![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to experimentally test the influence of computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication (WOM) on student perceptions of instructors (attractiveness and credibility) and on student attitudes toward learning course content (affective learning and state motivation). It was hypothesized that students who receive positive computer-mediated WOM about an instructor would perceive the instructor as more credible and attractive than students who receive no information or negative information. It was further hypothesized that students who receive positive computer-mediated WOM about an instructor would report greater levels of affective learning and state motivation to learn than students who receive no information or negative information. All hypotheses were supported. Results are discussed in light of the heuristic–systematic processing model, and the implications for instructional communication are addressed.
Portions of an earlier draft were presented at the 2007 Central States Communication annual meeting, Minneapolis, MN.
Portions of an earlier draft were presented at the 2007 Central States Communication annual meeting, Minneapolis, MN.
Notes
Portions of an earlier draft were presented at the 2007 Central States Communication annual meeting, Minneapolis, MN.
1. Student evaluations of instructor physical attractiveness may be indirectly related to measures of quality teaching. Previous research has attributed this peripheral relationship to the operation of a “halo effect” in student evaluations of communication instruction (cf. Feeley, Citation2002).
2. The average easiness rating of social science professors in the U.S. is 3.2 (Felton et al., 2005). Because easiness is not factored into the overall quality rating assigned to professors by RMP, we held the rating of 3.2 constant across conditions.
3. Although the overall quality ratings of 1.7 and 4.9 used for the positive and negative RMP evaluations are not equidistant from the scale midpoint of 3.0, they approximate equidistant intervals from the average overall quality rating of social science professors in the U.S., which is consistently several tenths higher than 3.0 (Felton et al., 2005).
4. The fourth author/videotaped actor is an assistant professor of communication and is well versed in the literature of instructional communication. To deliver a teaching performance of “average quality,” he sought to incorporate influential instructional behaviors at a moderate level. One indicator of the “averageness” of the lecture is the ratings of attractiveness (3.2 on a 1–5 scale) and credibility (4.37 on a 1–7 scale) provided by the control group, which received no information about the previous performance of the instructor prior to viewing the tape. Additionally, the video stimulus was subjected to a manipulation check employing 21 undergraduate students asked to rate the instructor and the lecture as “above average,” “average,” or “below average.” The vast majority rated both the instructor and the lecture as average.
5. In addition to the analyses reported in the Results section, we also conducted a series of one-sample t tests to determine whether mean scores for each of the seven dependent variables in the positive and negative RMP treatment groups differed significantly from scale midpoints. Generally speaking, dependent variable means for the positive RMP condition were significantly higher than the scale midpoints, and those of the negative RMP condition were significantly lower than the scale midpoints. Detailed results of these analyses are available upon request from the first author.