University of Florida Digital Collections Home
UFDC Home myUFDC Home  |   Help 
<%BANNER%>

The Agriculture Angle

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022509/00001

Material Information

Title: The Agriculture Angle Effect of Framing Agricultural Biotechnology Messages on Attitudes and Intent to Publish within the Elaboration Likelihood Model
Physical Description: 1 online resource (176 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Meyers, Courtney
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our purpose was to examine the effect persuasive communication has on influencing media coverage of agricultural science, specifically agricultural biotechnology. Agricultural issues are most commonly framed as positive versus negative or risk versus benefit. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model and framing theory, persuasive communication was achieved through the use of positively framed messages (health, economics, and scientific progress) to discover what impact the message frame had on communicators? attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish the information. Today, the media serve as the primary source of scientific information, but do not frequently address agricultural topics, including those that involve controversial science and technology applications. Public relations practitioners in science, including agricultural science, can utilize message frames to shape public opinion through media coverage. However, no empirical research has been conducted regarding the utilization of positive message frames in a persuasive communication model to discover communicators? reactions to agricultural biotechnology news messages. We examined the situation of framing within the ELM, a dual-route model of persuasion. A 2 (issue involvement: high and low) x 2 (preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology: more positive and less positive) x 3 (message frames: scientific progress, economics, and health) between-subjects factorial quasi-experimental design was used to test the research hypotheses. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of three message frames. The experiment focused on determining whether an individual?s issue involvement and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, when provided with a specific message frame, influenced resulting attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish agricultural biotechnology news. Members of the American Agricultural Editors Association (AAEA) and the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) comprised the sample for the study. The final accessible sample included those with active e-mail addresses (n = 1,240) with a response rate of 24.8% (n = 308). Overall, results indicated that the interaction of message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology was not significant on attitudes toward argument quality or likelihood to publish. However, the main effects were significant for the independent variables on attitudes toward argument quality, but not likelihood to publish. Those with more favorable preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology had higher mean scores on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Similarly, those who were high in issue involvement had higher mean scores on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. The frame alone also had a significant influence on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Results indicated that the message frames do have some influence on attitudes toward argument quality with the health frame as the most influential frame on the dependent variables regardless of issue involvement or preexisting attitude. This study also introduced a potential new index to measure attitudes toward argument quality as perceived by those in the media. This index was comprised of items from newsworthiness and argument quality indexes. The theoretical contribution of this study provides additional support for connecting framing and the ELM. How persuasive messages are framed influences attitudes toward argument quality, which is related to the amount of cognitive processing undertaken and the route to persuasion used with the ELM.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Courtney Meyers.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Irani, Tracy A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022509:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022509/00001

Material Information

Title: The Agriculture Angle Effect of Framing Agricultural Biotechnology Messages on Attitudes and Intent to Publish within the Elaboration Likelihood Model
Physical Description: 1 online resource (176 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Meyers, Courtney
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our purpose was to examine the effect persuasive communication has on influencing media coverage of agricultural science, specifically agricultural biotechnology. Agricultural issues are most commonly framed as positive versus negative or risk versus benefit. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model and framing theory, persuasive communication was achieved through the use of positively framed messages (health, economics, and scientific progress) to discover what impact the message frame had on communicators? attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish the information. Today, the media serve as the primary source of scientific information, but do not frequently address agricultural topics, including those that involve controversial science and technology applications. Public relations practitioners in science, including agricultural science, can utilize message frames to shape public opinion through media coverage. However, no empirical research has been conducted regarding the utilization of positive message frames in a persuasive communication model to discover communicators? reactions to agricultural biotechnology news messages. We examined the situation of framing within the ELM, a dual-route model of persuasion. A 2 (issue involvement: high and low) x 2 (preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology: more positive and less positive) x 3 (message frames: scientific progress, economics, and health) between-subjects factorial quasi-experimental design was used to test the research hypotheses. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of three message frames. The experiment focused on determining whether an individual?s issue involvement and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, when provided with a specific message frame, influenced resulting attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish agricultural biotechnology news. Members of the American Agricultural Editors Association (AAEA) and the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) comprised the sample for the study. The final accessible sample included those with active e-mail addresses (n = 1,240) with a response rate of 24.8% (n = 308). Overall, results indicated that the interaction of message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology was not significant on attitudes toward argument quality or likelihood to publish. However, the main effects were significant for the independent variables on attitudes toward argument quality, but not likelihood to publish. Those with more favorable preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology had higher mean scores on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Similarly, those who were high in issue involvement had higher mean scores on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. The frame alone also had a significant influence on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Results indicated that the message frames do have some influence on attitudes toward argument quality with the health frame as the most influential frame on the dependent variables regardless of issue involvement or preexisting attitude. This study also introduced a potential new index to measure attitudes toward argument quality as perceived by those in the media. This index was comprised of items from newsworthiness and argument quality indexes. The theoretical contribution of this study provides additional support for connecting framing and the ELM. How persuasive messages are framed influences attitudes toward argument quality, which is related to the amount of cognitive processing undertaken and the route to persuasion used with the ELM.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Courtney Meyers.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Irani, Tracy A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022509:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101107_AAAABO INGEST_TIME 2010-11-07T15:30:19Z PACKAGE UFE0022509_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2491 DFID F20101107_AABBII ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH meyers_c_Page_172.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
030aad0a2f7c342054f1b58456049ce0
SHA-1
d552210d531a3cd0838f54bb4380d78bb4a6a0ab
3060 F20101107_AABBHT meyers_c_Page_155.txt
2e5cc73c9440a4929c7421368766c187
3131fc8cb937a88c3c63ed8d660fbd4fff463cd1
106901 F20101107_AABAFG meyers_c_Page_046.jpg
c37c55ee094a9c9c2d204703b2749d3f
bc87ff0875d01b946cc805cc4350b7660d015b76
109229 F20101107_AABAER meyers_c_Page_031.jpg
8939fcd2943b86ea74c729263ae4192e
171c45e90eaf981e0e58479fb934abba8446e4a3
2528 F20101107_AABBIJ meyers_c_Page_173.txt
420f0d0f841aa01b6cd0d8193b0a7a8e
efb050509e432945999a144dc5d10b3c9be5743e
892 F20101107_AABBHU meyers_c_Page_157.txt
2fe67edeb96515a0dc6f343d73b8a48c
47ee5913417ddd9f3a6fe3de8249011214c46b5b
108749 F20101107_AABAFH meyers_c_Page_047.jpg
cedf38f230ff9102280d527a22a531de
40cdc8d168914146f728e06d2a2a333acf8c4d03
109150 F20101107_AABAES meyers_c_Page_032.jpg
4188e277a56e06359e22171cf893768c
4d7272836d97072c87283a2812bfefa2fa8238be
825 F20101107_AABBIK meyers_c_Page_174.txt
8895d80295cc85ee5f9f35f99f1e09ba
28c11db046bc22aca9b351f629ab5d594952ac1c
125 F20101107_AABBHV meyers_c_Page_158.txt
8a463d0371f7ce85d407ecc9fde7cdd4
4bd27ebbc4c12f04a2cf73e8c498b47186b3f4a6
110984 F20101107_AABAFI meyers_c_Page_048.jpg
44cead806000e3b573872f3d5ef6b9be
ec8740066400f15f90976c4335c8a3d752fb2408
108724 F20101107_AABAET meyers_c_Page_033.jpg
c70b76802e28360fdb2b3f7b6922e360
b8472a08ec22368368ad123778406919f6b8dc89
311 F20101107_AABBIL meyers_c_Page_176.txt
9cebfc4f81a271b60d996270bbb5ae5a
98021c86c646fae82ba4c64a90065ffb352d5335
48 F20101107_AABBHW meyers_c_Page_159.txt
a31e1a563ee9c93267a6faca2d526e1d
b44602dfa31d9222d0259ce872528232b2b9546a
102676 F20101107_AABAFJ meyers_c_Page_049.jpg
75ca40e9ea07317dc307a0e7e72baeaa
672cf3ac6f279bc955e13545f8cbe8d241754c2b
55436 F20101107_AABAEU meyers_c_Page_034.jpg
02bd93f239cfb06aed01988c5e7da9d8
56527e7a22f6d0ddc1e8611e92403706dca12c9a
6622 F20101107_AABBJA meyers_c_Page_008thm.jpg
f9996381529b1863589fe5d7575ec11c
dd731186835a42595f8c8c73d1db53f5c5bb2728
2398 F20101107_AABBIM meyers_c_Page_001thm.jpg
ad54f8224048eaef7d19550cc7f85121
23b207c269be505587bdea6592739f5d3c468063
2942 F20101107_AABBHX meyers_c_Page_160.txt
9a8c0c0b1b9a1f541dd15758e9f6cb5e
a7eeb810dfde2361b831d2ab9a12dd46202014ae
108989 F20101107_AABAFK meyers_c_Page_050.jpg
e373dc34d30d2ec18cff2b88f8aabaa3
5fd4c2c256f21dc83ca1f68286eb6774b3a29246
101508 F20101107_AABAEV meyers_c_Page_035.jpg
3ff491df7238bd16a4e79acce468ec35
f1c29c771f321d2db12a3e72c1d72cf5f180e5bd
11977 F20101107_AABBJB meyers_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
88660a2219eabd9a3a7a63f19320da07
8be6b62187fb05b31152e80915a2b7b9e2deb5ee
2645909 F20101107_AABBIN meyers_c.pdf
079bd1549a6f7590791b801970aa91c5
c5c6aee8e5b54f286db0e1aef47bcca6391c2bc2
2296 F20101107_AABBHY meyers_c_Page_161.txt
13d428d698fd6bd1839dabb2c4794004
7c10709bc8f63575ca98ff5427b2908e8c8c00ea
111051 F20101107_AABAFL meyers_c_Page_051.jpg
28e05ac1fb3164246cea94468e1bdbc0
5a3d3884bc1be2b4529632e8154e2e2c1bf1af9f
105759 F20101107_AABAEW meyers_c_Page_036.jpg
c7adc9c2eed50fe0ea34ee8e3aeaefb4
f42a8b18aabf00283a4b502b116e490a1f23cbde
3166 F20101107_AABBJC meyers_c_Page_009thm.jpg
5aa7a87e8a2d708640acaf727a8e0796
f2de14b2309c69dc7f676dc2bb5a36f194943911
8819 F20101107_AABBIO meyers_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
09b6de1a6b75c905e8b323b0fd574776
9ebf11072548f3eed450fba7de16772b04fc4cff
2887 F20101107_AABBHZ meyers_c_Page_162.txt
291f0ef88c5c3ebc3b6435f061e554d6
10164c4710a3c2d8ca39679bd0ddcb09606b87a4
116680 F20101107_AABAGA meyers_c_Page_066.jpg
684a88b8a8ceaac59fd98a653240071b
751d5a4e45b24cb5f16054e137082fd853bfab2a
114504 F20101107_AABAFM meyers_c_Page_052.jpg
8a2af1ecf5720bf5945abbf2528d1996
49e2a9c0365593f72d28770ea71ee9fad6b64ae2
108998 F20101107_AABAEX meyers_c_Page_037.jpg
40a9d157c45acc6f4b0f86b3e6474f33
ba09ddbd1e7216b7da46176d0c201fe7696873e7
38659 F20101107_AABBJD meyers_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
ed7d302b860ba26def14a33dbdd660a2
eb693200ac82d8d6082dd144a159ae45fb03a971
582 F20101107_AABBIP meyers_c_Page_002thm.jpg
8aa500f4d2c3b3426b76bc559b46ff79
1bea3adbd3b3c203e783cc80fba47c776f76b312
103556 F20101107_AABAGB meyers_c_Page_067.jpg
38e3fd506e9028c01ef55b3b9cb0f67c
5832f25dd4b06539f6669d35bf2bab17fd7592ba
108283 F20101107_AABAFN meyers_c_Page_053.jpg
ab8ac2f54286623d36bb8db2c7c31d8c
e398f54ac72fe07ba899d8cdd238fa8f025056a8
107479 F20101107_AABAEY meyers_c_Page_038.jpg
b561865c78a75bc3a2976f88dea60eeb
17efaf63ba665e59be7d4657277f2b1f35cc83cb
9179 F20101107_AABBJE meyers_c_Page_010thm.jpg
824781b65b24a437f49eb428759f1146
43229a57e000ab5da84ea4eaa5038b988f51da60
1281 F20101107_AABBIQ meyers_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
8662d408d34281c0acd563cdfbae0f5f
e9bef74b9795ad5c569cb6cf35ee12212fb302c9
108324 F20101107_AABAGC meyers_c_Page_068.jpg
80de04249b2f545f20d1d8bd191b8407
1ab085a648676e3664bb57e47a74286167c24db7
66406 F20101107_AABAFO meyers_c_Page_054.jpg
61a9618377e5c7704a4e552491df21a5
4e6e56e7198104b0ad3d2ed746ae5be68f9c39e6
81338 F20101107_AABAEZ meyers_c_Page_039.jpg
309796b2b328ba194a1a7b8c8067f014
147d3cfb474f1954e401dbd025fc473e2b759153
10182 F20101107_AABBJF meyers_c_Page_011thm.jpg
df4dc73241d0116c4f0751e47bebb833
1c60e57bf16a430067c99eee63f31b97021073df
547 F20101107_AABBIR meyers_c_Page_003thm.jpg
942a1fa93526b5eae3b85ac96c88a76d
ce0dcef2ccf2f3256f403a59a8593acace83198b
103081 F20101107_AABAGD meyers_c_Page_069.jpg
3df7af52a2b4d5fea658db67376998f6
aa32ca9b89595cef4036b56825beb71184d1a2d3
99951 F20101107_AABAFP meyers_c_Page_055.jpg
1c38183ab6c845ee55020605e0125f58
27ec67f6f099003f82ce4c76e31e472ab6eaee9e
25635 F20101107_AABBJG meyers_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
c710be5a038f116917176a4aeffe2a13
d72099b251b6e0e9b0ff7d7967159936b91cac73
35045 F20101107_AABBIS meyers_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
608b216d566b870fb7c70d1b008ae957
b0675f7f61172ba1e294bcbdb1fdcde3a3421733
116894 F20101107_AABAGE meyers_c_Page_070.jpg
5ce8be593241a4418765e3c01b6534d7
95ebb37be2cb097afab35eea5ec11f6c1fd9c1a9
131882 F20101107_AABAFQ meyers_c_Page_056.jpg
367f965ec1c0ff72ae668c5cef912399
01a7a6679cec915ea02b400d0ef50a648866a13e
4867 F20101107_AABBJH meyers_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
b993f5290ccc72f8787e5fe72e4fa9f5
4c22e7931a0b417291fced70b1de6f9b2bef860e
126447 F20101107_AABAGF meyers_c_Page_071.jpg
d96e5c6b87988c0787a79759f42f6f35
fb41f9a845da3821fd24bca0eb79c3404fc1c36a
1520 F20101107_AABBJI meyers_c_Page_013thm.jpg
41789b51a4a8b7a22c6fa3ff0ddb62cf
845851d084e551a0c3b6e3856ec1084b554a12e6
8507 F20101107_AABBIT meyers_c_Page_004thm.jpg
5ca5ce16e7312756edbc0815e4c280fc
c46c400e5af95447529149281d103595471a9364
134617 F20101107_AABAGG meyers_c_Page_072.jpg
9963ce582b2bd6ccfdca9a579aaa0624
70a9aebf61b5f5aee83e2d07dee1f8c831d0cb9c
95162 F20101107_AABAFR meyers_c_Page_057.jpg
ac12f14c865b607afe8ebec159ccb5e9
25041c5d39e832e40f05557ddc4b609362c2e759
32273 F20101107_AABBJJ meyers_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
0715e4fb43abbd3c6765eb1c03a25192
b61954042a4d8298e5003370087a2a4e717e66ad
37020 F20101107_AABBIU meyers_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
003abee3ec100d7c46a6e7858042a1e4
d056f3fdfd5b7af4edf296781939947d650fe6cb
121757 F20101107_AABAGH meyers_c_Page_073.jpg
731baaab9642a7a152773aff2a495693
de088bdf3eae5ba6a6aaeb22b63d0a4f526896dc
61204 F20101107_AABAFS meyers_c_Page_058.jpg
f33e4c776183edfdd0fcbb1d37f53b12
31f06cfb4c9a2f8c3e8be2f649275c6b48ad73b5
8041 F20101107_AABBJK meyers_c_Page_014thm.jpg
5ce9621eea8e9d29adc10d4b894f5405
f99fbb92351df745e9be7702f2d537ae438a2e24
9220 F20101107_AABBIV meyers_c_Page_005thm.jpg
4da18523848616acc46e3cd9ac3b3f60
79ba8880b702e5e12faeca38b9a535b5176d8ef0
106897 F20101107_AABAGI meyers_c_Page_074.jpg
3f7858e53879c1c3e20e3ae5f5bad07e
bbc946588cb84dd9650bca03af9d8b13327aee3c
