results Manipulation Check. Participants were asked to report on a 7-point scale the extent to which they agreed with the following statements: The clip was “sarcastic”, and “funny.” A one-way ANOVA on the mean scores of clips being “sarcastic” found significant between-group differences, F(2, 765) = 464.18, p < .001, η 2 = .55. Independent samples t tests established that participants indeed perceived the late-night comedy clip (M = 5.60, SD = 1.45) as being significantly more sarcastic than the control video (M = 1.81, SD = 1.21), t(512) = 32.13, p < .001, and hard news counterpart (M = 2.88, SD = 1.66), t(508) = 19.69, p < .001. Likewise, a one-way ANOVA on the means of the different groups on the item measuring the degree of clips being “funny” showed significant between-group differences, F(2, 765) = 299.80, p < .001, η 2 = .44. The group exposed to late-night comedy registered a higher mean score (M = 5.13, SD = 1.71) than the hard news group (M = 1.87, SD = 1.28), t(508) = 24.38, p < .001, and the control group (M = 3.07, SD = 1.54), t(512) = 14.34, p < .001.

Authors: Lee, Hoon.
first   previous   Page 12 of 33   next   last



background image
COMMUNICATION MEDIATION MODEL OF LATE-NIGHT COMEDY
  11
tendencies to discuss with all four groups of discussants were considered to calculate their 
discussion heterogeneity (= 3.68, SD = 1.21, 
α
 = .93).  The measures from these three groups 
were integrated into a single column (= 4.28, SD = 1.55).
Demographics.  
Descriptive statistics for the demographic information are as follows: age (M = 47.27, SD 
= 14.13); gender (51% female); household income (Median: $35,000-$59,999); education 
(Median: ‘some college or associate degrees’); and party affiliation (34% Republican, 36% 
Democrat).  The effectiveness of the random assignment was assessed by one-way ANOVA 
results on these variables (all ps > .46).
Results
Manipulation Check.  
Participants were asked to report on a 7-point scale the extent to which they agreed with 
the following statements: The clip was “sarcastic”, and “funny.”  A one-way ANOVA on the 
mean scores of clips being “sarcastic” found significant between-group differences, F(2, 765) = 
464.18, p < .001, η
2
 = .55.  Independent samples t tests established that participants indeed 
perceived the late-night comedy clip (M = 5.60, SD = 1.45) as being significantly more sarcastic 
than the control video (M = 1.81, SD = 1.21), t(512) = 32.13, < .001, and hard news 
counterpart (M = 2.88, SD = 1.66), t(508) = 19.69, < .001.  Likewise, a one-way ANOVA on 
the means of the different groups on the item measuring the degree of clips being “funny” 
showed significant between-group differences, F(2, 765) = 299.80, p < .001, η
2
 = .44.  The group 
exposed to late-night comedy registered a higher mean score (M = 5.13, SD = 1.71) than the hard 
news group (M = 1.87, SD = 1.28), t(508) = 24.38, < .001, and the control group (M = 3.07, SD 
= 1.54), t(512) = 14.34, < .001. 


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 12 of 33   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.