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 can solve the abstract management needs for any association's 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 12 of 33   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.