110086 F20101107_AABAFT meyers_c_Page_059.jpg
7db56a7a11a8e07881f7070a6ef57674
725fa8e9958d6e775bf688d1be1e9e1bbfc355d9
31818 F20101107_AABBJL meyers_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
fec8aaaf87b7fd365e464bba541ce6e7
dcdf5cedd4fe8955cb36fc5740b98344a503b577
3608 F20101107_AABBIW meyers_c_Page_006thm.jpg
d3a5666997bc6c7a141a3b1880a460a4
4079ca9d75109913cfdbc5f59c411f3f883e73bf
34868 F20101107_AABAGJ meyers_c_Page_075.jpg
9206e97cc6b877a74bf5f0ebbf8efd91
a5600162236de3bc3b6d6e2595eb6f17e351113c
110387 F20101107_AABAFU meyers_c_Page_060.jpg
b612711ea950cfea9b4c0b5eb2218fb1
b0f144e6ce1c7db39b8374ae413b91257d6e1327
9186 F20101107_AABBKA meyers_c_Page_024thm.jpg
106309cd28f7eec93c8161d0f814f57c
30cb6b12ebee0cfe86a5383c401fe5422049e555
7642 F20101107_AABBJM meyers_c_Page_015thm.jpg
ec54d5b599605ff482adb0ba4daa1eef
f2574fc0f7f02fb286eff590c40408f6a52dbc1a
25145 F20101107_AABBIX meyers_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
638df99b2ec9368b1a0f679e5255ae83
a9a47343f5e8060f44720135c4491d6e0703085a
101851 F20101107_AABAGK meyers_c_Page_076.jpg
07207c6fcebed19b378a0c7115525b06
869ad4e5f5c34ec7e6ee329ed9d5848c3e4c3a42
113003 F20101107_AABAFV meyers_c_Page_061.jpg
c35bf6f0d44d2ac29a9ce5ed92f982a0
bb4c217bdff71731a93eb198317bf09b046fd50f
37955 F20101107_AABBKB meyers_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
e805691454836d54a68c3343ab872558
0beeffbf1738d9a85dd66c3e23c6a063d27cc82b
32517 F20101107_AABBJN meyers_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
27a103c562983f06c7acc366990308aa
1a9f1b303897b6987fbee8a822776fcc3cbadd87
6355 F20101107_AABBIY meyers_c_Page_007thm.jpg
11c1ff2e26e03f6fbbdfe1de010617c6
451868f4566d0ff9c20fd898c750925668bfa718
103731 F20101107_AABAGL meyers_c_Page_078.jpg
c232f0fef802d03a844156d73a0d7c48
3e8498ce2792692fc417c020b58f8bc032652317
112982 F20101107_AABAFW meyers_c_Page_062.jpg
93e74b7b5189f1886bc32008031dee2c
6a911adf1a2893c1d76db564f526b8ef576589f9
9251 F20101107_AABBKC meyers_c_Page_025thm.jpg
2e6d7c01f0aa8fc73ad00b7c93b45179
e7811ee952f32f5921c61c6db1c6569c49888196
8385 F20101107_AABBJO meyers_c_Page_016thm.jpg
9a98348d39ceff7d64b3741f9e209ef5
aa0f52bf79635c1e26c238a9d0b06581c7c4142a
28702 F20101107_AABBIZ meyers_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
b445814b9f6c4c9e7adad896bfad0efa
572219b152392bb4a0ed646e0c68a88d0b770b21
63671 F20101107_AABAGM meyers_c_Page_079.jpg
a6e12e260ee397fdcf7f7a7e9a85a317
149989092a48437d6163c5541cedc6279df1bbab
107764 F20101107_AABAFX meyers_c_Page_063.jpg
38808f95c5c28c5bb4426d8c2acaa24c
cea85ad511c6ababb1214364ddf24a2f4a8197b8
108862 F20101107_AABAHA meyers_c_Page_096.jpg
9e3ff694776836331e700f99e484f522
c2a2c9ee1f783fa63c6e3c16acab962ce3315f8b
35775 F20101107_AABBKD meyers_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
111845209740b897060a6d88c8acb699
afce348f24eea8a95d71ec4a31f7504137c84f47
9297 F20101107_AABBJP meyers_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
e8f2fe8455e2d2a54eb43c0115bcb43c
bd4a7f87ea34a2da439199d3ef0cf91533c7192e
68329 F20101107_AABAGN meyers_c_Page_080.jpg
fc6af0554fd2d5a7ee3bb9b2e59bb40c
84be54795ab95098704cd84c73f7c7eb30328f92
96601 F20101107_AABAFY meyers_c_Page_064.jpg
d9222f5c10eeec6a8a5815601c83385c
46fd7139001a37cb839b14255c789aabeca5c3c0
101658 F20101107_AABAHB meyers_c_Page_097.jpg
aac27e7ac292d9443e44a5c8cca7bc36
8af2290a2b1185e7c08e282eed721b844b4ab1b6
37197 F20101107_AABBKE meyers_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
b4f9d9ef1d212cde33dde4c220407de9
46de96666770720cadb80ab2c62d9ac0e2ea72b5
35981 F20101107_AABBJQ meyers_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
d217c5c846ab10ca482c82c62e1afa86
3610080f8b431a72043554fccabedfe7d782eb15
95354 F20101107_AABAGO meyers_c_Page_081.jpg
f31ba911978824ceb1ed248617924729
30281d6a7eb334b602fd2fd957823b619314e170
101793 F20101107_AABAFZ meyers_c_Page_065.jpg
26b74a2376f2f4c22ba954cdc960dad5
1d28d4487cf61ac4c9884317362fd40f9102cc78
94769 F20101107_AABAHC meyers_c_Page_098.jpg
d5344685f4d51d32666d6dcb7f0d945c
7d863a63429995bb817e4e72545a78d483fe2915
9161 F20101107_AABBKF meyers_c_Page_027thm.jpg
84319e52f95ee8eaffaa04e4856bd320
56277dd7ff515000a9b551e5495de96444700edd
8540 F20101107_AABBJR meyers_c_Page_018thm.jpg
fbdfa1a467cd21c927321f97cfdeaec6
dcb3828c4eef84a5b765f86fc9c288f715f0cf05
108083 F20101107_AABAGP meyers_c_Page_082.jpg
fc88b95c3eb231587da1d2facd2bfe5d
f4d1ed569226a288e328a6261b7040575ae8e8e7
99599 F20101107_AABAHD meyers_c_Page_099.jpg
aa9b463a63d22b05b091fdde0ee27abf
e8f38ec005f16973b63a0782a4c0ba99e0fe55f4
38017 F20101107_AABBKG meyers_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
333d51505f57f3b8ecc344e4ca812485
c47675221b7192b8d43c103c9feda62eeb3e90a3
35117 F20101107_AABBJS meyers_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
af0732b0fdd1423cb2ac0ae0f512e329
d91bef41ec64707137113f00d9d6294d71414601
78368 F20101107_AABAGQ meyers_c_Page_083.jpg
c4cf970c83d2cdca58cf7269ee58b97f
5fc385f986a048f3dc78b479fff6d7347a6b2e12
98001 F20101107_AABAHE meyers_c_Page_100.jpg
f7bd88cc54f5b7bc9fa32091ba3442c7
702b5be5ad7c5f45f553c05c1e1227a07fb36391
9026 F20101107_AABBKH meyers_c_Page_028thm.jpg
4b59ad0147c762fce366c986371b5936
1acf4cdf1dc97c4bc32075e97263092efb047a30
8806 F20101107_AABBJT meyers_c_Page_019thm.jpg
e252c59d5476822e4754e0b9a5ab1e72
bcf9a61231f3bf1ecb501b57e0706615d61a7c3a
105354 F20101107_AABAGR meyers_c_Page_085.jpg
34c54133787619bba69e9ae140513b62
1f340b0a8a22b72a0889fa6ec9235744fa6fe04f
95133 F20101107_AABAHF meyers_c_Page_101.jpg
22fa50c6fc78f077097b220eebe1c46a
b4516d23193cc0ec34cb3c66a2c1b635746b02dc
36014 F20101107_AABBKI meyers_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
d71f81c8e95533a79afd10affc93329b
1b0f868cc35b3eb63cecb28b8095b2a6d93c8a13
104530 F20101107_AABAHG meyers_c_Page_102.jpg
ada516b7b61440b46e81605509cc8d5e
be28edaba084dbea45cfca1d1ff23ba23995e10e
8795 F20101107_AABBKJ meyers_c_Page_029thm.jpg
66959fba63ede87c3f4546df820636ae
78438cb3e5e518abc05f8bfa7e6d0dae53834afd
38658 F20101107_AABBJU meyers_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
822b02ca533281e091087e9ad1da1172
4ebf0782c82cbdce1c2c0dc7a5488438b8a0d888
108160 F20101107_AABAGS meyers_c_Page_086.jpg
8240b1f4568d81e1c220531b535ebacc
2b24c6c7f56e6ed312d92d167a36002673c03b42
98985 F20101107_AABAHH meyers_c_Page_103.jpg
b340b464430d2e16405d45aa396cd2d6
e926e7a36c1a3022ba4b932c2dafd784896b900c
38042 F20101107_AABBKK meyers_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
38e171174d73a29c32668edf528f2f61
8656e3fcaf760e6695b7675dc6b9afa00e6b55bc
9149 F20101107_AABBJV meyers_c_Page_020thm.jpg
93ee875b4db1d23b7d6090a3e6866524
aa75d1ca934cd7ac86f4608700e47506a2752980
86286 F20101107_AABAGT meyers_c_Page_087.jpg
dbec566f200060dad62d61c652d19c98
8b68546cbb6ec8b7b8b37e8b96658bbb1d6af523
110838 F20101107_AABAHI meyers_c_Page_104.jpg
46354dca412b9b079670920e9d1ca384
fd1c91c41f056e495c8c4fc793523ff6662aaf72
8785 F20101107_AABBKL meyers_c_Page_030thm.jpg
cdf38b15b533c5d02430da3263e00f44
bafca9e08a860fdcaa476df9131cf7735e954ce8
8439 F20101107_AABBJW meyers_c_Page_021thm.jpg
9da1ecd4121fe2e95eb8f9a19408e64f
161ae411ad8ca4e0563d0335aaa2b56de38c955f
91037 F20101107_AABAGU meyers_c_Page_090.jpg
be846077f32732eeab49c1d5615143d4
dec0cf71169d943fb7db0ce1cc93001d4d4000b1
88879 F20101107_AABAHJ meyers_c_Page_105.jpg
71e035d58a3c1bec89d30c2c701b211f
6ec553d1f447dd544ee481b2f519b8b06c691393
26322 F20101107_AABBLA meyers_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
5eb35dd26951a8d5fe7ce9ee99bccfa4
18dd46e5ea6aed4798ffd97a3ced9a2b0bf56dac
35854 F20101107_AABBKM meyers_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
937cc92b491d0e27ffe1800bf89ed42f
38c551a5745ac0c81176ad69f4b2bfb02fe90086
8936 F20101107_AABBJX meyers_c_Page_022thm.jpg
3fc28f3ac500d392a8fa1fbaa6ae2f46
229ce8c368148759c86ad8c030ecd24e4d8fdd84
85705 F20101107_AABAGV meyers_c_Page_091.jpg
6e2cd688ff9143fa8481f2e56a3511ac
0165c2ab61768d0493caac68641be6d963e7b22b
97805 F20101107_AABAHK meyers_c_Page_106.jpg
8913664b8e182bf1a91af800fd2f8f03
06baaafadf3cacc703b647f1842085b35f9d891f
7205 F20101107_AABBLB meyers_c_Page_039thm.jpg
2c8b36babbb2f7757f3d2b8535d381b2
e9a6d5b5c64cffe8ff928940382823b21f783287
8754 F20101107_AABBKN meyers_c_Page_031thm.jpg
747657ce36f98337db2ae6c53e37addf
67b717470cf7b0f8ef44f4cc44977c0e3cc8dabb
35089 F20101107_AABBJY meyers_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
465919a0bed40673afe2f0e308cbe253
ab94e43ed5a71adca1a5d2d2b9d44190d12bec7d
67733 F20101107_AABAGW meyers_c_Page_092.jpg
8bc8027048742b4c5c7123daf271ec91
9bc7209270d7c007ba317725fe65229c89a782b2
98110 F20101107_AABAHL meyers_c_Page_107.jpg
a16c6ba16a64460a09650851d7c31d6f
3a4d0cb6cb4b6d72a4ad0979407306e80dff1ed1
32471 F20101107_AABBLC meyers_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
8343c0ce5e899054c5edeeb13e164eab
73d2c6441eb01cf0022c3c296dd646061efc8de2
8755 F20101107_AABBKO meyers_c_Page_032thm.jpg
61ab92d0417a6bd8fcbda8e7bbfbfd05
354acf9a6da48348133ae486dd46eed656ef4930
8833 F20101107_AABBJZ meyers_c_Page_023thm.jpg
d1f7af5985b8db983a1bf36a396fcfae
2cdddada547bd58a8c828b698789f97e87eb461d
84791 F20101107_AABAGX meyers_c_Page_093.jpg
f7f432cea96135453b975acb54fc4380
0bc9c8c679deb281d137235d9278b5779f46d901
105620 F20101107_AABAIA meyers_c_Page_125.jpg
47650e58f6e0dd821b1c25f27aa1f69a
f9de8a372e07ace5aeb5879308bc5b491d1f0b4f
93840 F20101107_AABAHM meyers_c_Page_108.jpg
e93d7055862ca49e17e2681e5e5e7949
31d64c29acf8593132c1fc43f8039783104ef92f
8266 F20101107_AABBLD meyers_c_Page_040thm.jpg
e252f4037a9a758481f2a406816fc1f7
dfb8589d574e3e5770d41b265297b703a1eb1dfc
36516 F20101107_AABBKP meyers_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
f24f6675dd8592af6692cf471dea9130
8a2902c3f3c7c061e6ba452393b264acff5f4fa9
76757 F20101107_AABAGY meyers_c_Page_094.jpg
61b4f06c907c003482713592673494be
b005cc0c4fd13d323af9755f550c3644052ba4b9
106142 F20101107_AABAIB meyers_c_Page_126.jpg
8ba8af1de490a11da56d436f324eef67
ef65cfa46a40b29a2afb0a486ed13a24c7c09c80
104807 F20101107_AABAHN meyers_c_Page_109.jpg
7dfc44c1a0c3fff10e1fbe4eaa07ecbc
4573606a9b9702d2a62aee9d9afa7044572a225f
34685 F20101107_AABBLE meyers_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
e51df49553eacdcf8d1b1041992be160
a3851d7137bafeb16b3efbfd08686ec3d059f912
8441 F20101107_AABBKQ meyers_c_Page_033thm.jpg
9de30283dd2567ecf1d70c475eb2ff30
62afac3292fda83abfbe3fc6600327258fc85cd8
79447 F20101107_AABAGZ meyers_c_Page_095.jpg
1ae654c6202cde9db5a1d8c0484d7c39
cbd5cf92732e097588800027793458479e46e400
105171 F20101107_AABAIC meyers_c_Page_127.jpg
f4f27a5324a26b99cc6de88ceb7c1d99
0ec6c6ac2ffd5ecc996c59b6014c14d1a4c38181
92245 F20101107_AABAHO meyers_c_Page_110.jpg
392bff9e16f29c9c444cae85914b6c25
18873e5db8a744f80868f261ed8a595bcf08062a
8213 F20101107_AABBLF meyers_c_Page_041thm.jpg
b1b4cd76145918da3760adf24dde733c
f83b1f377a21c3c803ad2d935c97802041c7ffcc
17500 F20101107_AABBKR meyers_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
36798e188bfecfcd0116d7326b03c4b7
95810c0c12a6716c1771ca62534781f7aff3cb5f
109718 F20101107_AABAID meyers_c_Page_128.jpg
856e76a9c304238580ffae261a1b459c
bcf6995b11f8f2f34de95f50d8261fbfc0c9cefd
96728 F20101107_AABAHP meyers_c_Page_111.jpg
76a7f21c03709d75c4dd90c6a4bdf5ac
3a4b3b559dcfd587eecba8eb0449be6c20e3d446
36095 F20101107_AABBLG meyers_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
6ecdea657cbf3472bff9211112adb829
aaf153e97eb92676b4ef4d26c9864fb480325f6d
4223 F20101107_AABBKS meyers_c_Page_034thm.jpg
1ff661ed6921a8573e443fba064c4297
0eac8ce4ead6686185dc90dfe7566fd1421053cd
102840 F20101107_AABAIE meyers_c_Page_130.jpg
b6526a07ca0327aa35e06c744e55ea2a
0d669ccf22905ea8fcfc55d1068182b46350ec7d
87946 F20101107_AABAHQ meyers_c_Page_112.jpg
906ab68d14fccb6919ccd6e420afc167
465168780533d85e07971eeb73f46c04bb97850d
8865 F20101107_AABBLH meyers_c_Page_042thm.jpg
27903e74f13a93f0d48966c8bbbb32a6
e63f2657373e9e4d58f6d6f404ad3cdd72aa128b
8541 F20101107_AABBKT meyers_c_Page_035thm.jpg
c37539ab5eceed0f908d05aeed36d04a
8892bb718f49f98d80617d8d1ceb713f9ee4b35c
106415 F20101107_AABAIF meyers_c_Page_131.jpg
d3e09c90eb4c23e5d390ac86f6dcdbcd
2c8ea089094eb904d420779678a825cd63ac945b
98807 F20101107_AABAHR meyers_c_Page_113.jpg
5085f7ff2cef7d998842dae1a3aa056c
fd7f7d81dd64495fe93b570a80df8deee416c147
8775 F20101107_AABBLI meyers_c_Page_043thm.jpg
389cc07b648a8ade1861a6115b0dfe02
e108017aa1362a8b69c050455447cf535a1aed30
34291 F20101107_AABBKU meyers_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
8806e42a5cd0217cf564bfbb6852de47
90d33e877cb108f3faf633d91cf7ca0baf553874
111847 F20101107_AABAIG meyers_c_Page_132.jpg
c334028f30d036c4238af8ee79550fec
0abc80faf2c43afb1d7ecf92519be630ba526c97
82158 F20101107_AABAHS meyers_c_Page_117.jpg
580f8a40551693e6dced89f16e10938c
dfd11d96ab5ce852de74c8b3e03f45dbcc25f552
32438 F20101107_AABBLJ meyers_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
3fe83528112b8a6538582ec1cd82b5f9
eaa2af6d9f765612f1c09fb39ca590fb7ff265a7
104793 F20101107_AABAIH meyers_c_Page_133.jpg
f94372d21fd9afd313b1c9c3f2ff40d0
6b1984d87986b933c34d29875ffeb9f3de492f32
8665 F20101107_AABBLK meyers_c_Page_044thm.jpg
18044c293e349a3f741d068550f7bf16
1b5a98e6867dbab8e0422adfc3d10824f38e8814
8333 F20101107_AABBKV meyers_c_Page_036thm.jpg
6d6d88cdbede44fe26edc9c758f85d84
e2b723933b1ec370bee60c4662178389286e1cbd
102401 F20101107_AABAII meyers_c_Page_134.jpg
8b5c378adc5caf58e3aceabbc1fd86d8
7852e4cabd9a7e514612d7ca9ab6cb8e9237612f
74498 F20101107_AABAHT meyers_c_Page_118.jpg
f57c586b4c03ffecad04d63d93ca1eff
b16acfad531db165743c1a860f0efcb2394b5da2
34826 F20101107_AABBLL meyers_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
a7418d1810c79a2b287e23cdaf4d3d38
0ef558fbc3884bdd8db8e0d34ab8a6f41c92c61b
34949 F20101107_AABBKW meyers_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
eb18d5e85fa214a322cec5aa667d06de
9c3506e1312155585d95e7297ffedab95eb6b15b
101491 F20101107_AABAIJ meyers_c_Page_135.jpg
5c659b79bf8b4a505e22eba15f01229c
8764d769734251af5375e9eb9799a217e4457cab
77307 F20101107_AABAHU meyers_c_Page_119.jpg
0f9aae79b2a3c45d84b64ef2a6e20deb
e2def368efcfcfa4bcc1c35914033fd540fd4568
35012 F20101107_AABBMA meyers_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
05207e1197bb23c1f58b68b465fbf4d1
cbd0bd27010a5af2fd5c8fc3b5432308d46673da
8860 F20101107_AABBLM meyers_c_Page_045thm.jpg
54f7708293f4c45d9940459d44923efb
7c50b85cb9e09e52e14519f505669763f010082f
8480 F20101107_AABBKX meyers_c_Page_037thm.jpg
c2ce969e6813fe33585a4f246ca276f7
b1c7ae06b02c1c736db1f1dcbe273f0c9c1045a6
108387 F20101107_AABAIK meyers_c_Page_136.jpg
57cbffd36ee3fb211485f84bae0ecf04
812e8028ca95663ec24dac1a55956500742fc981
50850 F20101107_AABAHV meyers_c_Page_120.jpg
99f73a7f1b03573d7d2ddc52e341b3fb
6f13f6908ceeb2f7f90ea091283d85f47663e65e
8718 F20101107_AABBMB meyers_c_Page_053thm.jpg
4c0b87854ccd69506163d25597c5899a
31eddf25f1804573c0714b9165621c1d63656299
35611 F20101107_AABBLN meyers_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
cdb9839c927cf8023e9f93d42093865d
46f68c8e63359a5640881f47d26e0ae1e05a2a95
34264 F20101107_AABBKY meyers_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
28f60c4ff5abea2c55a84a99be35dd1e
13fd0ad9400dbe3dbc36ec3bacc6675bfbcac637
83649 F20101107_AABAIL meyers_c_Page_137.jpg
b19b986732e433fbfa4f153515c56f68
d999b2cb8f9033dff8eb1399d1b68776ce0bda81
104888 F20101107_AABAHW meyers_c_Page_121.jpg
5ecd9304a5924cd9f638f5999c1a3924
751fe18f9a80365143e6eef1bafa363cc41983f9
21349 F20101107_AABBMC meyers_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
59ec7edabf07976b23809fe0bc6d712c
41cea4b5391eebe2ec480c8ee1b65e69dae3fe7a
8998 F20101107_AABBLO meyers_c_Page_046thm.jpg
b043090841e93c2c046f67ddb5dfcd18
29a88feb2d3b4bd9704d2434cf26061aeda3b412
8479 F20101107_AABBKZ meyers_c_Page_038thm.jpg
5daf0ed19b91ab0bc914bfdc96b8d45f
f289b87fe3982b6d3f68d3988c6cfe9f505828b0
5096 F20101107_AABAIM meyers_c_Page_138.jpg
b23f83647ae182494750c0a0d2dfe918
1ae7c919b63de122e72e018cd8ded538814edf09
114728 F20101107_AABAHX meyers_c_Page_122.jpg
cf25b85513756db1b196df26642101fb
72c704a57bfb8c0e164231140cee27c0932c76da
51644 F20101107_AABAJA meyers_c_Page_152.jpg
4190aa54eeabea0f11af5adedec3e94e
b1f1197f0a3668e26b865d369a35eb40888a4baa
5548 F20101107_AABBMD meyers_c_Page_054thm.jpg
22c274d68b897f7fc807d24b2e9ddc60
c475eba89b5cf0d90d52061efa7ced42f8d192c8
34786 F20101107_AABBLP meyers_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
a90211921110a75f70e82ea9dcb790fb
0b37ac2f71b57ca9c95ce17dbb732d9d9ce91eb9
61213 F20101107_AABAIN meyers_c_Page_139.jpg
44e87c193aca7306a72dac8f231061da
1b6a3190dc7f6c7b4d22624fafddbbe52f2f4036
108388 F20101107_AABAHY meyers_c_Page_123.jpg
34cd9bc6c63fe8d55e8904941f77b627
7dcffd3dde43088f04bf72813428299f9e33b530
42640 F20101107_AABAJB meyers_c_Page_154.jpg
853d51f6d42bb610f5294029eb4caa98
5c6f641f83d7a38ce9e69330e3246399a0f76234
32804 F20101107_AABBME meyers_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
cf1acfc9a56957f4be2d23ad15a920c8
4a325b45472379f487c9eb06c1caf7bd73cff443
8653 F20101107_AABBLQ meyers_c_Page_047thm.jpg
01296f49c625f61f334ce6cc439759d2
df7c62592e63371d5bca66122f44bb344ae0fd32
62650 F20101107_AABAIO meyers_c_Page_140.jpg
e9439ec76afe483a212329ef510f5006
3ab392c2c398aca0e5a6c1b296b9f01962d6eec2
108708 F20101107_AABAHZ meyers_c_Page_124.jpg
a942541da408afef10a1aef933950858
8891e5eaf74a845b659f59bc95ddd3b68dfc9a0e
65737 F20101107_AABAJC meyers_c_Page_155.jpg
8eb1b5f52f74832d40d91a23def5999b
8d447c2527604b092466b5b1060c73765255568a
8089 F20101107_AABBMF meyers_c_Page_055thm.jpg
b5a9d4d8505a9a0ae616385272cb7ae0
1b338065cf17b4625a59287e6892b1e17b60a717
35906 F20101107_AABBLR meyers_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
81516beb9f495a2d3756fc259c20b433
e1c83d4fc980af9bf2b357c31cd8101a86674c2f
75867 F20101107_AABAIP meyers_c_Page_141.jpg
69b624e28289a43f952e807f09e285af
3cdc479536d61ade20d0906880a13979299051fe
8295 F20101107_AABAJD meyers_c_Page_156.jpg
332c10569dd346d1ea0d2e4ba3a8774f
32ebca87552e4c1fd51e4033f56cf3cb1c31e4ab
36280 F20101107_AABBMG meyers_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
bdd68e54437ee265db1cd0214fade0ed
fa66792ed00bb1b1da3d73d2debcafd81cab509e
33463 F20101107_AABBLS meyers_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
fe1fe7bc64d47b0682e8e6f56c1c684d
6ae5612bf744d158ee8d62bba5bf21f0f3b0c81b
41964 F20101107_AABAIQ meyers_c_Page_142.jpg
2d98085d0134ceb6e9d86daa1052e017
491b7e5e37dde00c4ce69fda543329e8a99f5080
42738 F20101107_AABAJE meyers_c_Page_157.jpg
fec0ffa5a82b18f20fd5086ed689dca2
73e9414b0af7ac126caf79cf171cc9ea9d60dc3c
8478 F20101107_AABBMH meyers_c_Page_056thm.jpg
71aa8dc8f64437e7c1071926b7073dda
b9d48e1946765d0d62fa6e3482b1781e5aa134d8
8158 F20101107_AABBLT meyers_c_Page_049thm.jpg
5e13a6627418d0a037da8bd288df625f
bed02c3bd00a9e9e438cd8f2c7f0018a93f4bd04
4569 F20101107_AABAIR meyers_c_Page_143.jpg
2601d19714fc0e6efbe6321502fdad84
02ae3fa435e555d5387caf8c4c30b8231bb9355b
14099 F20101107_AABAJF meyers_c_Page_158.jpg
0dcfccf34edfcc6b78c88f24b0fbd8df
30153e735ca8dab6a0c2599f2e0bbefd1aface79
31002 F20101107_AABBMI meyers_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
55d6a8f676e130284edfb626f2dc5c89
e65107ce6750e4b5f9dff26d7b8be8d4bfd265f8
35515 F20101107_AABBLU meyers_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
1b597bb70c592d4c86a65ad70700a6da
39320d857b9001201989203b44f07d971abe43e1
44959 F20101107_AABAIS meyers_c_Page_144.jpg
98d319a420d0fc84e8044023b151cf46
4ea082db6c3e4ac0c2080a0d68eaf27d610c50f5
5150 F20101107_AABAJG meyers_c_Page_159.jpg
6d4db5919d4fbd2f68ef884cbbab5f2f
63419cb3db6d1a4342159c29cc9860612aa884d9
7943 F20101107_AABBMJ meyers_c_Page_057thm.jpg
2fda439441b681c95f754cb3b025352c
ebf982d9ea918b23f3d8948a38b890e24a1d6c4e
8884 F20101107_AABBLV meyers_c_Page_050thm.jpg
4086fc550d3af8806a6ebf8430e41f8d
967ae6d4657d475c08dd806192c66df97284ae3e
38266 F20101107_AABAIT meyers_c_Page_145.jpg
fa453e68871ea7a5df499eff8e4e7bbf
e7cf0efde07af17188fddc232813107c6b2ce8b1
94549 F20101107_AABAJH meyers_c_Page_160.jpg
bbea41408fb82b430750d74f531cca87
35630233393913e76331354c5163e501616b4e3c
20673 F20101107_AABBMK meyers_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
2a72afdd265f4a3dfe168b3354b18772
8e507fccb3b935fece5a1bb18dca5f19415fbc8f
101571 F20101107_AABAJI meyers_c_Page_162.jpg
512d2111b17e7f0a52d6568c37e293af
fa13b7579012c88ef92524abf908ecae8cc87010
5716 F20101107_AABBML meyers_c_Page_058thm.jpg
6b45f1f8641b4d3361c455faa674be4a
441744009c24ebbd843e7c9e53eca0cf3274e180
35679 F20101107_AABBLW meyers_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
791b4179470c31661e536437011ad2da
d8f8cff7c1ad1a4fc29b889801975f443a6d1e6d
51730 F20101107_AABAIU meyers_c_Page_146.jpg
feacd5454b74ebdbe09385705b4eb133
5ef1af4d6a4d525a502d479e9f5bdfaa4ab0f9ca
118471 F20101107_AABAJJ meyers_c_Page_163.jpg
2bd7f8b9e161ee4785f13a00ea7e1dbd
a84de0221f1a051a4978dc03fcd0b6ea9444d277
9080 F20101107_AABBNA meyers_c_Page_066thm.jpg
7e0a59de9df4fc1a4df3b07795f407ad
61b998ddfee4f63fadf11cee44eaa3aa89d9adfb
35761 F20101107_AABBMM meyers_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
18fd84ffa233c3c2ba7c301c4c56e123
018bda955cf757811c266e738df61e3e2342edfb
8828 F20101107_AABBLX meyers_c_Page_051thm.jpg
09387fb9264849914b0f790b7e839f19
a1975d77291cb5dc077c95586c10642f0a09032d
39071 F20101107_AABAIV meyers_c_Page_147.jpg
570a5c3278a70d600b3600f3ad96f6bd
f14c2d8b97e56a51f2b97100e8bdcf93825c31f3
130741 F20101107_AABAJK meyers_c_Page_164.jpg
1f874cfd5b0f54aece31c1717eafbaa3
e55afc488bda6de42a1722c9553ab818b3dd8bae
33823 F20101107_AABBNB meyers_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
7bf542143c04a0ca94d79bc61b636f0f
ddc767c41506b634ec063b5c957b4c3e4afa6cde
8898 F20101107_AABBMN meyers_c_Page_059thm.jpg
17e6b729c6fdac5525129697b9b35eb4
a32bbc1e78515cea7f0281438fe633e239449702
38158 F20101107_AABBLY meyers_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
584396ab747785224a0734285246d793
4d0b3734755cc3bf72abb8f1843b0120b27f6ab5
37155 F20101107_AABAIW meyers_c_Page_148.jpg
8bd5254ee1656f065f0857a2c0ae43af
91b0f462b9b1ebfd20299b1b79e3cd14be96e047
123720 F20101107_AABAJL meyers_c_Page_165.jpg
9b09f7d6b2c200e807f5fd0adef985ff
23087e4317a0004455e453e9cb7eb3a03720371c
8460 F20101107_AABBNC meyers_c_Page_067thm.jpg
498fbd74815c2225551c4163ff9e0fd7
1f9a962a7c388a76574b8fe56b63c4c27678c92f
36427 F20101107_AABBMO meyers_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
ffb9172a64da1e5d0ba30fd44c291103
225fad3d910ea2e60524097986d14cd295b5fcd0
9086 F20101107_AABBLZ meyers_c_Page_052thm.jpg
9cc46cee8213d7baf7fbdc9fb6e7fb24
a0008840c49b8903edc853a3385787fa7094326b
20421 F20101107_AABAIX meyers_c_Page_149.jpg
09ed269e2d560273688c9ac79259c929
ddb4af8c1744000d2c4b9a1b94939a2188485b0d
1051974 F20101107_AABAKA meyers_c_Page_004.jp2
e7b4242f20daf44fb4d927fd4b9455f1
aca8d60a395e2a3ab12291d66929ff6053f4f085
121892 F20101107_AABAJM meyers_c_Page_166.jpg
05aa5f0d4c16481ff0ce2e5da84fdc6b
fa900dc4f27e86666998d0fbb539f0eaf0f58d96
35305 F20101107_AABBND meyers_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
f9cf270f13df17e29ab53582aafff103
fbb145cd47ae9747fb7b1066acf66099decc30ea
8520 F20101107_AABBMP meyers_c_Page_060thm.jpg
974730443927cdfc321f589f1d2b33ae
4098b6acf9d43ad12674565f6b19638c873ebd6a
65407 F20101107_AABAIY meyers_c_Page_150.jpg
ecf16ae7f0f782d1a2ace87a2e581f90
55ed9b8c56b940fa6c27e0aa74ac0c8adca19222
438409 F20101107_AABAKB meyers_c_Page_006.jp2
5ede641e4b2cfa1b13b2ff3e53d28b79
e29fd46fa5bd1cde424e9361f990f810824d522a
123761 F20101107_AABAJN meyers_c_Page_167.jpg
c22861ef1c7d4420c8580c969eb75ace
a3afb94ccb5f2eab0101260aa3d4ea997ed75a66
8422 F20101107_AABBNE meyers_c_Page_068thm.jpg
7a04a490e467adf7d818c58016cce15e
726972692ad1d0b677b10373fef3a5bd971002c6
38191 F20101107_AABBMQ meyers_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
f16b9f094a2fee38f315764c5a5ad380
5c242ad80b235ca38b668c2d71909598ac2f541a
40404 F20101107_AABAIZ meyers_c_Page_151.jpg
f45888f6718a483c2185d69888f11431
8fe3de13467b9a77d0b278b20e6eca43531f1e15
1051980 F20101107_AABAKC meyers_c_Page_008.jp2
eded23b6eda09c08ceacd0442038ff6a
f83d44036d32fdc151ba47a2df3df82e163bc495
128348 F20101107_AABAJO meyers_c_Page_168.jpg
d1400df6a1f0d2734b919df25b0d7b01
bec2208087ecf3fa6589984eea265cfb01d74fcd
34383 F20101107_AABBNF meyers_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
585d6bf6b0132ad679cea1ff296b0d92
f2274c68c25837aaa70b62744b694a08bf522952
9200 F20101107_AABBMR meyers_c_Page_061thm.jpg
ca019a6b688b41b53ebbb08f97967f1e
c901e9bf837b8d63c75f72ca584152ba2051ad25
853777 F20101107_AABAKD meyers_c_Page_009.jp2
8494e53d230e2a1fc3f4f4f3eba918a0
669bfbeebfe9b60f645495bd8621fbf048c53673
134513 F20101107_AABAJP meyers_c_Page_169.jpg
a402df5480aa1a4d214d5fe7aca14218
6be056ad8189f04e99d4e94b89e9bb5cd4cc9134
8464 F20101107_AABBNG meyers_c_Page_069thm.jpg
1763635f7f636f286d5ae42205e9da56
00c3b71782601494aee794c7f7c3d11a5f77f5e8
9176 F20101107_AABBMS meyers_c_Page_062thm.jpg
8b1fdb5df7a154379bb7d487d5bf4005
fdf0ab8152e4645d65c5e8d2db649a168d4234a7
1051954 F20101107_AABAKE meyers_c_Page_010.jp2
8751e0a1efd825bbe2c29d157b77fd2a
02dab5202945bf9abf94e8511d456f9a769cc0d2
132026 F20101107_AABAJQ meyers_c_Page_170.jpg
65d4ee89711c32a829617c9674b4deb0
5972d4f5a33de0f9318d27761fc5ffbd3f78df6e
36244 F20101107_AABBNH meyers_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
967a3408be027db84103421023f4c62e
832d8a248bae4c9f1cfbb9ab3d6234b6bd51ee33
35934 F20101107_AABBMT meyers_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
373b4bfa7f8b025101b942c64d84a198
428fed2abc3d8d39d483955943d352d028f5c4fa
1051953 F20101107_AABAKF meyers_c_Page_011.jp2
c38a34bef62b31c742f61973c586ec72
40ac3f5dbb14e68abc3a3d5bbe05dc9ab71000fe
122473 F20101107_AABAJR meyers_c_Page_171.jpg
539937c482e33f04e7b78f6a1cb0f49a
bd47341338673acd2c6223123f5fec3cfb2b98f7
8490 F20101107_AABBNI meyers_c_Page_070thm.jpg
879083b32d4e2fd5a7d40da944322546
72a87e13bc654cc24712e7aa54443b7b042ddfbd
8645 F20101107_AABBMU meyers_c_Page_063thm.jpg
b21cda5b92c0feb356440b43aea71b1c
f8202e63d52972257f94bf504b2c30b03f58885f
F20101107_AABAKG meyers_c_Page_012.jp2
ce918ab67e4a4ce4fa0e9a384d3e44e7
e1f27935259ef6e2d3cd4e5c765c1bbd78a9cd99
119756 F20101107_AABAJS meyers_c_Page_172.jpg
9ee195a332e18c8f4336b630ecebafb0
a11444c7a0bcd5b0642742801ca61f42d136aa62
8783 F20101107_AABBNJ meyers_c_Page_071thm.jpg
b9d5a6fdde11989ef04f86eade9d8d47
ee479b95ec72bd6df24814efbcbe1d8a2422bbd7
31115 F20101107_AABBMV meyers_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
665abed9ed17bdfeb45e9eea71f5ac77
72a6e7cebe9767b04b1c88c51544e276371a860f
1051853 F20101107_AABAKH meyers_c_Page_014.jp2
889be83292c162a855f690096f2d0162
f6693bc941d42bbba48e7d4e896892e25e746f0b
125110 F20101107_AABAJT meyers_c_Page_173.jpg
7c420c47f50f7d2417f512d45f38cf3d
afb6a2de755e262c619a482482ae03c88e40e598
36096 F20101107_AABBNK meyers_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
93db27fceda69f9f4e8537eb269be3fc
4846d2046eba9f73601fa0a59c4baa483460efac
8060 F20101107_AABBMW meyers_c_Page_064thm.jpg
f2b3d9c62f0a467373bda1f7153b2503
180f82e3cad89d2358578a4c65755b0d4cbd629d
1051982 F20101107_AABAKI meyers_c_Page_015.jp2
76848bbcf224171b8d45cd3c01656faa
a24bb9c7f68d37649e1c0ed78ccdce9b67ef2120
45823 F20101107_AABAJU meyers_c_Page_174.jpg
659f84887d4d13aa377f8feae2da04be
5118fe0d8d45a9ff48d03a22f2342fec1fb4c975
8905 F20101107_AABBNL meyers_c_Page_072thm.jpg
95ee2a47058f3cd50e0e277583f4a1d4
bf2692fad0e7707b1f4dec956bd55aba03a1f947
1051945 F20101107_AABAKJ meyers_c_Page_016.jp2
85b585f31f5ae794c81dc8d4bbaf048f
6d7919043c17c15c98881afe88a3e8554138de5b
31547 F20101107_AABBOA meyers_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
68fb19b2b910b81b6f67c737c3e1b44c
161e6fdf0b35f327db0b033789d555f91c14f9ba
34768 F20101107_AABBNM meyers_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
407b7ad8e373df4febf23bcf2c50a006
0c08a80a689668a094f28f4f001a14560304c619
33810 F20101107_AABBMX meyers_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
9b13070b3c6ac2cadeaef4937702e004
d5c38eb24cb0b779d034684e6662f9b933142da1
284957 F20101107_AABAKK meyers_c_Page_017.jp2
8a013bf2e67779cf1b7ba6f4695f172e
7ae9cb2f3eb29ce727862fd7acfdc4810a8f6d1c
101920 F20101107_AABAJV meyers_c_Page_175.jpg
80779580231843ae0664f7cbd0155950
8ee3f2855140c0d624ac4c076fa34cfbfb34c4a9
8011 F20101107_AABBOB meyers_c_Page_081thm.jpg
f0a5d26497de71546f9ce958912aa1a1
d6dcbad76424c075ca35394f8fc7b3949924d864
F20101107_AABBNN meyers_c_Page_073thm.jpg
d55c481d29424f8328a82bc30f5d5e64
e707d141068f08c8099512c4e212e31224eee5b6
8284 F20101107_AABBMY meyers_c_Page_065thm.jpg
e4c4360452a0ac25225581aeed41d8fc
3f99a6c93e05cef908cfd063985f77bc5c21a5de
1051978 F20101107_AABAKL meyers_c_Page_018.jp2
7cf96ab8da6900fc707b6cb8daf94a33
c83213667e0cea099966ca662544302e902fe4fc
18601 F20101107_AABAJW meyers_c_Page_176.jpg
66095249a3c57ad251f2f76232130d54
1dfe1afb065c472760873f5c06a28f50daff5d12
35000 F20101107_AABBOC meyers_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
f20eda765824d71df74c52359ed67917
fd430bcb46b4f162e95d94050726709ec971923e
34993 F20101107_AABBNO meyers_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
5e66e0ec7c6fc29f067148404c9c3e24
c5846b0ee4b5bdc6b106b0045cfc8f6035b4c53b
38869 F20101107_AABBMZ meyers_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
cbc1aa1f4a2302d6334aea0bfa55f2a0
f7695c4e5a7a3019354e1d72514dc1f7bf34de66
1051956 F20101107_AABALA meyers_c_Page_036.jp2
acc2ae1b90eef089d356c512202d3c68
9d9ed08d62d156106c14a03a9f524380abfa71ca
1051942 F20101107_AABAKM meyers_c_Page_019.jp2
7f2bb8e672b0adfc45ca712d6679ccdb
2f8e3027a127b6a0d87dd6071a3bf813a3f395d2
312517 F20101107_AABAJX meyers_c_Page_001.jp2
848e6f8863e8db4f18acc48c7810f48b
ba85e3de27d2d306d765f2bd393c8d83334303b0
8699 F20101107_AABBOD meyers_c_Page_082thm.jpg
937f9e803d36dc622f9a9b0f64c79049
63888ca8b579a8e255a018db3f18fd5da54b0a55
11848 F20101107_AABBNP meyers_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
3c834bfa70412aaede851a0f71dbd4be
9897d6d76bddacad646b33e1be615ebef7c5df6e
1051983 F20101107_AABALB meyers_c_Page_037.jp2
cb55c8b8b694948bb16bd245bcda6a16
0785bde1c4c7699e71ca90987b34beb7ba15942a
1051964 F20101107_AABAKN meyers_c_Page_020.jp2
3188456aa33c3bde95a34c473ada0606
e545922efd74c31dafcb66e60ae60c9ca7559d09
31608 F20101107_AABAJY meyers_c_Page_002.jp2
aa204243c8939c17a6adb111fe92eba7
edac3f21f90ba7432e18c3ee3b555ca57d430631
26247 F20101107_AABBOE meyers_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
c8cba8291eeed8f482df5e53ab4ce0b9
ae3ff70f516927d4251d6678daf8b03f3a999f95
3014 F20101107_AABBNQ meyers_c_Page_075thm.jpg
192527caba03d81bca0aa5e7513d317d
13adeedfc67ed3549022934a81ee3e6d24511da6
1051965 F20101107_AABALC meyers_c_Page_038.jp2
c8a52d29af285bea4cf40c96bf7b4427
bf1a1c75cea8ee8ccd646a509272d4dd2952c3ef
1051925 F20101107_AABAKO meyers_c_Page_023.jp2
b823aa3eb32038f539a92761d21d5f5f
05ef3fbd8a74b5e311f7abbd3a7a2068d0e5d99d
29350 F20101107_AABAJZ meyers_c_Page_003.jp2
38133b7a7d5a2d000d4a37edba219bbe
248ce187d56053301f60109a02b8d663ae56ea15
6685 F20101107_AABBOF meyers_c_Page_083thm.jpg
6b2a89e5a5cf4baeaeb5053582994ac5
edbc4da181097325779c843b7f76d02c1f70aa9a
34348 F20101107_AABBNR meyers_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
e0c6b1d423bcc1ee3ee5c9a83bd3ce9e
ac18119052615383c21a1d83de782a39234cbcc6
972116 F20101107_AABALD meyers_c_Page_039.jp2
a78c091c5e4553f5f6f755246a20aedc
a7ec7dd00906ae5f5158ae7841d863109c13977b
1051968 F20101107_AABAKP meyers_c_Page_024.jp2
25de3f05f3a6939fd590152f337d6df4
b9280c9a26bda10f6faf35c3255f792e514d3084
17414 F20101107_AABBOG meyers_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
d6aad4830ec79af4830f8c1829221751
d048de87901b5fb45b5330296608dac2b42c0d9f
8363 F20101107_AABBNS meyers_c_Page_076thm.jpg
c0b0d7698fbaa9af2914883748902009
e485e35303ad17b0638db6ff79c5d223818d0719
1051939 F20101107_AABALE meyers_c_Page_040.jp2
e4b6aec2f01e43f18516d0c8e0da3b81
d176019406c03b98e21ef12330ce8c574d7f98e7
1051966 F20101107_AABAKQ meyers_c_Page_025.jp2
371ef0dda09c1b0fc02fc96d2f5134fd
b3730f5f63a12ac5910634a0aca8156e14dfb40b
4953 F20101107_AABBOH meyers_c_Page_084thm.jpg
eeb9ae021145bb9c905b5d487ac3fb13
bb54e963546e07f78eeb9b987244ad260e645ef8
36042 F20101107_AABBNT meyers_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
fc132fd21244a89e341a5af5f46ddd15
65c32e829278a31eb15828b5a8d977fdc10c5495
1051977 F20101107_AABALF meyers_c_Page_041.jp2
6ebca642b5090e6e548eb2d8823065e0
31d80a55a64742511da3bf0b6489007e6983db90
F20101107_AABAKR meyers_c_Page_026.jp2
3768bbdfbb7448ae9c8f8d200858e2c6
e0895bb96b72ecd93b6cb78a41ec8a6e3d686b3f
35300 F20101107_AABBOI meyers_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
df0dc62f1a8ace403183fa5a1ec54e02
3fb7c8ce9eb769a2010588b2e839c9e1ebc54b49
8649 F20101107_AABBNU meyers_c_Page_077thm.jpg
0ab5b954590f2c6cea71afbd52ff4d8b
32a29289bb127b076b7cb582521dbdcfb2e0268c
F20101107_AABALG meyers_c_Page_042.jp2
8eafeb3ffb332bebf170bd74350d508c
f69dfad846bade69a7310fde12851da5a59fe932
1051938 F20101107_AABAKS meyers_c_Page_027.jp2
c51204c21f7258d4289d77b542395b34
44ec141ba3f56aaf4f534a4076532363452c5851
8496 F20101107_AABBOJ meyers_c_Page_085thm.jpg
4f3d64771cdc3e00b15a826862213e41
13a07d14cc3645344d78a338561174af9ad7539d
8172 F20101107_AABBNV meyers_c_Page_078thm.jpg
82f8130d7e23331aa89d99443050026e
2f9814b47d4a8e2fb920898ef28436ad7694da79
1051960 F20101107_AABALH meyers_c_Page_043.jp2
1db1fa08524a7a8dcdea45143b640f74
7aabc6d9a5514949ceb31f7b0b8effde3a0839da
F20101107_AABAKT meyers_c_Page_028.jp2
68ec744d691b64944aaf78668d7e0b4c
f11ccca900f57b0f3bc711637725f3147c2bc947
8510 F20101107_AABBOK meyers_c_Page_086thm.jpg
7863f3e2b075303e6c28ffc09d86ab97
ec34c68ae8ec2455ea42a8713a991a59bff7c3aa
21763 F20101107_AABBNW meyers_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
0116e85fca32c57a8443601844d969c7
cd45b96a4ea82af73ac79bff4583ad66ee0aea79
F20101107_AABALI meyers_c_Page_044.jp2
ce1c864d0f94e0efe9601c6d3ff7cca7
b86046a1133a95924e8c25ddb632d4db8b274f4d
1051959 F20101107_AABAKU meyers_c_Page_029.jp2
74682e904b0e98bcc58a34a2ef5c8f0a
0cd7386d09e19bc5192d4d8da7f0bea5edfc060e
28565 F20101107_AABBOL meyers_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
7ca2eb04cec69160ce39a200b31b985a
16ae48a545f247c603d32e55a57fed4edfa4cfe3
6145 F20101107_AABBNX meyers_c_Page_079thm.jpg
89d8b98c4d2a423ee31ec7c2690be00f
beec0eafe0208c5c97513ae9f602bd54210a9b8d
F20101107_AABALJ meyers_c_Page_045.jp2
322fd3ae49f302d985780d5bac1d23a6
cd674b719244fb16787d39a07bf66eb1c78722a6
1051979 F20101107_AABAKV meyers_c_Page_030.jp2
f6f02ba608b8da1ad84e3a8109192960
c8fbc43e1b01f652c79c4cc238b235d602692f94
6602 F20101107_AABBPA meyers_c_Page_094thm.jpg
c1e899d7a6e2fe5170e076c5edbd69c8
877bc3d84615a955b3c73698a087c51559b9d345
7959 F20101107_AABBOM meyers_c_Page_087thm.jpg
12a6f27fc919e8d8b8627f54a2898ff5
d93b1f5b24d70f24b54939efd5735be0493cda7b
1051976 F20101107_AABALK meyers_c_Page_046.jp2
d7285fbf406b993e9c8d22db4fdf5ea0
24333a89ca8099fb5c238b6c732389ea1649d026
6947 F20101107_AABBPB meyers_c_Page_095thm.jpg
e41290f06142d722c00c51b38e3be602
9254aa846075c9329a48ca8183fbb90af249afb4
29238 F20101107_AABBON meyers_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
86e7ce354269164180d31abeffa35e50
ed7142d45591db339bce2a83c2a36b187c42ccb6
24057 F20101107_AABBNY meyers_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
57db6efeb2837cf9b309570d30906117
ff968fa0ddcb3e351af0af17b0bb22d3503b9b05
1051981 F20101107_AABALL meyers_c_Page_047.jp2
652545d8af23c5df17884516b7b34cc9
a6fd607eade1ffc6008cec7e897f685eda5b1389
1051933 F20101107_AABAKW meyers_c_Page_031.jp2
da9273b2755f728184aa68f27a455ad1
3bba788de5cc847b973dbd00ecc43fc91c1b1769
36400 F20101107_AABBPC meyers_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
d0135a81df47abe59c0135240d1cfc66
bb5a04d8018c632fb9c4756f303b9c23bbeadfbf
7549 F20101107_AABBOO meyers_c_Page_088thm.jpg
6023c09837f5401da74429209479b6b2
1053cef3aa2e41cc6b89e471abe9cf8a36889a96
6659 F20101107_AABBNZ meyers_c_Page_080thm.jpg
239d94b75fc3b7da656598b5eb0d8999
71978074e89b297ecfb90beaa35be5944ccc282b
1051950 F20101107_AABALM meyers_c_Page_048.jp2
be968fbde0549070242193ee3e2975d4
0d2275a940cf01c100c760f4485e3f865046eb57
F20101107_AABAKX meyers_c_Page_032.jp2
c196d4bf2c5602f2ac8b2f7cc9d7e8a9
7d669ae71a1915f7a9ddeb7b46a73a831be562c2
1051984 F20101107_AABAMA meyers_c_Page_065.jp2
f00e52074bf1cbf2096c6a07370dcbc4
a09f03264c968d7001ffefd3a44df992119ab0ce
9006 F20101107_AABBPD meyers_c_Page_096thm.jpg
d9fbbcf14918b759ea5003413da84c31
370ab1c77ef05fb3058eb1e53e8f008a123dcfd3
31490 F20101107_AABBOP meyers_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
c733f69b940f8459b6582ad3dbb71184
efe84fcb546743883b1e157c4914baffab863290
F20101107_AABALN meyers_c_Page_049.jp2
057bffda2a5db11213e4f73a5d6cee0a
faba3d9d2605ec5ef66e909aa10a1f9cb8137901
F20101107_AABAKY meyers_c_Page_033.jp2
5db3776f3ce26bb4ec876d6995bcb9ff
0d19d89796a75b4d6456ff24c9541de1b41490b8
1051970 F20101107_AABAMB meyers_c_Page_066.jp2
ec35cc8b540276016eaada6cb8dbc064
781b4302a7500f9722466e65a849b621bdb5efe2
33760 F20101107_AABBPE meyers_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
5680051d1e253eca2b717494b3e947f3
17271699a9be79e55a40746cd0953a196567b6e0
7992 F20101107_AABBOQ meyers_c_Page_089thm.jpg
b97cf8a43eb0fc8ebdb6845c91ff83d5
4e72963b0b1ebb1a6c9f13a142282ec0eddae38b
F20101107_AABALO meyers_c_Page_050.jp2
5f9ac1193843070f7df2ff5e332764c7
304124053815e5997e7c1d947cda6695d31307be
1051920 F20101107_AABAKZ meyers_c_Page_035.jp2
467af224a3d1ed9eb94105533d6071de
947c6d80c55ffc431d549174771f51404eb9b9f4
1051912 F20101107_AABAMC meyers_c_Page_067.jp2
f73c3a5274f7768fdde00eee1cba0682
677aa51a918a5d13d3e9290cd077d24613d06c98
8403 F20101107_AABBPF meyers_c_Page_097thm.jpg
1c78c4f4c46d6439cf9a83eee2701992
b75085814db3727e50b5cfbda6a0efe83e0578d6
28858 F20101107_AABBOR meyers_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
630e4dc20c12994c93b7b6f425dab9b9
c80f56db88080c29b4489c63ec6a2c3eb6f630e0
F20101107_AABALP meyers_c_Page_051.jp2
87accccca22cdaad68d876f56afc50a8
375f6ec5ad584a96949987d5e36d22ea1f4d09ba
1051963 F20101107_AABAMD meyers_c_Page_068.jp2
02526c833db0ccc55aca1b57cc157e3e
46c3f4219105a30e6414b94e37768a41e210eb57
31710 F20101107_AABBPG meyers_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
68b8ae135d331520e6ba837326a2f0ee
adcab0c09a129bf8c6ce907648d879ae5c9d03fc
8013 F20101107_AABBOS meyers_c_Page_090thm.jpg
1e1d45483aff7e1719f381d38f6a1041
8e96db213573b78834cb8ea92ebcbabed608cc47
F20101107_AABALQ meyers_c_Page_052.jp2
cfffbd65ff5d68391d95537d3c189ad4
f7947918380ad2c646d3efb4adc63df6c32c3bd1
F20101107_AABAME meyers_c_Page_069.jp2
09b467e24d33b10caa38174adf8edb07
12bd0bc2f1284708e91dd3498e45b0e5368012dd
8273 F20101107_AABBPH meyers_c_Page_098thm.jpg
6a890fc522fad46a820d4847c6b89c58
fb9429b3a4c49bef88197e6f98207ec1a269233f
28247 F20101107_AABBOT meyers_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
13cb8c3065747fbc293774dc04a017e6
97eaebb462019e0e27342a230f8e1245137e5c8f
713040 F20101107_AABALR meyers_c_Page_054.jp2
436dd718c94d14a7c5eb38a2d99f9856
ae4f109baf7575edd5f38a91f9b772edb89e9de8
120759 F20101107_AABAMF meyers_c_Page_070.jp2
734115fafccfbe06f617738f8d02cd72
f4b229b4def48af65f74b8b5b9f2ed3cea310873
32809 F20101107_AABBPI meyers_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
7c1f3eaa3e040c0e114669f1047a246c
e262e204ee821fa40d8e16eb42eb2c5232ffa7fe
7180 F20101107_AABBOU meyers_c_Page_091thm.jpg
ece0b7cae05260c9001cc76136da68df
48c7e48f95d1e0641348668004b97adc9fcc7c7a
1051952 F20101107_AABALS meyers_c_Page_056.jp2
27117ee8df4c1f0b417eb019088cfbf4
d3e85eb53244ee1b56c16261dcd961fb994ff376
1051986 F20101107_AABAMG meyers_c_Page_073.jp2
d7169c91d2a28b7df38a66e6b75fc0dd
a96bef290a5187b501c72dc72b9ff1d57a02f6c5
8005 F20101107_AABBPJ meyers_c_Page_099thm.jpg
9bcaa9a3a792cc15966f51b5c5c0fb82
2bb3d1654f79764a294431ed3357a48a6dfddac3
23058 F20101107_AABBOV meyers_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
60ece473989ffd41d60eef5231f8e743
fad57e7b6101d5a3dd251fd914b8c4c45e7ade3e
101215 F20101107_AABALT meyers_c_Page_057.jp2
8944c79294b601f747c24d855bf89fb0
7275fa4242a085d8e2346959519180cd2e99811c
F20101107_AABAMH meyers_c_Page_074.jp2
70345a8a0807b1e81cfe6f9e80161bc9
ab43a2bc5ff105b13e9c6941b9e46c80d7ca8cd9
29738 F20101107_AABBPK meyers_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
a7adceac4d0c437dc52c411b1ab9aad2
f907a165d78f8353faa933dfe74bd8f42627f28a
6543 F20101107_AABBOW meyers_c_Page_092thm.jpg
8a8de916733e90a7b1190e4f22244bb4
09ea9844fc373bf4f90546b21a717bfae8aae8f4
656762 F20101107_AABALU meyers_c_Page_058.jp2
4f0723c57743f4fbc688e641eeb30f63
213e6648b23eed7a6a43fe066aae39b0d2c95368
368392 F20101107_AABAMI meyers_c_Page_075.jp2
81b30b623821fcf90634c478bc280697
e37a89cc1bc5ab324c63eb366fd684a91b70cc14
7687 F20101107_AABBPL meyers_c_Page_100thm.jpg
5821f76e95f669e36fa26698b6568919
ae0b8e91250469c5efb5cfc95cd4bee205d4c8cd
27491 F20101107_AABBOX meyers_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
bc35cde1ffb052d5f018dfea1be1fe64
e145b230fc7004a21da375c7fac61c403dd3eda8
1051969 F20101107_AABALV meyers_c_Page_059.jp2
eaa155b39f35b873a266ea9a411ca0ed
0c1d16a0c3d99c0c365c1644159113515df26b1a
F20101107_AABAMJ meyers_c_Page_076.jp2
ec22620b7017c4dc3389a7451c5d5199
5c23fbb774e319d5dd8ac029c1dd0142d3900c39
30207 F20101107_AABBQA meyers_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
7f17404dc6a06059f5e53ec28350238b
3d8bc0791ecf7472a3629a0dc0e7aa99f4e19b63
30012 F20101107_AABBPM meyers_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
bb43d44b16c9fafdd0ff331ef4f2d917
25e40278b740d07cf3eee13d2c0acf271272ef82
7508 F20101107_AABBOY meyers_c_Page_093thm.jpg
3e0475d8ef4680210c761e2d3980a6fc
b31d4fd56db517a0fd21aeeed17b63563f10f40b
F20101107_AABALW meyers_c_Page_060.jp2
1518e8e5df449ee02f709f870947a4bb
0308bc222b2d3aaaa7f182ba75e2bf199fa6c47a
F20101107_AABAMK meyers_c_Page_077.jp2
1b96dcd7757c6a4da99ca406003b318b
e2b0e6ff3383777f041928b6b845e5daeced4f54
7621 F20101107_AABBQB meyers_c_Page_108thm.jpg
e9f33512345955396a9c0cb11d7ed076
50ab41778112c0becd34f9a593b65dfd3ea6d7fc
7641 F20101107_AABBPN meyers_c_Page_101thm.jpg
31e0cf8e4ab2617812347698e0568af9
e8aea6624ac5691c16c9aa189ea5872f6199e127
1051913 F20101107_AABAML meyers_c_Page_078.jp2
e4766acf9e836b31aafa461a872c2531
fb128666732ede0afe0e1dfe6f64fe6c233517fb
34451 F20101107_AABBQC meyers_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
5b3393bad7dd1acb302b6b1652624c37
472254e4092b053904ff453fb9d3315767726894
33801 F20101107_AABBPO meyers_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
4cc438593ba239608edb8471006994d9
f795a71ac4d88e3ebb80374852547e33a6892286
25209 F20101107_AABBOZ meyers_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
0afe6af1fc48a3d97804aa6d510e5538
99c8d8ae8c2c95c59ce5c5a61695450e7afe6244
1051973 F20101107_AABALX meyers_c_Page_062.jp2
e35ecc3ba076e8387982a12f90851ec0
46203c911b7a4e90e4ebb33771a5546ea9dd8c43
822539 F20101107_AABANA meyers_c_Page_094.jp2
3527469f8beed3bb41b26fff2b342446
b3da7da2d6b2a1e3fb74ed8ff86d4bc12d63dc4e
628400 F20101107_AABAMM meyers_c_Page_079.jp2
385feaf3406b631146bc4856516c5074
c7b772e957db4ab0c7c47caa288a778646233872
8515 F20101107_AABBQD meyers_c_Page_109thm.jpg
793342abb52a130033688b073197d265
63fa31fc76e16f8a2b39b4992d7c9c24a4d724a0
8133 F20101107_AABBPP meyers_c_Page_102thm.jpg
d7dc4d7b147d9f06db0793d5ddec6f7c
841581efeeb61adffe670597924d09f3615eb65e
836757 F20101107_AABANB meyers_c_Page_095.jp2
8f0b830f7a30bd8d981761f8353f3be9
ffd09bf08df8681b1b151557d9b92a9952508113
674196 F20101107_AABAMN meyers_c_Page_080.jp2
e340c45c9ae759f39040297f8430b0a2
72b42189defcffd251b735c8ba5046430b2f7913
F20101107_AABALY meyers_c_Page_063.jp2
d57dc1ddc28717b2b6f5631c7209f2f8
f25e9c9ac5c5d64192b0e2e8d863cefc30aec9e3
30319 F20101107_AABBQE meyers_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
5cfddb92a0730f2755ae41e3b3b52acc
84915891b9f8f93c1692d2f71caafbc8faa1f6f0
31743 F20101107_AABBPQ meyers_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
e3fc15adbf8b704157caafbe412096d9
d8b8ea473e9bf4792bf08291d381c4b7c890efbd
F20101107_AABANC meyers_c_Page_096.jp2
e5a0b275858dd1450b3b3b3d340fc845
ada84c7ec708e325991f7392c36eaeb2a6720ab9
1006408 F20101107_AABAMO meyers_c_Page_081.jp2
69df75e457183fc6124cc2a337480379
01670763db854c92be860baddaf092e1987a4ad0
1030881 F20101107_AABALZ meyers_c_Page_064.jp2
8b8c2463b897db813304cf4d34d8419d
a9a3d3079aeb05c15165edc1612c8caff8908921
30149 F20101107_AABBQF meyers_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
f089e8a8b70f90216ae46b84fe14b630
a4395c5bf629d4cc90bff2385eb083e72f2f4667
8061 F20101107_AABBPR meyers_c_Page_103thm.jpg
77571d2b3ab336847e6823909fadca58
495d61924f1fdeaef51e56381a826b40acbd3aab
F20101107_AABAND meyers_c_Page_097.jp2
a548289daf5da857d4dc59a74d32cd47
51d5ea9206d257ebafdb7846f2504c100031fc40
F20101107_AABAMP meyers_c_Page_082.jp2
f77e63a0802bee7e4a17a60ace1dc8a3
083c79472bbdbcbfeeae8252f0b5a7b2ea69930f
8048 F20101107_AABBQG meyers_c_Page_111thm.jpg
9175bf0e26f601d5a527bddda9ce869d
9c6aef27492188f4247934c27cb20b272c1cad3d
35276 F20101107_AABBPS meyers_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
3b8212c2b6d948786e4bd1a4be8e5dec
e85ffb0a4e5c32558af05ce24c1cf959093e265d
1007867 F20101107_AABANE meyers_c_Page_098.jp2
e383feb0419947e9f2799edbd6e3dcd0
70aa67ee2bd20714b17403b4eff1d4b37132383d
822394 F20101107_AABAMQ meyers_c_Page_083.jp2
cd5464a283f0c592b553f54963eac03a
2a912d8ad1a9085551bcad4a1de7f55ae0820999
28785 F20101107_AABBQH meyers_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
d173e14006e891688f2b9a925d1afe68
b7be89b38aff1d71796f95b5270157bd2ac6cff6
8688 F20101107_AABBPT meyers_c_Page_104thm.jpg
cb0e5229607ac4009e50679fb6d59737
8426afa0c3b445e08de704369e62cedf53f6773e
F20101107_AABANF meyers_c_Page_099.jp2
341c3f412b36abb1058a3c54d112dd99
e40c8080ae384da20cbb9241ad3986cd8d39723a
505650 F20101107_AABAMR meyers_c_Page_084.jp2
0154a02ba04239a341acaa6d841b906b
85efc3292fdf02a4c775b532056eaa26386a3bd4
7989 F20101107_AABBQI meyers_c_Page_112thm.jpg
0c66ea75817d3a485cc8bc8c791047ef
0ded05c21968b19c0fe6493adfba3ecaacfc5a5f
28475 F20101107_AABBPU meyers_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
647210e61d4b9fb3c08994d3d3c0d1e0
683577e917911953f30dd8a9bd84f57d3b85ad82
1038408 F20101107_AABANG meyers_c_Page_100.jp2
4d32c517c8338e056faeb73c7b3350a7
c72bb44c9d12aeec1b8bea811f6963d245a81b42
F20101107_AABAMS meyers_c_Page_085.jp2
5f1bb97112cdae1ada95582a8aa91c81
1470be97b19168b48f644a0286699c7ee3cfa620
31727 F20101107_AABBQJ meyers_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
ff2b693ce982bec82426955b5e6d5540
c824df7728dfa7641c006646020c1f5773741d83
7230 F20101107_AABBPV meyers_c_Page_105thm.jpg
e1a75b3143f70b7919cbb475e092bcc4
19471b929d293971b816a7ee911b53b8e10f0e77
990198 F20101107_AABANH meyers_c_Page_101.jp2
c28bb33fb4c66c60458a8fd866b21629
2d8b70cf6aaea66bbcf942f45df572af0608defc
1051975 F20101107_AABAMT meyers_c_Page_086.jp2
c428fedd7bd667f9be291ec1b92adf6c
23c4bf671cf179e595985331dfb17f1e36c7920a
8250 F20101107_AABBQK meyers_c_Page_113thm.jpg
6de59d5c7749217dab11f8a36b33ca1e
fda87d2e2b6aa8ddaf8e45b7a29ea8127d92211f
30719 F20101107_AABBPW meyers_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
035caed09b1ed4a08f13faf73400a7bb
f99d85b8bee89436d34de1ef892c5b73dbbb3f42
F20101107_AABANI meyers_c_Page_102.jp2
970c5ba96ff5a083127dd35008d5daa2
02733ff39b4232fd3b2b39ae79c4a5dded66a7c7
958863 F20101107_AABAMU meyers_c_Page_088.jp2
0f439b8438e82cf29a29d0d161d7d0c0
f107bf09adcdd79859ff97ef3d2c20358741746a
31503 F20101107_AABBQL meyers_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
da38f598d750d293376d0f038e95db3d
488fa17deb66e5ecbb5f82b068c47e9c5800a72e
7887 F20101107_AABBPX meyers_c_Page_106thm.jpg
1f13e2be5ae1c253851a47b3655eeb7f
1cacadcabd55a966a204178df6d624a19a2bb1a2
F20101107_AABANJ meyers_c_Page_103.jp2
c0317dc5a17c3fce8afab6f7bc15d765
2f2f33dadaa750c8b265c66798007488965013bc
1028628 F20101107_AABAMV meyers_c_Page_089.jp2
98ec7347f2055b417629b652ab239872
30a5b94d5fe69b0fd77a96348601454d61853755
F20101107_AABBRA meyers_c_Page_122thm.jpg
a86b14f2f9ddddec84ecf498d3119866
3342caf085c267a448af1808e7f01ea2c911a3d9
8370 F20101107_AABBQM meyers_c_Page_114thm.jpg
a8effd287fc03f2745053e0910640279
e1a4c50a9f461c4c90e9ed50fd8ca4537139ce45
32358 F20101107_AABBPY meyers_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
569d15ed2f64a8142ba9fbc7aff58712
6e0fcd4b300445cac2dc0acbfa2070139433cc8f
1051905 F20101107_AABANK meyers_c_Page_104.jp2
400beb5f0983df39ba4de09c920a8bd7
0b0e750de2fafa3a40dcad7247ed7dcb969ccdcc
959382 F20101107_AABAMW meyers_c_Page_090.jp2
e086b052ec9333f52efb626daa0fef6c
ec732017f4a7dd25ec3828d5c65b2c04a209b0a9
35520 F20101107_AABBRB meyers_c_Page_123.QC.jpg
9b1a7755b33e44371e8281d30cb4433d
deed4be2653494740256cb957e23322b90ba88c9
28527 F20101107_AABBQN meyers_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
cff53fc1bc5f5126e1a16ac61165d72e
c01cb80ec3b0972e8476e88db09ae45b7960bc5e
8220 F20101107_AABBPZ meyers_c_Page_107thm.jpg
c6eb79916a2d58c673fad2731df20f1d
c4cfb8ece9be5d4bd881908c51ffef5881c71fec
915103 F20101107_AABANL meyers_c_Page_105.jp2
89900adba60fcf6d1d3c2c7a92560a87
f8a805c396c3fcd0c134234aac0351ac2b61d3ab
881885 F20101107_AABAMX meyers_c_Page_091.jp2
5569887a800e9764c708258e457bd3a1
3f00e25dfa6c986ddbdb4091ad81e146997e6ecd
8929 F20101107_AABBRC meyers_c_Page_123thm.jpg
09bf97f56fe6571fafd457bfc0231d57
a3b5bccd48d4a61c268062e5710d2cec71f4445b
7237 F20101107_AABBQO meyers_c_Page_115thm.jpg
c9d504dbf4f4fce2663b1fd1e3b77511
e129bb4bc9e003d49a2aebf6de9517c9fe3c99e3
F20101107_AABANM meyers_c_Page_106.jp2
8e2800e5941713d58f77ef409f3a6962
92dbeb57bb2a04060ac5532e0680ddd915cff061
1051924 F20101107_AABAOA meyers_c_Page_121.jp2
3ea766f31aef413476c1d1c397b51fa7
7a0ccf0f909bdfe59fb90b079a6f6df95489ce85
35529 F20101107_AABBRD meyers_c_Page_124.QC.jpg
9024a30a0390acff98eb6c929768cc36
8adf5c811d32a3d01dd817b4c964167370d6174f
27794 F20101107_AABBQP meyers_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
ee0e48faf861fdf27a595f3ad7d5dd50
e80f5e0024cb2da7d42697ebc88a0270db9dd0dd
F20101107_AABANN meyers_c_Page_107.jp2
3c960b5ebaa21885bdefa097ba6c361e
39359b1a3934527fe9c80366bd6e158ce102176d
687704 F20101107_AABAMY meyers_c_Page_092.jp2
9871fee047672e8e0d60932dbf7c14c3
13cd1db020ddcc9eaeab3595a4f28d2844bfc9ed
F20101107_AABAOB meyers_c_Page_122.jp2
a20a846bbdb6cbaab7f4902b08692d4d
a6cde7bb4d10fa44b209f29329e16e3f8dc96cec
8944 F20101107_AABBRE meyers_c_Page_124thm.jpg
779f4d97660c4eab9ea0e7db5e040e86
e1f8a0834a5ccb62fe97e66bda209ea0c424fc73
26923 F20101107_AABBQQ meyers_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
23741dc23a4b11ff088dea2b13673070
9df69114f519fb334cd89f9bc4d25c7735ae75a3
990442 F20101107_AABANO meyers_c_Page_108.jp2
5c53a9013429e336ade1c64ab0770436
6bbfe2ecc6694ba5cf979803a5e344f9333045ff
893373 F20101107_AABAMZ meyers_c_Page_093.jp2
b2112235c3402b62b242cc6fd21ab2cf
dabd58db7f628b1007d1f7626ece8fd01a99c302
F20101107_AABAOC meyers_c_Page_123.jp2
0a2f3568792bb973a85274ed5bc11355
2e0d70b6c45e28bbb6830d40f4988b347f772b49
34202 F20101107_AABBRF meyers_c_Page_125.QC.jpg
2cb56bfd07723565a64760d08e76f487
f8faafe5eeae2482e5c4405a29f57963b770815c
7053 F20101107_AABBQR meyers_c_Page_117thm.jpg
1a27dd2f2b8382324acc4262b34938b6
f6730e742b732b76055e5ad5a03c30a1305aca6d
1051911 F20101107_AABANP meyers_c_Page_109.jp2
bcb24b090dbd81deb80b8675eb0c8b30
982b74d2d2a5b0740dd1f1b642f1b2f62c4eff71
F20101107_AABAOD meyers_c_Page_124.jp2
c89dff23a16abcf9faa91b1ba595424a
d2dd9a337eab1d6a746ae54924ad6141748b95e1
8283 F20101107_AABBRG meyers_c_Page_125thm.jpg
ac742ebeaae92d81bfb5dccb25be1121
7872dea74eba1c4046b27a6e9d43ee7e02d5344b
6095 F20101107_AABBQS meyers_c_Page_118thm.jpg
07b95a88d2242d5a94133a4fda338cff
8a0a72105a5df3f89116eb75fc14f7257743a7fa
994665 F20101107_AABANQ meyers_c_Page_110.jp2
d054d44a9c0fe42eef644f043dd838c5
823c48a6a89679cdefd4bce553d16122e99e4718
F20101107_AABAOE meyers_c_Page_126.jp2
980a9f09475db16dc2896045f15e0f49
9e95eb7d3331646a2d28b2ebc855c690e36ab5a2
34371 F20101107_AABBRH meyers_c_Page_126.QC.jpg
e55f924d3cb219f2da25ac9a469cfeb2
f4c6b980f82bb045dff6f3d9a1fc1a039415cbf3
25198 F20101107_AABBQT meyers_c_Page_119.QC.jpg
175d05fcccbe80dbc08cb84bbd5ac5cc
38a5ef6c50d5f95eb0634b36923a0d0355eecd33
1034442 F20101107_AABANR meyers_c_Page_111.jp2
a2b6d857beda179659732e0a62e6b6bc
306caa886cd074ffdd7a3341a9adbcf7754f9475
F20101107_AABAOF meyers_c_Page_127.jp2
104da38d8f3f37adf9b63b6fb2b5ca6d
2b9dee6ed1a57f26cb1c69dfe6f74814e398df8b
8369 F20101107_AABBRI meyers_c_Page_126thm.jpg
8296c3cd3edeabc4543b067945542f68
609dc433c335ef83c76311703e2d6fa1e73199e2
6897 F20101107_AABBQU meyers_c_Page_119thm.jpg
5d18cef677ac19a72344dfbd0a0d106e
4e886e4b6f63160fcb6bdeb282659e39c65d543e
946983 F20101107_AABANS meyers_c_Page_112.jp2
4e104e2870736eebf2b53bbc624a3ae6
f6ac2f16f80b91bd3cba3ffef62ae7b8d3c25bd3
1051896 F20101107_AABAOG meyers_c_Page_128.jp2
30b7c44fe0e9bbf90cb6a30d973b8d00
420ec5d77c4969cc72dec5a06598c7b5c4419040
33500 F20101107_AABBRJ meyers_c_Page_127.QC.jpg
1eaa4a18c91115e9b2bfd0e430d6ddc9
33cd95d093b15ace08b261abb1b9814bb416c9f9
16455 F20101107_AABBQV meyers_c_Page_120.QC.jpg
b1066302eba625cf9e1c7ca821df7760
b5588ad0bd3a10545ca18b951d581d6d0834d439
F20101107_AABANT meyers_c_Page_113.jp2
67e106b3912e5d0effbde04c2c269164
7609f9c9f752bacb5278e4abac1a25f6fd274e3f
F20101107_AABAOH meyers_c_Page_130.jp2
322c343acedd3b2055f2a75f69148676
24435a094d53348c5d6b90950104d2bd3e724074
8445 F20101107_AABBRK meyers_c_Page_127thm.jpg
1f1f5c5abf9f2b78749f00c97d7839ac
1c8710091c51f092feee3752f026931aabd59b4e
4534 F20101107_AABBQW meyers_c_Page_120thm.jpg
6380a3c4a0e9a6531e6176d83a2e70a0
0f20754180652aec47869ef4d5ee934474d602ec
1025929 F20101107_AABANU meyers_c_Page_114.jp2
b1c8e22ff2764ff822362ce9b7a8b9f4
8bae94ea800558e2083af7dcac4f92aa49e97c76
F20101107_AABAOI meyers_c_Page_131.jp2
6b12793ee576d7e23d4b639f12d882c6
5349252d54683b30d199d4ec20f91b22ce6e09eb
35343 F20101107_AABBRL meyers_c_Page_128.QC.jpg
27c2731cbd63bf0800033beaccdfbdb8
07e5956cd9069d0c2f482494f44f0e2dcab7521e
34227 F20101107_AABBQX meyers_c_Page_121.QC.jpg
964410cd748310d6cbd3d62cd29e2940
a852233bf30b18730a17ed2d1e6c5ee53568d3f2
966592 F20101107_AABANV meyers_c_Page_115.jp2
c22cb3680bbae4def85e976a5ff8bf3c
4a2f9f90b6cab0e164069310d734ea2cbb404fe4
1051957 F20101107_AABAOJ meyers_c_Page_132.jp2
b9f18a636c8da3ad2daae002017a8d5f
5871a5a8284e3df343996c64e303d6428cabcf5c
8362 F20101107_AABBSA meyers_c_Page_135thm.jpg
5354ac5fb8596ed5913fb9ebccbe2ed3
6586f736e4c500bf79a2c759f7439b8356ff3523
8748 F20101107_AABBRM meyers_c_Page_128thm.jpg
20cfa3b12376b5bfc925332e4669e8eb
2c8f8061d6db24aaf49fa154494c0f39622529cb
8476 F20101107_AABBQY meyers_c_Page_121thm.jpg
885f5e5692e6f94f9dd8e4c2c0931d67
b27ce9c654cd8c9039433a2f206e9eaf2e9a8f12
870272 F20101107_AABANW meyers_c_Page_117.jp2
2b9bcbb4da8e75654fcebfdabeb7603a
800cc79e6eb168e09a6a1a7387e85bd2f718b391
F20101107_AABAOK meyers_c_Page_134.jp2
2dd8b899ea4ed88e13cd2c86761a3587
7905726e72eeb8bca2f30f98212a8559122d3fc4
35131 F20101107_AABBSB meyers_c_Page_136.QC.jpg
1e3d0652f3219c6b1bb6bb440b37e250
abc9e06593ade47d2e1896d61b35692cbcdc26b1
35561 F20101107_AABBRN meyers_c_Page_129.QC.jpg
7e329c5918c1ef0f447f66e2992f79f6
a97b56a4ec59f767a6c675f7ffd1dcf1878b68cd
38164 F20101107_AABBQZ meyers_c_Page_122.QC.jpg
8cb4357c15aeaea2677c05c88c94d38b
ca2411f9421830cdfbc4aa924174f9ee79f2ffe0
796003 F20101107_AABANX meyers_c_Page_118.jp2
70310eb5328c5cc13edbf088f1e3b9c2
219a74130bf4540761fa73263ca3d335ba3bcdf6
F20101107_AABAOL meyers_c_Page_135.jp2
d330492f88275fc66261d9d98097dd4c
b9baff55d650a2f607ea03cf9ae31cccc4f0f782
8668 F20101107_AABBSC meyers_c_Page_136thm.jpg
5d2996a56096f5c2a329649d95774925
33e6d98621a542d10d9c2668f9245aec10c670d1
8793 F20101107_AABBRO meyers_c_Page_129thm.jpg
df2a544e5c80202078b55ff4e56d0488
86728c65ccf12f1d5b99b81e6521271fe9a73416
807903 F20101107_AABANY meyers_c_Page_119.jp2
e5b5ab5b0dc4e820ae3bce2822bdc919
a2a1d913f9bfd553aa70bac4db27a95a11600e60
652581 F20101107_AABAPA meyers_c_Page_150.jp2
4ea009dca3ac505015a2e975e0171c35
3e407d29f634dedb1fd6e6b1380e1c0e3ed20856
F20101107_AABAOM meyers_c_Page_136.jp2
67be5e5224e3251ddab07af6271223e5
a29ae2195f568c62306eecca8229af6440207192
26162 F20101107_AABBSD meyers_c_Page_137.QC.jpg
b6ed34d0dc3e477b2243c84be3da2607
03edf5044d00c451ab99ee5ad7fd092f1cf6bae5
33206 F20101107_AABBRP meyers_c_Page_130.QC.jpg
5e29d9cdf7e9d06fd943239005f56880
ecaf74b2f09e378611fedc7e4cbd68b19c5e7c73
347838 F20101107_AABAPB meyers_c_Page_151.jp2
baf605644697c265ee35be4f3864dc57
c9a67d5bfea5194bc4d12ef693b15a596df7e594
911747 F20101107_AABAON meyers_c_Page_137.jp2
6bf80187295da9dedbe3af09581dc405
ebce0575b9d526302007646faf2104c493824f68
1814 F20101107_AABBSE meyers_c_Page_138.QC.jpg
cc29eef149dce0f59dfeb72fc77a0e98
06b98a063c98ed4a61822ca53db5df119b1430d7
8247 F20101107_AABBRQ meyers_c_Page_130thm.jpg
65d61064ca846e68b9506f8a6145f0d3
1f50cd249952cb7ae110462101aa80cd40ef278e
488300 F20101107_AABANZ meyers_c_Page_120.jp2
e7d2a3ffb51dbaea3ed74a26dda90e5b
35d032c0fd42704c6f19ad469d8009139b877295
455908 F20101107_AABAPC meyers_c_Page_152.jp2
330d4d84e6c4795de8f995850168d1ab
a465b6faefb3bf0f9da5977c531cfaa05b193817
34257 F20101107_AABAOO meyers_c_Page_138.jp2
27bf23cc8aa3a184a0675b789b2286a9
d890bc698fbf9c80d3464ab1723168b9171ded0b
556 F20101107_AABBSF meyers_c_Page_138thm.jpg
ceaaecb6733f377a0862fed4a880997c
1585c36c056105c20d99dbba920fea04be38aa11
34009 F20101107_AABBRR meyers_c_Page_131.QC.jpg
edc626f28ba0f870b37b6fdaaee8067a
abea0e2649ff973c0b10537909b7f61bba9953be
65276 F20101107_AABAPD meyers_c_Page_153.jp2
804aaefe3a7985343f8aebce88523373
18a4c2a5051672f7aadab34459675f42772b72d6
813480 F20101107_AABAOP meyers_c_Page_139.jp2
fa7cd18d4bf4c1d4818a604dd8747748
131811d2de7180fb220b858301892a51b9fd4244
16715 F20101107_AABBSG meyers_c_Page_139.QC.jpg
df3da1140d7906a96cdfd9f2e0e24e31
87804ae313a0ef444573a113afcd3a70084dd446
8613 F20101107_AABBRS meyers_c_Page_131thm.jpg
e9f3b18ab518a296b67c1a9bbdc04b75
b73e23fff1880478a63dc30f93548ce32d6f0e0b
411547 F20101107_AABAPE meyers_c_Page_154.jp2
305d20f9374765dbc80b368e72c17eba
420d4b4cf69e27032425b30e769054ebd33eadca
663245 F20101107_AABAOQ meyers_c_Page_140.jp2
d1d39f736a6110b315f94f56e3ddca5f
74b9858b2af1e33875fb0a7d4b4ac8dd0a113fa4
4379 F20101107_AABBSH meyers_c_Page_139thm.jpg
ba422025b3e322e732003d107d07211b
e8b2260c97b60feaf09a174df7c0eae38eaea905
36452 F20101107_AABBRT meyers_c_Page_132.QC.jpg
d435af61ad48f4a79e052a323197199e
91d61cfc61da8f626f0ed7f06133c86d1356e97e
653423 F20101107_AABAPF meyers_c_Page_155.jp2
ad3976d3d655a3ce58967828c4e2a9c7
dac921365d12c951537630072954914bd81df6ad
805334 F20101107_AABAOR meyers_c_Page_141.jp2
06df7590dc3802c967631c10dedc07b5
627c91928bedce352bcabadaaeb07581635c7e36
17099 F20101107_AABBSI meyers_c_Page_140.QC.jpg
7fdd33b81db13cb1d699509c003283c0
c6947640fd115ed96a967956cb02a09fdcc1208a
9031 F20101107_AABBRU meyers_c_Page_132thm.jpg
a6e9615afb4013fab0df04c04f4b92a9
67209b53a83f6aa20d8314c9a4e2724b57c5aa47
50909 F20101107_AABAPG meyers_c_Page_156.jp2
9f7c30e846b73be9ebf888bdf9246072
919089e81c304ce2d305253bae7b6b80b54ad8d8
447872 F20101107_AABAOS meyers_c_Page_142.jp2
aa30e8650f60120670782c972469e37b
ab572a50d4e99f91ccf4bcb6a797e927187b2518
4369 F20101107_AABBSJ meyers_c_Page_140thm.jpg
865fe105049c755e05734833015add0e
793815a66fd2d027205498af63e4e5725cfbe583
33981 F20101107_AABBRV meyers_c_Page_133.QC.jpg
d1d741eda5ba8d228d2b99596ccf29d5
747fff163b4ffc3deaf2aeaef6665e82a8dc0b3b
392414 F20101107_AABAPH meyers_c_Page_157.jp2
6202748416ae50178a6c0862f43cd4c8
fe027b084e85cd7f2ad4e5d71242b75e298adb1f
29718 F20101107_AABAOT meyers_c_Page_143.jp2
acdfca93b196b6c727996667591e8d17
e52cef6104ad6365b1dd09dc0a4e2357745e0606
20735 F20101107_AABBSK meyers_c_Page_141.QC.jpg
887697125a177df4236abb72f6ef9d8e
ba2a4edbb94f1ffc1672179d2ee20d5c43dbf0d2
8346 F20101107_AABBRW meyers_c_Page_133thm.jpg
3ec632c31e2753b6767a6fa9f7e0a0af
da6c4010811a966a2219d05751258e9eb1f05ae8
97980 F20101107_AABAPI meyers_c_Page_158.jp2
584a314576f495bc90054742c27f028f
c7b9fe17b60feeff99cdbb0c12676fdefe0b6f4a
581254 F20101107_AABAOU meyers_c_Page_144.jp2
96e11632cb85ae31f80495f29b8e2c8a
a7a915d888b71a59ba5558fbccb87bcef539c27f
5175 F20101107_AABBSL meyers_c_Page_141thm.jpg
aa0ebaebacd3b0be2d59aa1e7ac6d872
99bf4cda6615583506a1ce3cca5a2003e64380ba
32797 F20101107_AABBRX meyers_c_Page_134.QC.jpg
c96a5e4eafb3a9738a2858a2e5318e91
213a08bcb8ddd7d365341860106a6c54908c79f9
36352 F20101107_AABAPJ meyers_c_Page_159.jp2
4ea9ebcbbc597e48512c3e84c0d71a75
45af6baa303c12a01d8c02790754a7c3f23013c1
340026 F20101107_AABAOV meyers_c_Page_145.jp2
059890a03058c5114e62d7d72f1dec99
ab4fe33305619fca55485b67ebf796f93667d924
19955 F20101107_AABBTA meyers_c_Page_150.QC.jpg
04829df4a895b6550e080c27e5ec6091
cf88bc5dbddc8c0501f14a3941ef16e176967d1e
12866 F20101107_AABBSM meyers_c_Page_142.QC.jpg
3375aee4fad04100ab065f576d9df0b4
52b93efaffaaa90f5454aca2d47b15bbbff89248
8397 F20101107_AABBRY meyers_c_Page_134thm.jpg
3f4c09d4dde624aa1411f6bf55a495fa
e1d1f670c3f92fe3856720d892d0f3af4a9401f4
F20101107_AABAPK meyers_c_Page_160.jp2
07a7b79160d0cda5c1afd1da785cc8da
d8e66104925a843be9a47430c6d101c140a62b23
462362 F20101107_AABAOW meyers_c_Page_146.jp2
4d60c9573d5a8a41855ea97ff450bb5e
be7826f61257dd6c705025544ed1b214b4843843
6200 F20101107_AABBTB meyers_c_Page_150thm.jpg
4c43bb002d27aa133f69d823701518ee
0f012864ec1b1877f6f3e7d88ef570f38e3c4633
1517 F20101107_AABBSN meyers_c_Page_143.QC.jpg
3881626173e6d6c82cee37a4593e7dcb
90df70caf5bb69b0e637e01c485e96988b010279
33621 F20101107_AABBRZ meyers_c_Page_135.QC.jpg
fd7891b89c91d0569737adb17c464958
45d29296965d7f0e4f3b36bdf6adceb7b5436c49
F20101107_AABAPL meyers_c_Page_161.jp2
be23ef195f54094b58fa0ad497455ab0
758aad241e657ab1283e3c6a4d132f91173ad7cf
334730 F20101107_AABAOX meyers_c_Page_147.jp2
8e8302bcb7d5e3d5f755aac86f7e5854
7b186d96466c62639a0c78158adda39f6dc01ac3
13897 F20101107_AABBTC meyers_c_Page_151.QC.jpg
b3037ac804e4e1d5d7852e4c040acbc7
da7cddb3c0dd84bad872994759d1e6620d5bf83b
487 F20101107_AABBSO meyers_c_Page_143thm.jpg
ca78c9da63efac724581b26a1df41246
9a4ca8c9be80e35155d6c283a9f19185ef56ea76
25271604 F20101107_AABAQA meyers_c_Page_001.tif
98ab06e56a2a74094c2a93ef706ad1bc
c71643a18757c2461e87d0b73b14661beee05bbd
F20101107_AABAPM meyers_c_Page_162.jp2
872c9e33114c6763841d83e24a80b711
9b6c52ea0f2aed4a51f70bf4f71fcf897738b290
338713 F20101107_AABAOY meyers_c_Page_148.jp2
bb8dbb7e3abe1fbe23d2d249e0a7b697
c1064c93723d29c256104727f356ccdb82c9cc04
4967 F20101107_AABBTD meyers_c_Page_151thm.jpg
337f16c5cbd1148dcb8a63fcdddcb2ae
c090b3d6d4d68244bcdc8cfc50e8af9c40d31954
12614 F20101107_AABBSP meyers_c_Page_144.QC.jpg
fa6aeefb28f4fe77d4330fe80bbbf0b5
f9f7e744dc8395ff88542cb9b4f313ff04c60a1a
F20101107_AABAQB meyers_c_Page_002.tif
667460e794cabc1d7618aafcca1d4e6f
f1c2a95918b87174cf0e22df55864ca4de0c4a28
F20101107_AABAPN meyers_c_Page_164.jp2
b9f4a033d471b0a7c4ba7ec001516caf
24fc115ebf7c38e10b8cce8c8e3124491b5a86d6
182589 F20101107_AABAOZ meyers_c_Page_149.jp2
1df3b0f178484462b222e4ec4d8ac8bf
a4ca43c9f0264da09c80ecac000f19f750aa287c
18141 F20101107_AABBTE meyers_c_Page_152.QC.jpg
9de8cb71043e01ab08d8447bd6339ee5
bfdf571a7ad9fabe46e5faeaa256fc770546cadb
3765 F20101107_AABBSQ meyers_c_Page_144thm.jpg
ccecfa5041ac481e1b007f89abc69178
d05ceeefa264d01f44c2e45a12fec7f79b15e468
F20101107_AABAQC meyers_c_Page_003.tif
7c80bb09dff09788ce1d1c3f93c4692f
6928fa4eec65a15176ebe06e27ea678ffaa0595e
1051985 F20101107_AABAPO meyers_c_Page_165.jp2
d950a6d665a6e8ccc65156bffeb7da53
3332a76b23cc2baf47551bbed8d98a698e2e3990
6353 F20101107_AABBTF meyers_c_Page_152thm.jpg
807584f2f43fe8986dca9cc4de43ffea
a2ad3f5c88865e199155a1972c9733bce995bac4
12618 F20101107_AABBSR meyers_c_Page_145.QC.jpg
d194ce28ef4103c53b527ac38cd15b61
06d9023c48d32e843ba04632b860e76daaed6a5b
F20101107_AABAQD meyers_c_Page_004.tif
0425149c02fbff0684c9aa606c83b20c
61ed0f67435e402309f0c956349ab6c8b2b2f6e0
1051947 F20101107_AABAPP meyers_c_Page_166.jp2
90cd88ccf28ec0610457af5c9105e345
1e5b432b67f4b6964acd99f68dc80d9eb6069c84
3905 F20101107_AABBTG meyers_c_Page_153.QC.jpg
aae8a82b40eda69e02aab017bbc7140e
48529829c1378809dbcd57c528e49ac3bd0368b4
3885 F20101107_AABBSS meyers_c_Page_145thm.jpg
971ae5483d45bffb6727bd4afaafe712
de2424e6fb1a70ef54be4edca9a0ba748bdfefc9
F20101107_AABAQE meyers_c_Page_005.tif
ca35517362f49587112914fa23e407a0
4ee7c65f766e52c46e7a55577d59606e85993dc0
F20101107_AABAPQ meyers_c_Page_167.jp2
a6b7bc27d7f44dfc6b8effa3b31c8b13
a03de39f01392dcf819e64f70be97dcf3da19a06
1833 F20101107_AABBTH meyers_c_Page_153thm.jpg
57a74a3dd655d5d227ae30d4a1f33c0f
79adb9b874addc2e4b6b25d6a5a63439dba73dc4
F20101107_AABBST meyers_c_Page_146.QC.jpg
6e50a8d5229576c805dae07174df90e9
bfeef6af03ac1bb9aee7b496cf757f90fbe58cac
F20101107_AABAQF meyers_c_Page_006.tif
c3ac206172ab5e020ded98df203365ed
f96602e7ac8932b62a98cb8bda4b7d805d95a329
F20101107_AABAPR meyers_c_Page_168.jp2
1a85093190c510a111244413c6dbb36b
4abd449148b503f8805cc2c95e1e732f99144576
13614 F20101107_AABBTI meyers_c_Page_154.QC.jpg
b5f1485ed16ffeef90612589bf251e4b
d1e086e7931cc252d8f9201b9842177dbbde037e
6324 F20101107_AABBSU meyers_c_Page_146thm.jpg
048b2b9e66bec1e96ee1938caf61f9cd
035feb0c7d2a86c6f431e99ea03869974012ddda
F20101107_AABAQG meyers_c_Page_007.tif
f110e28d1d1105fd85b8a136c95da588
0cc362db020a70c1a2655d3474cd97c3730d3f83
F20101107_AABAPS meyers_c_Page_169.jp2
e7e4e8ff6ab96c293f78c345e5f45801
d99e7d203489fb240017bb82fe0e74fdd17ee428
4387 F20101107_AABBTJ meyers_c_Page_154thm.jpg
8e45f599ca3c64d1395b485a50b3d518
2c97d05bd34c36d2fdf7cf8e8dc31cac26fd6b5a
13644 F20101107_AABBSV meyers_c_Page_147.QC.jpg
4ea986e2cf6a69f3a877868b3cb1f104
d2fcca791ba6051485c56b47d5c85af2738a5545
F20101107_AABAQH meyers_c_Page_008.tif
e7231df235848dcd28560b275430d2bd
87e6ee26636ec9180bbd90cf500e8a56808d72e1
1051961 F20101107_AABAPT meyers_c_Page_170.jp2
ff6e53cfacb9b061a5271329001b0f00
a19ca7fa021bbd01e1dab52038dc12db65b61bbf
21315 F20101107_AABBTK meyers_c_Page_155.QC.jpg
897564a31c71e1d5494138d0dd212318
a79a294764471491d74a6c214ba08c81177a012b
4942 F20101107_AABBSW meyers_c_Page_147thm.jpg
23b1d3d414718574ec09b205b9d67bb3
c08b0cde8fc3ca36139e915220371df4a4e1f187
F20101107_AABAQI meyers_c_Page_009.tif
ea0b4bbfa810891de5a1b9b5ba974c2f
5dbd0da3b8aaf9d4311897aab4d86d89611f05b8
1051971 F20101107_AABAPU meyers_c_Page_171.jp2
c27cb8be4f06ee7b936a8652e895d412
830c80b6c919f541628fafc9ecf52b03555ba212
6729 F20101107_AABBTL meyers_c_Page_155thm.jpg
a0fae535ca582e2c007338ee36e854bd
692d7652c0b464efeffd359e723c294222480ebc
12487 F20101107_AABBSX meyers_c_Page_148.QC.jpg
8d2de7ab8842afdbd46a8e3114f5e261
2dc7e57e7b5ccd147632e8d2734eca4e7e61ca95
F20101107_AABAQJ meyers_c_Page_010.tif
ef8bb1ac0ec4641ca23d27cf3548adba
d788248814e37963e2de8242e990e71f326e676a
1051934 F20101107_AABAPV meyers_c_Page_172.jp2
1e8b1334038985a2aa0d6e50d6f798fd
cc9b6e91471d9ac47bc29cad4ba8529fdb13cf66
8664 F20101107_AABBUA meyers_c_Page_163thm.jpg
ba4d7efeba7f19e7e27e59178decdb68
80276232bbe9b4f4254f56136adc045571b2ae37
3070 F20101107_AABBTM meyers_c_Page_156.QC.jpg
3c0ac4989ad03ef2294a8bbe77d77080
f097ce36d542bbe8605708c833c4709a7c3814ba
4274 F20101107_AABBSY meyers_c_Page_148thm.jpg
e40d72b95fa13d3d9304734b6a0b7a6e
0c10c5f277b2ee796a47c31fd9c4fe9dce6660b9
F20101107_AABAQK meyers_c_Page_011.tif
8d86d637d8839e3369385ec635f18cc3
31ed5ca3cfcfc63f95a4b617ca4306a76992b382
F20101107_AABAPW meyers_c_Page_173.jp2
e629eefe1c1c3ba0d375347950e77e40
3d1013fe1c481f881774db6da0044485e2b2bd52
36832 F20101107_AABBUB meyers_c_Page_164.QC.jpg
4105e5026b8e9542e06e45037f65c5b4
517212576b0c8bf8cd4e1e67af52525ee2bb2769
1490 F20101107_AABBTN meyers_c_Page_156thm.jpg
ea148ef468416146cb70768ccb50d0d7
6e75c5e2402b38223dd80fff87da5e37122cfd83
6621 F20101107_AABBSZ meyers_c_Page_149.QC.jpg
07fbed76af2d491377007e447b87087f
0a7cc7e44d6aa112eb1036328aaffb0a063134bd
F20101107_AABAQL meyers_c_Page_013.tif
e454ab232c4da5d10c00b415b9bc3d05
5fd4fcc1f8df98636c13746253222d8bb9ea2f72
452906 F20101107_AABAPX meyers_c_Page_174.jp2
560fee64f4cdc9272c1ca062c1af4a0f
b59a6153122c5aeecf7a5e5f056d46150c478e06
F20101107_AABBUC meyers_c_Page_164thm.jpg
e4d815dfb6e70e168f2551ea413a0990
e59281428d7bc9a06523f8e396578df2dfd92024
14107 F20101107_AABBTO meyers_c_Page_157.QC.jpg
0f7026264d8b5c03d0109a383dc886c2
10c7dc72d5a591500c43b7454677fc5c7a5893b7
F20101107_AABAQM meyers_c_Page_014.tif
289030212df7707368bae9a01895d5f6
da8dd6ae4517d267a4651759bceb62130c3f3573
1051937 F20101107_AABAPY meyers_c_Page_175.jp2
c01ae0124b8d20d06133baa95e886a0e
ce515601d065509c93c87cf89b9bfe5f03816d4b
F20101107_AABARA meyers_c_Page_029.tif
0771c8dde66a9f36776ad70b7de7cbd6
629b62b8728d2571f0ba1ff548a96c34cf9db5aa
36253 F20101107_AABBUD meyers_c_Page_165.QC.jpg
8a2593fcd3c07f4ea79918da6da8326c
76c694264b5b444b02bc9ab523ef791ce2987ac4
4341 F20101107_AABBTP meyers_c_Page_157thm.jpg
658fb9c7e0a14d8e195ef10a1de5da6f
94c6d03aac4ce9dead0c4cf5232e213ef61d2395
F20101107_AABAQN meyers_c_Page_015.tif
dcba01579f0331f6a19f771b24c2e9ab
fe0bd903c50ba87b1fb2737bf24fd3309936a5a1
176358 F20101107_AABAPZ meyers_c_Page_176.jp2
df561db40c5feaf7f66955b70ef7a68a
3be3e43b440182e97140896e4a043663f5086504
F20101107_AABARB meyers_c_Page_030.tif
7c101f6c969ddfdfb4610acdd2dd0675
7eda5c36a9bab6510274a180339a55859bf6b5b1
9118 F20101107_AABBUE meyers_c_Page_165thm.jpg
7f725184c9aaf8054a46187069536ade
cff0860e60691e3d49565a4cc29c8d8f69b9c981
4797 F20101107_AABBTQ meyers_c_Page_158.QC.jpg
f87a1a767d65c5c6369f6fc593cc76ab
e35e42d165d20000399d9618869d27deda8f75e0
F20101107_AABAQO meyers_c_Page_016.tif
c329534baed5b3c7defcb49e823b2546
32af1e5318f5dcd1f7324290ff156085ece159bc
F20101107_AABARC meyers_c_Page_031.tif
7019775c4efb51bf645dea40d207e563
7e4b08b6ccc2e2fa45abf1efc00d1b3c2b8039d7
35559 F20101107_AABBUF meyers_c_Page_166.QC.jpg
8b3704e72ff0ef0bdd0cfbb2d5af9b41
e9b7b04f34421a63b0eb58c772235e87a7577795
1825 F20101107_AABBTR meyers_c_Page_159.QC.jpg
497c04db3e11085884f29126d6e8c236
10cdcd185c53c90baff5eb6c69f4515de42d3718
F20101107_AABAQP meyers_c_Page_017.tif
1dec735d2bfe84611d807419d726763a
5fc210135e87b0f7b41cf93b6f0e61218ef6ad56
F20101107_AABARD meyers_c_Page_032.tif
cfab22c55a09fa0233ee7dccbbacd7b2
5103846d4582ea7089ba21de49f035f3c18e2d8c
8749 F20101107_AABBUG meyers_c_Page_166thm.jpg
96d7d499c8361c5dd8f42bfb2dee24c6
a9a9bace9551b9df06f3e387cd5290b0a34f4877
548 F20101107_AABBTS meyers_c_Page_159thm.jpg
437b177f75eac38689adc7837d6e6275
83953de694fe9c3ade886d4ffc73978da88802cb
F20101107_AABAQQ meyers_c_Page_018.tif
2b9c615a3f3877dcf9ba7c05cddff50f
b50cb8129deb7cb6d9a494bc928b4119e1da24a4
F20101107_AABARE meyers_c_Page_033.tif
6237c5f4aef80b39ca5d77654e509c8a
22399f74401f9f818ce396e7b465a32af07a57c7
36063 F20101107_AABBUH meyers_c_Page_167.QC.jpg
d8ca12cc5a821fb2cd999d3ff26e5ee3
cb32ebcffd8cc40693df136f52a2c09a64f5c555
26621 F20101107_AABBTT meyers_c_Page_160.QC.jpg
adae28d49ec7422902beb2fe704344ba
638d95566c2be89cc961ae36455737f0a24f21e4
F20101107_AABAQR meyers_c_Page_019.tif
e10b796ccf6aa06f1e7e2e4756c5487f
f476b489485e7ac253d14a86c9097238c5559721
F20101107_AABARF meyers_c_Page_034.tif
19f67a2234c84b4625840a6ddea397e7
800c631bd0a9b53d60526213523669e6654f3746
9512 F20101107_AABBUI meyers_c_Page_168thm.jpg
930ac237404750ba5236b4def61b78d0
7c87ccd787d398ed4d4bc9adbaa97c74489ad791
7645 F20101107_AABBTU meyers_c_Page_160thm.jpg
c3312bbdf7a8171054fbfa1eade90dc9
ef2d20de4da9248dc7d0c13b413427155e37db24
F20101107_AABAQS meyers_c_Page_021.tif
e84fcbef5a420d54ba4f19c7c857a737
8ccdb36d0f89da7ba4532c7b98e34585a5a223ba
F20101107_AABARG meyers_c_Page_035.tif
03a1f3b950b3470f3c70a8cbcf38daa7
0a7303a9d7c9c5294aedf7da81eabaa431e49973
38461 F20101107_AABBUJ meyers_c_Page_169.QC.jpg
8ad4a69641d414a04c88eb03d336a03f
0c9c2191398638f8a4b55e0a12ec31419a152444
26044 F20101107_AABBTV meyers_c_Page_161.QC.jpg
3eb5cbcbef514c8ddce6ccb534f0c83e
366fabf961d83c2a82ddd2a6480abf333f24b206
F20101107_AABAQT meyers_c_Page_022.tif
c256d1067387e5dc0bd399fb47bbeebf
f3a17fed7aee3e8a096d9b4eeb7f256143925ca6
F20101107_AABARH meyers_c_Page_036.tif
48a7e3936e483b0a026951b302e614c1
147e7f58aca10ac2af3736e8ba9b0ea08bbb98d1
9355 F20101107_AABBUK meyers_c_Page_169thm.jpg
055faa16806044074b08e437b8d858ab
0011455363bdba7a70c6fb349383168c9fe79dcb
7143 F20101107_AABBTW meyers_c_Page_161thm.jpg
3596397675dc503e3888efc477f3e472
5709b42ead53509c9e40fb4c3b48b8a830840e15
F20101107_AABAQU meyers_c_Page_023.tif
f9e3fe8ba3c554af4f149980736f1126
608e8e65e13f1472dbed8beba2896d2c0b4f8c83
F20101107_AABARI meyers_c_Page_037.tif
13a9c15f66ee84d0cd08b450dbf72c64
8386e0151771a594f9a17b973d03932fd74423ca
9292 F20101107_AABBUL meyers_c_Page_170thm.jpg
df259c89750912082f5a666bea11e0d7
c023111a6f8bd4c40812998490507ef031f5ba90
28914 F20101107_AABBTX meyers_c_Page_162.QC.jpg
9949e198aa85ad53503935ea754ce7fa
27d2280aa437ef03f3b04aa13333fb9d5542a72f
F20101107_AABAQV meyers_c_Page_024.tif
6dc6e6a3e6453f15cb2d6c7e9d05f13c
40c1f1fe9613f65c919fd21bd716db5c5d8438ba
F20101107_AABARJ meyers_c_Page_038.tif
a7d757ce9648bdabab56728c7e370ddc
a5e1d1b9784c5527a4684a5bfa337d950f296ec1
36217 F20101107_AABBUM meyers_c_Page_171.QC.jpg
7b022d5b7db045ee20a8b0c231fbbe3b
942555fe59b611974bac2dd697cb36152989b691
7974 F20101107_AABBTY meyers_c_Page_162thm.jpg
5b00cb621d8dde474ce7db8a5cf0c392
2a8589f6803f9150aac8cd1626ea9368632b5bc1
F20101107_AABARK meyers_c_Page_039.tif
eb59fced802a109b0f77af24a8468525
9500d3ed3fe7c2d8a46fb3877cc0ae7b44f13ace
F20101107_AABAQW meyers_c_Page_025.tif
59a93d4f9ee9aedd3d49dffbdb318808
35648b832d43de5764b8561d86dfffe8be633140
9228 F20101107_AABBUN meyers_c_Page_171thm.jpg
ca7eca56571f5dd58cc278f55bf14bfe
c714721b0365e4bbda48e677e2b22564a9b68906
34399 F20101107_AABBTZ meyers_c_Page_163.QC.jpg
23181add312c1ee4b5b9271a11848df6
dd5aa7a4a09338444d3a7e84e9dedb5a080beafd
F20101107_AABARL meyers_c_Page_040.tif
72b827f30e360aa0a07c0a6ab6058114
66e954b381aac0f11d7c8a79161a24090c9b789f
F20101107_AABAQX meyers_c_Page_026.tif
65fb0aa61b613036caeeb5eb44ce8943
aaa7772fc7209d1a853504e1cfe816feb89962bc
35978 F20101107_AABBUO meyers_c_Page_172.QC.jpg
999149204c72b1b2f02b38fafcda4ceb
3e749d97ce71b24f7a45e80fe6a2cc8b70bf1d8e
F20101107_AABASA meyers_c_Page_055.tif
89225f8fd6d22db7e4ccbfd6a03179b8
61abd6ff8aa8e9c75abc842f2394861f2b8a4794
F20101107_AABARM meyers_c_Page_041.tif
7a0e7bc8dab5f941f4efbb42f9813e05
8877ff24cbeb6a1577e8abf36583ce356b7d3ac3
F20101107_AABAQY meyers_c_Page_027.tif
ae0eca81d9adaff37f0e2c52ecc2dddc
af8435de8826d0d07bf515e31ac85a085fd35bc0
9296 F20101107_AABBUP meyers_c_Page_172thm.jpg
18ea5cc3c0c3ebc086ec0d8aa549b14e
353b6be3b7303f3154b689e5dbb4678760253ccf
F20101107_AABASB meyers_c_Page_056.tif
f8389e39d51644126b0c1c6784f8176e
a0edde576d2ba420f9259d3e94313001e78fa393
F20101107_AABARN meyers_c_Page_042.tif
3bd2d3e1a457b2c0cfa3c73b90b5a6c2
6737adb71368f0bdfa3aadff8aadff7e2340a02c
F20101107_AABAQZ meyers_c_Page_028.tif
e0415eb9ea67fad1c238bbd736a93b5d
6c0dc2b275ac8a8d7f6286f9f40d73840750a6df
9052 F20101107_AABBUQ meyers_c_Page_173thm.jpg
e4ee98df96a44d265177e4d769a01968
88da0e9c553b498b1ac120c0551f7872b14ca68e
1053954 F20101107_AABASC meyers_c_Page_057.tif
b6363c8d9094948d3e6599b79b7d9c95
508d1868120d8bac65b797e64651f774cdf3a0bd
F20101107_AABARO meyers_c_Page_043.tif
b99387b61bd8b5f273ce3002b7f86a69
74a0059cb1f3b6f280a18d8f893a30dc527adeef
12470 F20101107_AABBUR meyers_c_Page_174.QC.jpg
5d50fbf351f06c789697cea0013f7680
20c7ef0ba86145065e208c6e7f936212d713b203
F20101107_AABASD meyers_c_Page_058.tif
0100248d048531930600bb4b4d33755c
abbe1185ca955febef816dba10c4730042dbe082
F20101107_AABARP meyers_c_Page_044.tif
14deddd170a3dea456d3006fa9e9d223
2e0bf630bdef042cf51c3356cf728bf50620b652
3082 F20101107_AABBUS meyers_c_Page_174thm.jpg
e53d3dd611ff3300d4cbad41dfc6dd99
2cded83289a371347076e3c1f3810cb4bd3f5a65
F20101107_AABASE meyers_c_Page_059.tif
190af197a2e816203214c5b45ee24a1a
0c8885b32484717f70b279bd5d147335bbf4c65b
F20101107_AABARQ meyers_c_Page_045.tif
e6bec13baf87e59f187281569fc04901
d6ee9ee45f37bfa7fbc1d32f45b1f135f5144318
32107 F20101107_AABBUT meyers_c_Page_175.QC.jpg
e7ae2e14683d3dba3eee9f7fef0ec07a
d263da1cd9758883be067f771d4a4946c4e5e539
F20101107_AABASF meyers_c_Page_060.tif
09c17c605301261b7f229a525e18458c
cb0d6d196f535e8035a079cca0fc84994e77348f
F20101107_AABARR meyers_c_Page_046.tif
c81bb5d1ff4bda37c0bbe907bbe49e42
d33cb628693065da2899f540a463e66372377e4c
8482 F20101107_AABBUU meyers_c_Page_175thm.jpg
d9ffa3410656aeeac16f2b6aa8a94c65
4a29df9c1974d03cb7206df6568b9acf296d4d68
F20101107_AABASG meyers_c_Page_061.tif
7b5ac08a882199fb095938110abfd455
09fab4be9a51d006dd3ed0e24b1a7be99754872f
F20101107_AABARS meyers_c_Page_047.tif
4ab7f1f9154af6ad7bb45ef3269575df
c626d1946d6a18dfb4756aec4278dcea936aa0f7
6521 F20101107_AABBUV meyers_c_Page_176.QC.jpg
f0daa5b4599fcf542861e38ee6a92bbe
9230584328dbcbfd9a8a4ce6ae20f145160e9696
F20101107_AABASH meyers_c_Page_062.tif
178e0d8b42cecd30bf6b9c02e7590349
afd09c3b09634bde020fd9e7f3237e4037b1bfcf
F20101107_AABART meyers_c_Page_048.tif
b877e5485c999f1e59ea9f84fdb33acd
84b3e6e023199ae1a2f94bc45c328abb7c7f05c5
1763 F20101107_AABBUW meyers_c_Page_176thm.jpg
bcb2667a980ab66c2862f57aaf7cdcd9
5ba1be9b5c7e64444b3ef43a11ebd13e4ad4c024
F20101107_AABASI meyers_c_Page_063.tif
9372d550dd2c0094c6eb3775d6e34152
0a85ab644bae3feda15292c86a946a217b276095
F20101107_AABARU meyers_c_Page_049.tif
a42817e2b6bfe8737080282d6ed3db98
ba21685471bce4a1a5137d307c4fd65184468f2e
203133 F20101107_AABBUX UFE0022509_00001.mets FULL
8af27b784550fccc6e5023377236addd
fdffe477a1de98acb411c994cee5be236bd76291
F20101107_AABASJ meyers_c_Page_064.tif
725f302403f043c02520f5c2b36f70a1
eda40138a3ed8972de5595ce31a3413d3e11f1b5
F20101107_AABARV meyers_c_Page_050.tif
62427624469953bc23f5c875b36541f8
6182fe6d78c0556411ecad24ee9e5e74cb010571
F20101107_AABASK meyers_c_Page_065.tif
3c5d5e8b2c6dcc129450b26dd43b6f00
d7a2cae213e2bc8f5c83b30d132113547398533c
F20101107_AABARW meyers_c_Page_051.tif
18570e0ed1094aa434a6da66bd3e90df
f8618628d497a78b32f7ff6e5e7253bcc3425eb8
F20101107_AABASL meyers_c_Page_066.tif
715d53f092828f5df96af56a51f5cc27
bcaf5e736e30aab2ee2cc5a741f13992905b2ded
F20101107_AABARX meyers_c_Page_052.tif
b2cb47e0182b4666ba2551b07a1df43d
34123b0d13c77ded797b26545549b89b5abf2d56
F20101107_AABASM meyers_c_Page_067.tif
0086e86721fdb1a185cdf0f7c58e3d00
0c2a8f737fd5bd48635835f2f22819dcc4eb40bd
F20101107_AABARY meyers_c_Page_053.tif
cadcbf960ff3e9dcd18ccecdabc9a780
6eabbf4ccae718dead8364651793b147d2d473cf
F20101107_AABATA meyers_c_Page_082.tif
98d555932665466dc9033d03514b7373
a254d85d90a4940bf353e69c7e9665b9dd6c5b25
F20101107_AABASN meyers_c_Page_068.tif
1c560de12253beb1fc65d9bc07ba5a11
2adb3d612eec326f7eb5193155775b37ca736dcf
F20101107_AABARZ meyers_c_Page_054.tif
119b0954d9dc8085a01bdd6820d422da
f5fb272d213cfc3fdc25444f6457106aaa70693d
F20101107_AABATB meyers_c_Page_083.tif
8febf657cd5d299b86e8ea85cc8952fe
815cdf1060e219a7259a49bfd0c86ed673148e85
F20101107_AABASO meyers_c_Page_069.tif
610fe4b8bc065917683ea33194155a54
d4721a9da69965ef50401a08284a970b056608c4
F20101107_AABATC meyers_c_Page_084.tif
a78f715055f31eec924b2cd43000c065
c5c497ed5011ef72010e2fb288f780a0bb13591f
F20101107_AABASP meyers_c_Page_071.tif
115fba6b02c3549f22d73faa42eb9172
2f46edb7b1186e13d18e3880eaba9d324a7ac53e
F20101107_AABATD meyers_c_Page_085.tif
2a5e1e5bc22dcc72340c5d22db7ad6a6
15526b7351b6a635ff4c3877d6c97a689191baa3
F20101107_AABASQ meyers_c_Page_072.tif
3892131ea1e93f4336774474354e3269
03dcbe3cc0c216f7ed2ce979e511d8a3c37bb24f
F20101107_AABATE meyers_c_Page_086.tif
99e9758f63798e0c38a3589f21d1abc7
3be538413db71eaa0b92dad8adab9f36f5deccd4
F20101107_AABASR meyers_c_Page_073.tif
f9e3dc7d585dcbd012a468c272b37f3e
36e7441bff3168883043a61ea01ad7e8e5408385
F20101107_AABATF meyers_c_Page_087.tif
f788bc47bcc5b83d47d97e245a731f81
31748d7bd8c9c6e7483797e94d0c67e278855259
F20101107_AABASS meyers_c_Page_074.tif
99599146affa7b9f444c7cd675f123a9
b8ec9571ff601ed97efe9985880a4ce2b8992eea
F20101107_AABATG meyers_c_Page_088.tif
7c914efd430ffe0a6f8f714c9bf22cba
5a26b794c923887e19f2a4f5fccf3dacfcfaee12
F20101107_AABAST meyers_c_Page_075.tif
0a5a4748e4ec8b6777ec8a707df6024d
e4ba2c0fc82a08b1e9e004a0ef6be9e428619ee4
F20101107_AABATH meyers_c_Page_089.tif
102cb95fc87d483d23acb209b7965ac7
1f8f2e716766fee0e4f3deda8cdca2fac7733e53
F20101107_AABASU meyers_c_Page_076.tif
8a7d4a71ea46b809450cf324d69ac5e5
9bcb09f4dc265400c809da930be11f33e3456f52
F20101107_AABATI meyers_c_Page_090.tif
08abd806b397b5bc8ed5c54086380454
2622c84cfb99b68cca1b49c33a7bdec20edd5657
F20101107_AABASV meyers_c_Page_077.tif
f5f0fd5f3fb1ea40975d3e8933e33a86
51d973e70ecd9ea376d27028da1e1c464e1b2479
F20101107_AABATJ meyers_c_Page_091.tif
c77bcd967f8c0284391bf0a2e2499003
bd5dc0e1c438db91919d7d6c9f004ba2ce62438a
F20101107_AABASW meyers_c_Page_078.tif
e9bb3031db24ac1106010a34dbaf0385
91cdd0b5c1d1610d27f8e9ba6873c3350651ee06
F20101107_AABATK meyers_c_Page_092.tif
c87b3ccc892e0a82ae0644242d3bb4c5
cf64e63b597210c6a1888b863a391e6840022296
F20101107_AABASX meyers_c_Page_079.tif
2f95ad007e195d591aeeccc8c78088f3
e00faf1f9f3e651c9cdcc39274e77301ea66d18d
F20101107_AABATL meyers_c_Page_093.tif
fd8a0bafbbb4be7d476aeb606fa4f318
65c3ebbe5254cd3aa5c19d906e8350b091653eab
F20101107_AABASY meyers_c_Page_080.tif
ad60f6b845430e46d1f0689ecac0e726
ace9abf2a44686986aa4f9bcccb36a183f5627f5
F20101107_AABAUA meyers_c_Page_108.tif
6fa45ecbd8ceb7a84d983c7e5e0f9532
f8a19a0492c4a708c6e8b71d7c5a41987308f61c
F20101107_AABATM meyers_c_Page_094.tif
d6b6318a6d0fe1436d9dec9e577a551a
4c26cd9f65fff360ec8de1659ef2012fc1e37b7a
F20101107_AABASZ meyers_c_Page_081.tif
220ea15a2b3717d3301930e3520d1675
99ac106680431d086e2cc7fdd24b712f4509548b
F20101107_AABAUB meyers_c_Page_109.tif
0b1edda40149c9745aafe2b7f8f453c7
0c0786e5312c7da4aa3b4db99fc2d4f5743e0d84
F20101107_AABATN meyers_c_Page_095.tif
e58d101bc3fbc2df7ae88bad203199a8
a21e5329a6705234cf78ece5affd722ef93a666d
F20101107_AABAUC meyers_c_Page_110.tif
69d2d815c7af624c67e631f780d457d3
56b6ce26ba004b95bd9906f7352db2a4c5b7d6dd
F20101107_AABATO meyers_c_Page_096.tif
49279f81b2dd8dcf8c4c980a29f23611
21d2aee606158b580228e4d9362e8dfa7515048a
F20101107_AABAUD meyers_c_Page_112.tif
1f8b2467be3ab9bf56723f8a72a1ac5d
4fbbe82a10ce36b14157ebcf3e1eda4f7db8b10b
F20101107_AABATP meyers_c_Page_097.tif
7ecb6a8660c46905ac3ea7667fa37b59
857ee09f7a6daff0be3274a51f8b7fb7a4077db9
F20101107_AABAUE meyers_c_Page_113.tif
db5019291cb78fa98b7c73c0656539f6
36e58807d221512fac7a04988948f2d1365a40ec
F20101107_AABATQ meyers_c_Page_098.tif
57440ab894a1b03c92dc6873210f2600
5dc926593d0a87d2c4a25d58e2086f205252e896
F20101107_AABAUF meyers_c_Page_114.tif
e5062ba814c105229f169058ee7ec914
974aac370c0293595b7cd179bf37fbe6baba41f5
F20101107_AABATR meyers_c_Page_099.tif
586f86f8acb7d014d8d47092a2329675
e8b4417c5db917805663b4117195cd0c7773ad3c
46126 F20101107_AABBAA meyers_c_Page_112.pro
e34ef9eefb420e6f53f10d29100c6b2c
50a98f6be8fbb66a774af5f59c45d5c90891dc3d
F20101107_AABAUG meyers_c_Page_115.tif
ffa0bd41aa362d462f449678890ce6f2
a0a70a989d36f4401acfafc99370b4349a5c740d
F20101107_AABATS meyers_c_Page_100.tif
cad48bd6d09a8232694d34f7594fa625
aa79cb9bf50b223fff30c73b1a41a54209f7222b
47612 F20101107_AABBAB meyers_c_Page_113.pro
d676cbc3f9b24c3d293d877180c4d215
ef509084301d572aa23ca5276d159ed07c7b3d03
F20101107_AABAUH meyers_c_Page_117.tif
672e08fa7d1d6f6872b8239d2a4b6eb3
b143d6ee43fc7e8d9770d7d2817b096e142a4e96
F20101107_AABATT meyers_c_Page_101.tif
003b05fb8122d2c39b8d48899a6bee31
28b93deb740b1dcb9523f45f513da4f7ab8f3d59
46375 F20101107_AABBAC meyers_c_Page_114.pro
e71709f33405ef034b2a05f9a3e01c0a
b1ea05f8d721f3ef7994602935d38e393f2fa8f0
F20101107_AABAUI meyers_c_Page_118.tif
edd2f08f5ad3b31f0c899ae59dddd1a0
8bcbfb91f6d474268f72353f0595c6a83e8f88fb
F20101107_AABATU meyers_c_Page_102.tif
dd386866f96075c0d415469d9d60347d
1614e51ccfac7804ede9d3f0fbba1c527586a4c4
49393 F20101107_AABBAD meyers_c_Page_115.pro
841997b4237c26307a5909f3aa676727
6c24114e82eb8e24059fac543b58120a634cd89e
F20101107_AABAUJ meyers_c_Page_119.tif
37b022b94a695b28379e200e9482603a
4ec50335eaabe6012933b53ea9785c669352804b
F20101107_AABATV meyers_c_Page_103.tif
ee0c26901ff914d4ea62b4203d870d13
21def62b200764611b3693c6b610002764fb7bde
44494 F20101107_AABBAE meyers_c_Page_116.pro
90e9adb5df2fba2e75366a48a1e2dfc6
ee42b7e6443bc500491b85a9a1ff3d29760e9ae8
F20101107_AABAUK meyers_c_Page_120.tif
ee433982d098574539c72498ed6e5072
cb6282c95f66857b278515cf942b0ce71a16c8ab
F20101107_AABATW meyers_c_Page_104.tif
7413fee958441e342982f64d3c587533
701ed622c8b94ee8f3c948997e1463f37be27032
43452 F20101107_AABBAF meyers_c_Page_117.pro
ec6d3d3412a208f4822b4d77867604fd
6b7e7fce7e38b178c3d04d8e0a0faaff03166851
F20101107_AABAVA meyers_c_Page_138.tif
88e67bb6631702af05a7428de7335358
357e2c530b2d3f1ce6d664eb5b07ab566d77d02a
F20101107_AABAUL meyers_c_Page_121.tif
e46546a4448fcc2f6d768ba3327e8dc7
0ee97f08e545b01d100170d44b377267d3e210c1
F20101107_AABATX meyers_c_Page_105.tif
8df6bb0d4be2912378eb099c44466cb1
14de545a0b37703c7051c1503ae3ab723001d68c
42187 F20101107_AABBAG meyers_c_Page_118.pro
42086aa85b88eaf66807e6680be87573
2d489d8be0038c82fe22bc224fef900bde53d44e
F20101107_AABAUM meyers_c_Page_122.tif
6bca3dd66cfe67e4a6114810246d5975
0f998e1262966fea89f22356dd4a457797933454
F20101107_AABATY meyers_c_Page_106.tif
3f5a9eea7c1a4c8087315e76fc34ce60
2c99938fb3fc694e840973909bb9a0fede3ad2e0
40369 F20101107_AABBAH meyers_c_Page_119.pro
9b2459e3d52c86fdfaa2a99d2cbfc5db
43bcd4f0002d6f8a4af90866a611d3a8877d2760
F20101107_AABAVB meyers_c_Page_139.tif
4a94b0376397ef6a257d89cfd83560e6
ac7cc4645cc06ea8263568e70b3f422e36f811da
F20101107_AABAUN meyers_c_Page_123.tif
0a3059a3db721a37fb80012aa94c3afd
58fb8a24ee8b85745a8ce08872b160a6b435e5fb
F20101107_AABATZ meyers_c_Page_107.tif
c1d22bd932597a0536993ecbf0b5500c
de89c75eb17aafb1f4019a819bf93588d10c4cbd
50558 F20101107_AABBAI meyers_c_Page_121.pro
a6030eb30d21029ec0c0b72721e501af
e6286fc2efcbe94c89402eaab0d4cef5df426ed3
F20101107_AABAVC meyers_c_Page_140.tif
4c90db7a5e69e33e36adaaabbd057aed
5674a8ac0896af4949764ffa3a97e9b6ddc8a39e
F20101107_AABAUO meyers_c_Page_124.tif
3ee82bd5aabed622df4996289931ac4b
67ae6c94bcb0999cd9e129a88916fa308e34e495
57138 F20101107_AABBAJ meyers_c_Page_122.pro
e9c91d11932a4c5d38f05fb1ddedc3d2
b9868fef122f72fc0c1fa87bbcf1478f63bb5c75
F20101107_AABAVD meyers_c_Page_141.tif
199707b563ffa7d463aed38c71d33369
c20116fab31f47abba410bb5777d182a6e16f8a3
F20101107_AABAUP meyers_c_Page_125.tif
b2ca00b6589d39c8a5991b9c31bbf0a2
e97e554eacbf25c7b13b73245fa8f52bdaefa536
53582 F20101107_AABBAK meyers_c_Page_123.pro
dce9b38015ee0135815c838431e7c3a3
9a6cce7283fb0c3bafe4c54d0d9248cdfb2f02a0
F20101107_AABAVE meyers_c_Page_142.tif
e994ed01f938faaa7d7011ca2658cf71
dfb0ffafd999667e8e85a9d695198822e21f3eb5
F20101107_AABAUQ meyers_c_Page_126.tif
264722decbc9b138abb48f165b86ee83
94f58658e20deef2a5c00af06866750c979a6219
F20101107_AABAVF meyers_c_Page_144.tif
45b6c45dbbb0ef452ad97e3253f8edf5
71ab8b0ee8e5a029fb6c8beda0112c325e68e13a
F20101107_AABAUR meyers_c_Page_127.tif
ecdf5fc2266dd70fe10ee4ee86c4ed1f
b617aa72ad42d10cfa7507fed37279fd7fad53f1
35922 F20101107_AABBBA meyers_c_Page_141.pro
3b1f83478cc1e31507d536002097b173
c6432782f4b0d7d1a19d0ffa0c849599fb665ab8
53639 F20101107_AABBAL meyers_c_Page_124.pro
466e8b79e89f7c942c7a8b1e4a2746ae
c05ec9bb9b5dc74b868112f5be870e93811c1695
F20101107_AABAVG meyers_c_Page_146.tif
c12e3cc557d7418d9e50f7b4f498c241
0803145564d724f3b8c45a00b82b36c92e1bce7a
F20101107_AABAUS meyers_c_Page_128.tif
1909862207b8406ffadca0e56cabcb78
96643b5b062a15b795eef4f06cdd1164cebd50ef
19998 F20101107_AABBBB meyers_c_Page_142.pro
87f345e6d14b54cd72ccb78fe85018cc
16250691a875fa4c0d3124a59b3f2c82dc34b5f0
52122 F20101107_AABBAM meyers_c_Page_125.pro
d5d19238314da5db434b594eee2b2433
1b0391524996c7140163af213ebb46648462cef0
F20101107_AABAVH meyers_c_Page_148.tif
33497c66f306eeca4c32d476c71ed675
708e37c23f15ee99e8f5de077b11940dc23b672d
F20101107_AABAUT meyers_c_Page_129.tif
ee21f399fe71a76ee936069ef9601930
db43129f7275fc02228cc0857e53127de43bb805
44224 F20101107_AABBBC meyers_c_Page_144.pro
caa1354e0f4b4fd62d5c89489c3e50fa
a32b83be45b5c04e399d419a0323c896401d000f
51940 F20101107_AABBAN meyers_c_Page_126.pro
ca76a6153701ad5cc45e77a029453a23
32d8e267265dee450514b64b29b042c341e2f37f
F20101107_AABAVI meyers_c_Page_149.tif
13ad3b2510e42ceb1d7582b0daa2781a
69d905cc375092e622092dd4899e0cc93abf2232
F20101107_AABAUU meyers_c_Page_130.tif
fef68ca29831e4b4c28368a361a122d5
de3b90590ca4d9d5715b4243fef66021d82a3bee
23956 F20101107_AABBBD meyers_c_Page_145.pro
6e84c16d7d4062406b329638b8fa4800
c340826bf32159dd222151fe2af6368f2fe8110c
51338 F20101107_AABBAO meyers_c_Page_127.pro
5558a48e28dd255324b15dac8f0d4ff2
1d02cb0aaffc52da06e27458e300632181ea4d41
F20101107_AABAVJ meyers_c_Page_150.tif
211c3841fa568be5640f713fb4f34c38
a9911a9e600525bc1a73925a70bcf1b149f8eaa1
F20101107_AABAUV meyers_c_Page_131.tif
b600fc1f944ead32d69a9cd1e9702d35
d81f0acbbaa32246ca6d78800c1ac373249a54a0
47263 F20101107_AABBBE meyers_c_Page_146.pro
436eaa23ae16178bb4dc16b96f3506e4
c082ca7c43c1e6dd63839f5ce12f6942b352663a
54221 F20101107_AABBAP meyers_c_Page_128.pro
e1dc614eee26959af79a94653603082e
8418233c3971ee596424e4330127ed19f2b3f33d
F20101107_AABAVK meyers_c_Page_151.tif
9fe177ef9dc889f56a095e74a2764c87
e2cb23367927d988756f01ff027d151ff223d5ad
F20101107_AABAUW meyers_c_Page_132.tif
fb054b46a652123504178754dbcc67b8
8f71f2f98403341b0ee044a845fca003c331f2ad
32011 F20101107_AABBBF meyers_c_Page_147.pro
8c2d81ab0bce045235473ff8a0b3a302
a4a157b1a90d519cfc9db0a09d50c2eab47c4af5
54263 F20101107_AABBAQ meyers_c_Page_129.pro
33d30e6e9ef20d4e526df5c29c58d4fd
5da8ced0948a01545755742515230c4d25896210
F20101107_AABAVL meyers_c_Page_153.tif
e74cdd285a65ce5978361f77c594c201
1520661e09f5561218c886a4743e5558edabb3c8
F20101107_AABAUX meyers_c_Page_133.tif
e51ea56b851f8c03c62b0326a1a7b09f
0e68e2df49636c3622b503da04ad3c56ba7baa29
30453 F20101107_AABBBG meyers_c_Page_148.pro
50665188b47f96fbb28fb3eaa1746884
758fa2264d940d89f80fb85a051f5fc8e06dca02
F20101107_AABAWA meyers_c_Page_172.tif
60b916f1e1ea0ac026b7bb4abeae2dd9
b61469691525ed7c88cbbe5b1c3b2531a1b000e8
50404 F20101107_AABBAR meyers_c_Page_130.pro
a1153370d729b6586d946b8820ad5e3b
ed0917743cfcc71a70563208a84fdab62a1e5aa1
F20101107_AABAVM meyers_c_Page_154.tif
3a4bad59592205ba1e2f5f09b980f760
a7570d247ae6ff30b3ba171498117142968d5515
F20101107_AABAUY meyers_c_Page_134.tif
a974ae59e8f010b739d99f8db40518db
2f6fbe78ec8a6b372b5dad68aae78196b0a035da
8329 F20101107_AABBBH meyers_c_Page_149.pro
74da8e5a82f48b9aefb9aa4f4f6081d2
b966d4813368fdc6cfc36d752e5e24f319d7a17d
F20101107_AABAWB meyers_c_Page_173.tif
6570740cf30e6d371836e3599db707e8
066490bad69a97dbaa26cd8148ce32b8368fc0b1
51640 F20101107_AABBAS meyers_c_Page_131.pro
f5e0a49d0b5c860588a8b85d5572393f
4551b86f4a9218d8888fc40b7b6dce864bd4ec1e
F20101107_AABAVN meyers_c_Page_155.tif
5de372a7412bdd8ae1c081aef17c47c9
d1ab184fe1d71c6ba8ddbacef4cd91d2297b81b9
F20101107_AABAUZ meyers_c_Page_136.tif
9c9e7ea7d16024780f6ce11f05f09791
ae741a437c21cab9ae1d98e19072a71d9b9bf255
41397 F20101107_AABBBI meyers_c_Page_150.pro
2c33ff32ffa72cd7c644b56d744ef6a1
ed86fa7003fe25d4c587a653ac48f644259bfe1c
55332 F20101107_AABBAT meyers_c_Page_132.pro
305ed04aa15cb87d182a4abdf59cc37b
b1b30ba1b841a3b4b506e2932b99997c43125d85
8423998 F20101107_AABAVO meyers_c_Page_156.tif
f3ad4868c0f6b2eb914181203172f322
b401777da733be9a1e5455989722d017c16bbedd
31833 F20101107_AABBBJ meyers_c_Page_151.pro
fc35b59e0525c60762f65ce7ad3226f0
e149f97f0af58e462a31df60b148a410c225e887
F20101107_AABAWC meyers_c_Page_174.tif
786b07e5f70047abf14afc8704129ace
803d43532c362bcba4d047d6cf794e9f96322576
50871 F20101107_AABBAU meyers_c_Page_133.pro
098cff9cb691a06685b6a3ddf6af1ef7
9e16d3c34415972ed6061783a3d3fb72568465b2
F20101107_AABAVP meyers_c_Page_157.tif
58cd3514d8add520b6ca727ae6ae69fb
bb72ea873b7886863414a2e3bd11ef96013f38c0
46429 F20101107_AABBBK meyers_c_Page_152.pro
bd585abe363ad11bd3d2810c5bc6085d
c369184d7a424951969af1cb7268718e1bf4ca78
F20101107_AABAWD meyers_c_Page_175.tif
8cd4cb984a1f9bb05e903e1041e19046
fc2e62371ad0250655b5ee5205e240ee4e6129f3
50254 F20101107_AABBAV meyers_c_Page_134.pro
ed5912165155c05569e4da9b92742dd7
814e990441fb19587c26689d949178a408251533
F20101107_AABAVQ meyers_c_Page_159.tif
4fd74faad2721537dc52363e07a1fc90
05fd45130a786f722f9247e1bdcd0d8b730144b4
1292 F20101107_AABBBL meyers_c_Page_153.pro
c9408a070ccc1026176251c7d5cd17e8
9e624ecd5a2f83670e136b3f5833e34d6917e957
F20101107_AABAWE meyers_c_Page_176.tif
885d6e0f974faf51cd4b0ecbe877ec61
ee3809276aa53d6b01d6179d774426344e345b9e
53764 F20101107_AABBAW meyers_c_Page_136.pro
1b75985e4a7082adea2d369fa74b65d8
5fd2fac9c82fbd2d45f7081e1e63bc6dc0477fec
F20101107_AABAVR meyers_c_Page_160.tif
4ec9724637fff3641b0d2277a6483a27
2bef0853f2525c69726a584ee390f8e566f51ddc
66930 F20101107_AABBCA meyers_c_Page_169.pro
57889dbe6b2c891555c303e1e53e3d99
b3ec29bb69aa3b55d726bd4403b0ef2af7412d5a
10264 F20101107_AABAWF meyers_c_Page_001.pro
627d55be512a2a8bf2e2c176d1b1cb1f
676dab9c790777ade51710a21aada91282527de2
39933 F20101107_AABBAX meyers_c_Page_137.pro
7d5cd6c446b67c470b7c850b889e3d0d
b381c89c11755afce994926b2f454ed9151e264d
F20101107_AABAVS meyers_c_Page_161.tif
a59b1929b04dc9e2673651197a5563f1
4a79f3705f6819f860e5419ba213a5d6d590bcca
64698 F20101107_AABBCB meyers_c_Page_170.pro
7246e5e4d3faea7caa627d3f6ef85ce2
264bfb1ccf967bf9691f7f296ecb3626608c8c4f
28631 F20101107_AABBBM meyers_c_Page_154.pro
0f7f44b76150e8507be2f7ffe8439f03
155552545d745b656ec4f1d121b356f8242a4339
1043 F20101107_AABAWG meyers_c_Page_002.pro
89d6c20ef52cdea76fc44ec102b7b46e
90f8d5c6940ddd9dabb3eb848d3645b32281611b
52854 F20101107_AABBAY meyers_c_Page_139.pro
b94ca233b6bd95ee0b3cd3f6f9d04e8e
3228b596b3a3f5e24da064847dedc9a32f2f2e82
62997 F20101107_AABBCC meyers_c_Page_171.pro
c484c10a9da0455dde0a5eeebe2c9665
2b22d179e59285ab268d529b5af89af01fc45510
60626 F20101107_AABBBN meyers_c_Page_155.pro
f6ca11f811270a98e4bac521fba39576
68caa8a51d4b88d2cef32c87ab5416d0c66fd100
1015 F20101107_AABAWH meyers_c_Page_003.pro
b69ef0585bdf34b79119cb2571b592b8
37e117bc7bf33a0c5bf291599b8d3e725680fd0f
29444 F20101107_AABBAZ meyers_c_Page_140.pro
1778d8f91aa3d226148bfc2c2d5a2cf6
1781602d2489b7e327d385e239b4723afeb3e80a
F20101107_AABAVT meyers_c_Page_162.tif
ff173782e981b03ed849696cac360c1c
cf2fed63ad3db95b41269449c8b8bcd26860e207
61303 F20101107_AABBCD meyers_c_Page_172.pro
a0bcdf5e9b64e555102ab2713200866d
34ade8112ee438491ecf2b452e850dbded8bd3ce
1508 F20101107_AABBBO meyers_c_Page_156.pro
8f01b1a60b4510357f4505b0b6eddf42
c445a50e73e03a5cd278c2fcc044233d426e3f4a
52295 F20101107_AABAWI meyers_c_Page_004.pro
55a6c069e7b27710813b5c78135e300d
57d62a08cc87565350cd6d8197a9c7bda90ed5eb
F20101107_AABAVU meyers_c_Page_163.tif
30d8a7b4b5291fb6b1e6c2827c83671a
818c22e927adb1d81bdd06295c8fb7ed3eb4b8d5
61662 F20101107_AABBCE meyers_c_Page_173.pro
094c3a291f1c541c0a7c3ee5fb90cd94
4e6ca0a4c9e60507e8c5761a4c2df06ba2711d1b
22838 F20101107_AABBBP meyers_c_Page_157.pro
8f5a26d216aa0e1106ab6afd12a59c7a
5e3fd9988153957b8c4086afc7e43b6536bd2614
19621 F20101107_AABAWJ meyers_c_Page_006.pro
59d6d9ea8ca0009b3025f77e066c0d26
7372403863ab77a1be9449956b7f09f862f2fe46
F20101107_AABAVV meyers_c_Page_164.tif
0a8540c64c5b2c8f476378dc301da93e
c60ed154a5ff50556fa50d171c46233edb479c96
19949 F20101107_AABBCF meyers_c_Page_174.pro
806125b5fc99de1a0b8632fd937177a4
a396711a937f0611d4d611a4b6d4f655c9eac709
1004 F20101107_AABBBQ meyers_c_Page_159.pro
38d394033e18e0d69ba5bea7a44ad156
96d1c6c42b1fa5d1d0176ad14a7fbdf3cd32ddad
97457 F20101107_AABAWK meyers_c_Page_007.pro
96df93f593f68d924c84a96901dce961
a4a8a0856a11867178eaf7dc316c97f85467ad62
F20101107_AABAVW meyers_c_Page_166.tif
c01b9db1ff469cec7fd676e64fdf4f3f
99077f0d1a0e4e802e82b23c2143d276873e40b6
48479 F20101107_AABBCG meyers_c_Page_175.pro
a2e83c8ed916d616319a17ea816a858e
899fe39947014f70b67b1fff132920c233698aea
55324 F20101107_AABAXA meyers_c_Page_027.pro
d99b95798098c5e9798171a420a2127f
55b26344bb23bea79c630d99350631f6d7611bbe
68914 F20101107_AABBBR meyers_c_Page_160.pro
6c69e03c683e3dcc6863996a3bf95bb2
1d9fb30f52d4c11dfba04904e909144e24877c04
120291 F20101107_AABAWL meyers_c_Page_008.pro
bfea6189c6f4742f45d4224da3e50064
490356859d85af3d6458bf73ee7b6a1a43874da6
F20101107_AABAVX meyers_c_Page_167.tif
5f5f20bb7a9f372abd5cbef67b9e92fa
1b79430a91171ee9ef42751127bbd8d4a883172d
7586 F20101107_AABBCH meyers_c_Page_176.pro
1489cd98d2d95f1461a938c1eccc82fe
f154f20ae814d7d678af550a41e594a1c1194e47
58913 F20101107_AABAXB meyers_c_Page_028.pro
b4b813a9c79bc09aab95378d9ba33035
ff542d0439797c3bf0bc3dd79dc8344779c10b39
53456 F20101107_AABBBS meyers_c_Page_161.pro
aeec20559dce2321caf249d0b282d2a3
e0955d0b12570e460e88050def235ed138d849eb
73486 F20101107_AABAWM meyers_c_Page_010.pro
d36111214481442152eeb4c297dc1fb7
d4637bafa3924ac2e88a4e37b24dd3035341ff32
F20101107_AABAVY meyers_c_Page_169.tif
1c563a26f86b51768f90394a1b3f2f77
ed222eb3835e6ae1bd1700013cee2a39d28273f3
560 F20101107_AABBCI meyers_c_Page_001.txt
12f18e6c7d2f39c828517af088e4194d
7c1c7dad274cdeca90214fc0d483127b4d2dc71a
54882 F20101107_AABAXC meyers_c_Page_029.pro
46f9cf50a79662734fa2d924b3947b76
d4d2e261181af4849c47cc8854fa6043627666f2
64524 F20101107_AABBBT meyers_c_Page_162.pro
440c96dec1470191cddf1d29afb257d5
578aa32ff828f6a5edbd5d45b029450527d1aab3
77743 F20101107_AABAWN meyers_c_Page_011.pro
c293ffeea3881ebec07af680f11b252c
725eff0a2659b71ed7aaf7e45149e5fdfd1c571a
F20101107_AABAVZ meyers_c_Page_171.tif
6770044afd60f3456ec6a07407061364
f9cad6bce2090f37b33047b65d7397daa579398e
100 F20101107_AABBCJ meyers_c_Page_002.txt
2cae657e5780af53a7b0e5fb905ad072
e40a394346ece5e62392e77e866673e4820a8064
57684 F20101107_AABBBU meyers_c_Page_163.pro
32e39ac9bbf060f3782f16dcff0fc0c8
e5b7324533db17c1e87455f426e44dcbca242e7a
40853 F20101107_AABAWO meyers_c_Page_012.pro
eac1479e1d4832c146a598177c45d70d
dba31f3aea632b63cd2aafdba85dad63ebcce9ee
95 F20101107_AABBCK meyers_c_Page_003.txt
a80ab268fcafaa2e6516beb9f5a4b2e3
2ba5c362a8b5753e05e6f367b439d465302316b5
56276 F20101107_AABAXD meyers_c_Page_030.pro
b4ad8dc381b556daedf0ba30daa3072c
81e7e47c4f315a673daeba125211e5239e1d927c
63492 F20101107_AABBBV meyers_c_Page_164.pro
212b046fe9435db47b41b8ae08916af0
04962bb3d6ca9ce4085b1a3868bd89d9443c5f66
8447 F20101107_AABAWP meyers_c_Page_013.pro
4428226a0c960ad57e9113c58ddb36d9
c69998682f5ff1ac136af2a31553034fbb752a9e
2089 F20101107_AABBCL meyers_c_Page_004.txt
148c7682b68e62d495d819eecbeb9db1
266f9c1d01123eb6cefc35aad90e75b02e6d1be3
54160 F20101107_AABAXE meyers_c_Page_031.pro
93af304e539aad82b41b0c9de4169b1b
dd9c491294469e2b80fcb8acc378743705c08b06
63919 F20101107_AABBBW meyers_c_Page_165.pro
d392d4a998d907baf6937264ca27e5fe
6d34703150811c5fd6292f912fc73b2b1b127d86
57778 F20101107_AABAWQ meyers_c_Page_014.pro
c9eb7db8c52a76bdc8f5b9a8a7e826b4
1baa045cd7b8ce7392f692a0b46cec415c1a6e32
2187 F20101107_AABBCM meyers_c_Page_005.txt
1eb511a0674e49d11f2318e182a763ee
874b4072dd0360ba5528004d99f846c10288807a
53380 F20101107_AABAXF meyers_c_Page_032.pro
5a2d0bb6e8020ad591bd65d42a94dbe1
ba834032b5c07548b1cebd22ab8c882c4cada773
60266 F20101107_AABBBX meyers_c_Page_166.pro
0a965effef2055445873fe7655376257
2cdec7c0b460156d974b9c1f414ab719c3d4b421
47054 F20101107_AABAWR meyers_c_Page_015.pro
3b297e9e0c105a3b92658a9ea995999b
8e09e0573ea3ff2dc327db36210c1728b6b654e3
2377 F20101107_AABBDA meyers_c_Page_020.txt
bf23feb238e347190f6e4bf8e9f95498
91f32ea419999e7c2d21262643a26180bc356fbb
53776 F20101107_AABAXG meyers_c_Page_033.pro
56a73d0aaa167ad587ce450f287ba39c
bce436ae3a61d1a7007b77c7a34aefadbe20aa55
59044 F20101107_AABBBY meyers_c_Page_167.pro
a5fac7fb99475e85911e6d0acb10cb1a
bb265ab23e99dfa731ebf357ee427f99df316aa5
12166 F20101107_AABAWS meyers_c_Page_017.pro
03fed7caf0e5f2704fc2bf1c25939a5b
46c13570b5ae9ac45c5cda75a4373d9bf2f349d9
2245 F20101107_AABBDB meyers_c_Page_021.txt
404bbca4720552d6d59c495ff6d194a4
e82778ea3612971bd30f8082b6382c404bba60d1
786 F20101107_AABBCN meyers_c_Page_006.txt
afe648200068ebef7071b7f0110e0491
990a846411d9eb92f5dcd10320ca6ea252ad67c3
26635 F20101107_AABAXH meyers_c_Page_034.pro
f546b5ce0d1c16cf12ff98c962812e94
9557c67f70176caf0d4c903a36e10a4b2c14ab10
64981 F20101107_AABBBZ meyers_c_Page_168.pro
847ed5282daafb3ee24637e08f6491e3
11f115893dc95c1091f5a6b3e584d791801414fe
55422 F20101107_AABAWT meyers_c_Page_018.pro
53c53b9fb74c3add84f7aae9bc8e646c
6be510f1052947b885014c0f2e9da490ea8f4d05
77 F20101107_AABAAA meyers_c_Page_156.txt
8a08881237852c7c2ec012b9e118b758
ce0d74f186416ea87c18cc8ccfcc3e729d1f1dc6
2229 F20101107_AABBDC meyers_c_Page_024.txt
bc1902204009a4203f0c72831686ffc8
363e0eec2fb6e20669b7f52fb454b3f03cfbc649
3989 F20101107_AABBCO meyers_c_Page_007.txt
157fa019663df7967e132191048f0502
c0f01ad13ddc5d563d5715fee66dd5de8948780d
49708 F20101107_AABAXI meyers_c_Page_035.pro
88d59e0b4989cb63e8037cd335718dad
57788463c86cf895a32a08e2b5b0ce03a91284b0
54323 F20101107_AABAWU meyers_c_Page_019.pro
dceacf8279d9ae22a177b87e9da3be44
1d8d83bdcf18e4a7f7bf471836f99a142a614af6
6428 F20101107_AABAAB meyers_c_Page_137thm.jpg
29ffda718aa3bf407a156a3a7bbc6a08
2cdef3d68488dfb9bb59b7c1507ebd6222e4ae2b
2344 F20101107_AABBDD meyers_c_Page_025.txt
596f36852ee034a92e142cd53498721c
f5b4f95d5b09d7e54c58e6d6439eae938a00fda1
4915 F20101107_AABBCP meyers_c_Page_008.txt
d08f3e8e01d2c99ee2a012a46c8048cc
4de827e0f95806496601125afe21c7de255c7f9f
53896 F20101107_AABAXJ meyers_c_Page_036.pro
43774190c410bee1c9d369a32edbef44
ffa151f968e4e99750d1aea8ca733b149741611e
59623 F20101107_AABAWV meyers_c_Page_020.pro
9c64e8d99a4955e8e8d1b4ecc0f86026
b427111baf385e898269529244beb72bd9e4ec94
F20101107_AABAAC meyers_c_Page_165.tif
f1a06f1295ee4c1d34af7c1137f80b32
b1bed2ec6608335183fe94091f3a037d58649d83
2149 F20101107_AABBDE meyers_c_Page_026.txt
b7f8da22882cfcc5edfc474e68cc4b16
d7be2a9390c9fe396a98fce82f2ad5b51b74f3eb
52248 F20101107_AABAXK meyers_c_Page_037.pro
fa55d0147d94585a4ab350282e9ed18d
a7fda8e453eec5ac285d6d22e73757e9d638d2f7
56361 F20101107_AABAWW meyers_c_Page_021.pro
ecf8712e5ae123a9be12e06ca7c3b72d
ff50a10a0198b7fb4dfab0775d79c98d1d62ebc0
618523 F20101107_AABAAD meyers_c_Page_034.jp2
817070f908e30a03b9ec98b388e0fee2
0cb6704c978bc1691e90a71db9936c1752ca15ac
2205 F20101107_AABBDF meyers_c_Page_027.txt
71768f30433f67aa081e9c9ac8fa0fc9
85eb6b371120e9c3478aab01da5f1b0d654bff35
1605 F20101107_AABBCQ meyers_c_Page_009.txt
ba7bc27124f632bb2bfe9bf6b6549bf9
9103401cb28bb0af7c772772331386e246998a3c
52538 F20101107_AABAXL meyers_c_Page_038.pro
352e4c818292c8cfaf9dca00c8b34129
3a6cc4c2dd993fb9fc23fcc7746d254b2ba7bbc9
55360 F20101107_AABAWX meyers_c_Page_022.pro
5117b11f6334d038bd6f931654382cd1
b7bf7d94b63287926b5c0f977263fa0879b4b46c
8733 F20101107_AABAAE meyers_c_Page_074thm.jpg
20ad98412e0d992ef1bc3506be51aefe
e05bf1e6961737fbce13cbe886f3668e04d3d41d
2325 F20101107_AABBDG meyers_c_Page_028.txt
c12f3307513cd49c985080a9f4950927
12b21ca3f311b25bc099da2c097f0eaf356d3c5f
31542 F20101107_AABAYA meyers_c_Page_054.pro
c6732b229405912ea29ab78a88e34e0b
45d8f5c4705c54f10d4214f22cfad737b6c736b4
2931 F20101107_AABBCR meyers_c_Page_010.txt
2316d874ac23ef5449d6c58d62f71093
a2f08c7490b773d8345c31e1182fcbd2152a4e1f
48392 F20101107_AABAXM meyers_c_Page_040.pro
f1138725b244e3769b0c1fc5f064e9f8
c9d02ae1533c7e247c4ab288821a839fc3c5c1e0
56846 F20101107_AABAWY meyers_c_Page_024.pro
77441982abba6671704f3d04f2f88cf1
4af88707ab35ac5cecdd638d02d5fce156df23a2
90542 F20101107_AABAAF meyers_c_Page_115.jpg
5e0457e6512285dcfd319ee267d28598
631ecb7e7024871f65a715cabd40077a39dedaf9
2242 F20101107_AABBDH meyers_c_Page_030.txt
38ece0641235d4018e904ac2430c81dc
150c5b9d95ddbb89574c937e8e4b9bf751e4c3a4
64768 F20101107_AABAYB meyers_c_Page_056.pro
a034ab0cc6a711adc8420134a99c74f0
4d88abe84d21ad203f6b31ee7bed3eb5bc2ac174
3128 F20101107_AABBCS meyers_c_Page_011.txt
bcaa7534553a8de72d4721080d88ec8e
b467b09bcf00c62b754600385678fe8bbd38576e
51999 F20101107_AABAXN meyers_c_Page_041.pro
74a700a6116149dd5c5fd66d6ad77250
4f550623c3ceb55d856248427c0e414e97d94219
54737 F20101107_AABAWZ meyers_c_Page_026.pro
fe76a3f842ae57e158d0d47dc4923918
a6fc74212b2256abaa812451ad8c4b76f9485033
F20101107_AABAAG meyers_c_Page_168.tif
7bd551853f1278795c215f209d01d6c2
4ae844beed7a07380a9969035b84ccf9d5a82cac
2177 F20101107_AABBDI meyers_c_Page_031.txt
a6c06a9b4660613f6e1201ef81df0439
eca00120e4b2dfdac63ad6d3ffe1a62a066088ac
48058 F20101107_AABAYC meyers_c_Page_057.pro
5bf168f4adae2ff0e45f53ffde865866
c0cbb86960b002cfb93fc7773db110ecb36ee412
1628 F20101107_AABBCT meyers_c_Page_012.txt
9819256f829c0861a1baf2f03f602b9d
9c9cc1ae1b9c88ec85376851a5b48c4db17bb2d9
55832 F20101107_AABAXO meyers_c_Page_042.pro
80a40491666996bfb35115257f4a1432
7c60517ed96bf16f8529c46f766ade0a9647ddeb
35607 F20101107_AABAAH meyers_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
e8b39b06266ae7a00c7e6b3080049f2a
88c8114d10503d480ac3e99a6821394fc56c086c
2098 F20101107_AABBDJ meyers_c_Page_032.txt
f536e9a0f4bf7034f571a1569fb439db
45900f110643a12b717f765e12189ad436e389b3
30798 F20101107_AABAYD meyers_c_Page_058.pro
6e55de0152548f8d9e8026d28f2f0fce
b41728b063de134a8487c2252e7b4253609d3ce3
359 F20101107_AABBCU meyers_c_Page_013.txt
7649b5051e7463bec51c141c27e08a56
2c7c68543e6729724736bac171eb5ef2def6b4c2
58026 F20101107_AABAXP meyers_c_Page_043.pro
ff12992a553b1df6b917662a91a59d12
d4fbaae3ab4d28f4e243887d9c4b7fb9c3de0879
33161 F20101107_AABAAI meyers_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
4248dd4de73de5192e176743259933e2
5ab60250fac6583afc1170d7bf5afa24f8f8b909
2157 F20101107_AABBDK meyers_c_Page_033.txt
b7e745fcb2a58b93bcd7ebafef34e85f
670ac209bc57386ff963ef179b1d12b74f552ba4
2479 F20101107_AABBCV meyers_c_Page_014.txt
028bf0bfd577ebf0870cbec428377f45
0ec72182beb56b3cdfccd4acbe6268b823826625
49433 F20101107_AABAXQ meyers_c_Page_044.pro
c0d65e20ba8d6d12cb30563a4648fffa
653794bf42c1081048ca56b61cdbe4b7b96ecdcc
F20101107_AABAAJ meyers_c_Page_135.tif
6d5b4f3eb930de1af6eee4ce54a440f7
8f2177f656db2c1f63ec5d44e1728a4eba3052f0
2066 F20101107_AABBDL meyers_c_Page_035.txt
f8b34fb1e5441c6a21bfe420e3b6c3de
543c870d4a0442d88e232221b51a81d8dff36137
55322 F20101107_AABAYE meyers_c_Page_059.pro
0d4537d260caf839cd9d68ad0e6026f3
9f047fdf690ca46ed63677fd6ac6bf2cf039aa3d
2049 F20101107_AABBCW meyers_c_Page_015.txt
0a7efecb1d61af6f0141542ec1c857ba
b76d4ca775611953908293294d690f02c1f888dd
1306 F20101107_AABBEA meyers_c_Page_054.txt
6b0295427560ae86bf375046130c846d
e5392730c63db30a09cd21e3a95a0d7f4916f03e
53100 F20101107_AABAXR meyers_c_Page_045.pro
cecc3933268e6dee17dd9f5e516ef0fa
e6c12572025663effd957e2e04431cea5a2a9c2d
1051972 F20101107_AABAAK meyers_c_Page_021.jp2
f10fd10510e8cd41b8241ae75583baf6
a75069a6fbbd6e7e8f1295af8618f49ba116f832
2140 F20101107_AABBDM meyers_c_Page_036.txt
5bfb11e32c080a958365a9014d89fd8d
758d5c02470ab9f71e16a02d8b35e8c898a57f2a
53937 F20101107_AABAYF meyers_c_Page_060.pro
f3ab0f93bc285edf07818d25780faf92
3997f0e403de2f8b8a11128de2fb743325107936
1978 F20101107_AABBCX meyers_c_Page_016.txt
56fa947c25f6e8cf22fd32be2e0e5960
32b72294fc8dd87912d0aeaa6b11b93bbef75f7b
2040 F20101107_AABBEB meyers_c_Page_055.txt
a36c90800cd23955d168a51d7ca40212
27bf9fd4d0ee20e9eaaf3b70befe59e87b3c8bb0
52892 F20101107_AABAXS meyers_c_Page_046.pro
7b2a26ee48117d548c75d2a77cd7409c
e95dd8d8a704e694d34f1cb2f1b46584de2d6409
F20101107_AABAAL meyers_c_Page_022.jp2
530370cc419c4d66750df9e3445a35a3
29d0eef35c24a9ad15dd5da12979c01c3021fd59
2112 F20101107_AABBDN meyers_c_Page_038.txt
70e47fe7b9fec7f977574f8e58d2d2ef
79aa785403212378ac34d18e58c6ebee5a9ebdd5
55453 F20101107_AABAYG meyers_c_Page_061.pro
a5d7a44e6b590bbf2bb05fb3bd3f8bca
032a5bc2bd2d4c9620352a1ccdbfddf6bca566e9
2283 F20101107_AABBCY meyers_c_Page_018.txt
7de2f92cd28a857b24a920c5d9ad2010
8f5bd915db3e7be8bacd6fb37b0ccbf9d5d0d3db
2823 F20101107_AABBEC meyers_c_Page_056.txt
8823dc077dc6b67ac9eadf8172e03cbe
6887f49756890aaf4f7b68a992957d02153df7df
53608 F20101107_AABAXT meyers_c_Page_047.pro
7e95e7c87133fc54a0646375098b6d65
995cb513b3640f9462142cedc9f26ab9756007e0
2061 F20101107_AABABA meyers_c_Page_037.txt
6e3a374a0878f096db80a56db022da9e
6c2b341ddf488926b41c412e63405dc1bf3cacd9
53156 F20101107_AABAYH meyers_c_Page_063.pro
35643011d4aef09e260befe5025579dd
e0f9a5cd608d367caca2cc07d93ba05c340a76ac
2139 F20101107_AABBCZ meyers_c_Page_019.txt
245f3badeee193e69de0a93b707e22aa
b6ccdcc423744ab8c7528ecc053cd58c19bc9697
F20101107_AABBED meyers_c_Page_057.txt
0feb8fc0a462af2c0c0838a37515e8aa
636f4f443adfb626d6dcf32c180cd6294cf120f0
53570 F20101107_AABAXU meyers_c_Page_048.pro
dfa6de4d906d33d18e9e901a3f0b7bbb
d71cac6d526f5fe44bbc620fd4e65b03b8b0e379
1085 F20101107_AABABB meyers_c_Page_034.txt
38d512c16ae08ff334fd6bedcb7d2703
cd550b08d0e1605f60d87738e74b97b277ab6f6b
36678 F20101107_AABAAM meyers_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
b79de4bf02b7ee4110a3e8c768c8af02
3346194d07d5002674c143ae129632d7a74178e5
2457 F20101107_AABBDO meyers_c_Page_039.txt
b3756b792ca0e10d17cdbe2b8b9d182f
36a5a53168fef6bb363d8721675964a4b4c96a0a
48779 F20101107_AABAYI meyers_c_Page_064.pro
fa8401954f77d0a08adc1653b4d7e8a0
a5fcc85ec922f75abe5ce37344a5649bbfb8a4df
1366 F20101107_AABBEE meyers_c_Page_058.txt
231d17490556f1ff2079fd970946050c
0c37c7af37a7590cad1ef1765fd34f6185b2260a
1923 F20101107_AABBDP meyers_c_Page_040.txt
9f42570972bb06dfa59d952f2945a3dd
3d550e5329d5ef0d616949c758708f6ccf8ed6c8
49511 F20101107_AABAXV meyers_c_Page_049.pro
4869b7bb374d7adc7262f97369ef4f2f
e52792a714234832b0b5ac08af325191f2db5feb
2264 F20101107_AABABC meyers_c_Page_158thm.jpg
4a7c28af3006bb25a1d0b86bb45510b0
49376364e13b384422b90783d25e8a06bc93a261
2071 F20101107_AABAAN meyers_c_Page_090.txt
cdc95fb3785485cdfcf64c77c76712bc
35949e27d86e533269e8b5fc037ce0785ce038ae
50357 F20101107_AABAYJ meyers_c_Page_065.pro
f963227d98ab3207a44a7eea92ea4587
8a8750195b0b1f0cc3ea90b19f088ea444ab9266
2170 F20101107_AABBEF meyers_c_Page_059.txt
a4fc300e754cf457ab2aa152f9f305f9
8e03d3f3f8dfb6215e070f03ba8138e92fd43634
2046 F20101107_AABBDQ meyers_c_Page_041.txt
9e863153a0ce811a0a74bfa7d86d7f9f
6e0f5b6d557788db485bac22bd973a8352cc91e5
52166 F20101107_AABAXW meyers_c_Page_050.pro
814d3e67553c93cc10a5a2dda93644f4
fa80fc5cb7e1c2c1b1be05e1b3968bc2d698c0ec
2304 F20101107_AABABD meyers_c_Page_043.txt
17feefa124252ad61aa515d8fe757c9f
7d211aba15edd1baf75b49be2ef86257955bce29
55592 F20101107_AABAAO meyers_c_Page_005.pro
ce8adb3a2e74bcbb2589670cf893c8ee
142537223aa30f8f1da2b29cbc6ef9710749071b
57120 F20101107_AABAYK meyers_c_Page_066.pro
957331259d76c8ae4d964d1411896043
fdfb9c63d3612c24c531b6a6fdad5f79b51d26af
2154 F20101107_AABBEG meyers_c_Page_060.txt
375cc099e4c30d5813c91ab0c949b685
00bd6b7803f1bf013a917e4e41b84473ed68b0f7
2192 F20101107_AABBDR meyers_c_Page_042.txt
4f2e0d777b72e637a2196ec880b1097f
2f4ffab2978b0eaf01120bb2922c7211681f79fc
53951 F20101107_AABAXX meyers_c_Page_051.pro
62e6704d23c54f21317a59719be651c3
2acd15d97a85cbb3ef80ec07c38e1d9919a0fcf8
4456 F20101107_AABABE meyers_c_Page_002.jpg
e4bbc6a07dff2b971c097e6fee8bafa1
f768e46dbb0c040c3b0f822914391ea9f2aa51db
F20101107_AABAAP meyers_c_Page_061.jp2
4807c33af1f7935eb6ea0a3f982da9e1
09e98c1ade24e58cc936bf77598f677bca60b247
F20101107_AAAZZJ meyers_c_Page_163.jp2
d8ff6b75bc07821192f7a7bc0037dc32
1d05f193723139cdc352c0ad195ccd08fede0234
20847 F20101107_AABAZA meyers_c_Page_084.pro
84f873e1833f8c8881db2afcbd620ea8
6f460ffa710005ea07a83d384da3d69b147f6186
51152 F20101107_AABAYL meyers_c_Page_067.pro
8d67a1a20d5f8f1f7b8fee24e6f5ee55
96b0659d8d6e7f59ec1e5538bac0cbfac7c78a58
2208 F20101107_AABBEH meyers_c_Page_061.txt
fd50589c132c5a845a325c4d535ff65f
32e3588c1cde0f061f8f103977af8b8067294bb9
2102 F20101107_AABBDS meyers_c_Page_045.txt
aaa3fb1ec6a21da8d450c86ce1c5f42e
ea8b9d1e36f8a7f58f7b1ec4d8d348e94c990c9e
56190 F20101107_AABAXY meyers_c_Page_052.pro
920c3af7e882c406f003d05e71160e50
63a551d1ad6a6e28f161ae931d6a94434a104110
35712 F20101107_AABABF meyers_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
c858e6163c88d35602b9015d8a54fa59
f97558056b1abde7602266bf8334ce7069ea4289
110658 F20101107_AABAAQ meyers_c_Page_129.jpg
f8ebdd5d0f195ea95ea52ef4e3bddc2a
723564e9817e4cd6c8d70ca07dc09bc178ca85fa
53971 F20101107_AAAZZK meyers_c_Page_023.pro
409b8e9eff8907babfe6491b4c7a3f43
f31fd75f105591b7bdd4d1b4d334f0594c1b8623
52175 F20101107_AABAZB meyers_c_Page_085.pro
b154654ffd6bdcd4e50b3e61af14c369
2551f48eeb025f7d1e7b3a2b0acf32c2f3b38e58
52976 F20101107_AABAYM meyers_c_Page_068.pro
865f06bb889c8f3c9a018a2ad75e7c64
5d137d86c0fd8a051beb10be41ee6a844c9b8bb8
2188 F20101107_AABBEI meyers_c_Page_062.txt
b6659a167b20429911726c76755dd3bc
7b440392f75cadb2fb2cd26d74c17cd9f21dd263
2078 F20101107_AABBDT meyers_c_Page_046.txt
cf7be02696d16eb76f74c08cc55788e5
fcba012d1a2fa70d966e841c9951fb81f1b4cc19
53576 F20101107_AABAXZ meyers_c_Page_053.pro
df7b59b2abbabfb8d1f69fcbe805b0ed
ae91ea92e67e079f0cbc8bd42ada64775ce3ff2e
50402 F20101107_AABABG meyers_c_Page_103.pro
8f4fbe41646be4a266e22b6d31375388
ca6489ee29982f4b567c6ae29c3d1b5f16673f91
F20101107_AABAAR meyers_c_Page_125.jp2
fdfbc197ca7e21aebc184834dd3d91eb
e144c643a117f489ed901a28188a9b33b52bde0b
53807 F20101107_AABAZC meyers_c_Page_086.pro
05e6bab78e19629ffb46edaee815a558
972faf18be249d1fd79be33050616ade7ff4a8de
51897 F20101107_AABAYN meyers_c_Page_069.pro
66e44a19e8ecc818be801c6dfa777254
8ae1fb505e999bd562729bf88e8e80061f454f90
2117 F20101107_AABBEJ meyers_c_Page_063.txt
f6975e45685195e0b8e6f4d75d6d159b
78ab671b7204c30d604aa228092fc6b82ea4653f
2110 F20101107_AABBDU meyers_c_Page_047.txt
9f61904197e1ba149507a5134132e168
23145e1016f1ec38ff594d600ee4dca3af6ae14b
2476 F20101107_AABABH meyers_c_Page_149thm.jpg
9148417716a6474ec6045e72e88242f0
8904c115899a0dc99067da2a893d8269f1c27fa4
36363 F20101107_AABAAS meyers_c_Page_173.QC.jpg
af03f6bc9539e7afd5c7f7a269500c24
1065c21acb2d32bca9a785b8b8b2b28f4d3a40f3
36788 F20101107_AAAZZL meyers_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
a2dca1f263eddf5a3d62a8b0816717b8
8d6d584134d8043d63ece422bcccc3eb1a3cfe25
42645 F20101107_AABAZD meyers_c_Page_087.pro
58bc50575c9935cfa336cfa1193384f3
983737f0b249db0b47dd55989486536276e0d7af
63100 F20101107_AABAYO meyers_c_Page_070.pro
d734bbab547ef9bcd466ca4eb68a47a8
54e6481e987ca1ab47865c0bfcb4e89771def9d3
2252 F20101107_AABBEK meyers_c_Page_064.txt
8507f47f9db31bef67adb64593804fd8
4dc86ff7d1ef5e981a687362ce655b8ead3e6e03
2141 F20101107_AABBDV meyers_c_Page_048.txt
a6e8d39c19d320557f6ef32e55481b9f
23ea3913a90fc930b2ac2f4ae4fac63837e04f2b
917143 F20101107_AABABI meyers_c_Page_087.jp2
3265728fc4da8286f22d90a266759f54
3188657c99517d9c6e923017a7365f3cd56672f6
36808 F20101107_AABAAT meyers_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
3b11c2d98f549238db93f4f65ff3e61a
70e6b3ed852869edc0aefaf2cc2b7607f4c56a96
43661 F20101107_AAAZZM meyers_c_Page_101.pro
49f57a61b8d21ce95ce2bc33158ddc65
a2760334c45d668d5cdd00619fed9686f4007697
44843 F20101107_AABAZE meyers_c_Page_088.pro
fb4b98a5a9f7ed9287be5a483adaeaa5
7389c9e64bbec35a4b0f2948b33ea1e820bcb3e9
65783 F20101107_AABAYP meyers_c_Page_071.pro
7b1fbfa6608b7cbf2754413f89d85ccd
d76cb48cc55d50e292da82aa808bed2f3ab59c81
1991 F20101107_AABBEL meyers_c_Page_065.txt
4a2a8ceb61c82eece1553afc1b35a35f
d2ab85164b35c5f580047454399332e9b00ccd38
1955 F20101107_AABBDW meyers_c_Page_049.txt
d1dc0fb19d774fd9cb674ffadc3ef2f1
c947e9e03dfe6d42eec8849adec7f3fab60fc2c4
50200 F20101107_AABABJ meyers_c_Page_016.pro
39ebc040368d912d047f659cbcd50335
2ee8e73cc7080ad86d8ae53074b6b852b1ddff3e
8882 F20101107_AABAAU meyers_c_Page_026thm.jpg
9f7f61f6d7b5c856f5ec6bb684931992
05306c821055e89068234065ceb5a034b0c72beb
F20101107_AAAZZN meyers_c_Page_072.jp2
b11c0df878f12634cd3a6c4ca16953ea
d4f43669b23561f18ee0dde4fc751b93cc5e3dbd
62584 F20101107_AABAYQ meyers_c_Page_073.pro
1b2d247abc75583d504f76c158efda39
8e40b87714fddf53fcb940588fdb2c9ff8cc8571
1408 F20101107_AABBFA meyers_c_Page_080.txt
a1dfcf9a9360c01e5c38bc17227c9e83
e5a5a041a04bd8d6c9dcdacf7806512974255540
2241 F20101107_AABBEM meyers_c_Page_066.txt
d99d38ce5f0aa3442c483f48a297d9a0
40db9814a15fb431ac270f872c9f0ebbe3493be2
2125 F20101107_AABBDX meyers_c_Page_051.txt
36e6b61d259fd0a5a92e2d38e87fa77a
0818e37a4985d9ea4729b68d758bcf5fea021c66
F20101107_AABABK meyers_c_Page_152.tif
f3c4f65f1fdcda6272f24ca9ad9ff339
a6d726f13f5a9a1bc121fe915cc63a50aa579c8e
1953 F20101107_AABAAV meyers_c_Page_175.txt
f515124a3c76adf1dd77f795fd5cf222
909af2340d4635ccaaaf2227bd5d51f77dd8f90c
F20101107_AAAZZO meyers_c_Page_012.tif
ad60564bfcd5f111b9173f89300a13c5
8e2ef9a8caba261d8452b30ef33d23f8c79cc764
45948 F20101107_AABAZF meyers_c_Page_089.pro
7704de0c664f4e9b33e2ee93729f7967
b535c3dc1e84cc78ffb539a7ee176025f00bd98d
52824 F20101107_AABAYR meyers_c_Page_074.pro
ba8ff6dd13415dce116cd72059ed479a
ad9e3eae016623b6377404d353e2eed469278e33
2056 F20101107_AABBFB meyers_c_Page_081.txt
072e5fd0734d6d41090185afdfd14cca
11a6bffaa07dda193dc763c3da633cfcd0a0eabe
2050 F20101107_AABBEN meyers_c_Page_067.txt
abf7fb8e1b0457708eb0098a7afbe3ee
98f1a241a40169bf688494c597cd6b7d19ab2cab
2238 F20101107_AABBDY meyers_c_Page_052.txt
179846af483b495efcd17972748d7f55
3605f97ceb82c9ebdaa1ae897ef281cca8e1f562
2029 F20101107_AABABL meyers_c_Page_131.txt
0a4ee1dd1ebd96f17a9d9b57f66844eb
b26a1498edb02ea6d59aa56db342624d684ab36d
F20101107_AABAAW meyers_c_Page_022.txt
bec83692a88353f40406fbaee0824292
9655b9ee992605d9c5ef9767d7156d421822324c
F20101107_AAAZZP meyers_c_Page_070.tif
e432cc580f16a53d3c8f4762c432b497
673aa999511e30181f6e08f91e753d6bdff6239e
44160 F20101107_AABAZG meyers_c_Page_090.pro
841899e98b35363179f899bb6de4a78b
63882790091cadbaae58da7e2b9c980e78e7322a
49730 F20101107_AABAYS meyers_c_Page_076.pro
9721e294935933ce81485bddba603d56
89e764cb47c5f036f7e0595ef35899448dfd49a8
2100 F20101107_AABBFC meyers_c_Page_082.txt
327a44f0a8b22418eee3d7cb51c97e0f
9d63b55c770f34447a4703b192e40e07c752b4ca
F20101107_AABBEO meyers_c_Page_068.txt
b65b45ef7d348c21a8de1e85253b6b46
ae1fa70a8f06457b684cb91b362d82391091ed23
F20101107_AABBDZ meyers_c_Page_053.txt
5add772027892903c27436e5b8f8eaa9
d80c8f67baf6e3f6d6f2b0cb570fee139c0115e9
2392 F20101107_AABABM meyers_c_Page_163.txt
04dd84c937924ebd5d8ac385f4d64e0a
663343b33d7efa013374753977a51f99be0ca1e2
221742 F20101107_AABAAX meyers_c_Page_013.jp2
9f9a63fe879fc66de58394a1c2e0cb8f
0cc9179c45bfeb3d7ec12538e94767c8167dca06
F20101107_AAAZZQ meyers_c_Page_053.jp2
c5dc4df9552dea041b224f5f13dd4e99
165649469f9505ac439fba78ffe88dab98b9843c
46091 F20101107_AABAZH meyers_c_Page_091.pro
8a422cdd7144e5d6e6a8b342f83b5f13
6b737bb4aae9ed7da4613c6c126408fcc97775ad
53733 F20101107_AABAYT meyers_c_Page_077.pro
e2fcb61cb72407e7855dbb0117115df0
d6ec85313e36a15930243b70b9ef961318079f5b
2980 F20101107_AABACA meyers_c_Page_158.pro
77dac9a254f46de0749d8d3c9be58af1
f305ed17fc875a87f79ce58ca11c68590e9a9347
2083 F20101107_AABBFD meyers_c_Page_083.txt
551934f36c851aac225973c159fe05d4
d81593512cb3498426afe18d7c418efac808876e
492 F20101107_AABAAY meyers_c_Page_017.txt
d0bc433e0ef65b9cd8d669092dca4bd7
938e0babf14be13320fd63c94471f63c535f594d
94832 F20101107_AAAZZR meyers_c_Page_089.jpg
7bbde6107e1afd183e98ce02b0c7f920
2f50bde77f17fd361d6af390d986cf07395b7dfc
40017 F20101107_AABAZI meyers_c_Page_092.pro
a31433467e2ee3ee08ca3bcb83c3e175
10711a3fd16f551a909bbc6250986a971751d9e6
50495 F20101107_AABAYU meyers_c_Page_078.pro
be6e32bc10b61d3192bf8debffda7632
ed3f6f59c98cda9f0808f44c1767ba417c8a7159
88955 F20101107_AABACB meyers_c_Page_161.jpg
d556a4a37da94234fb5e50ec13f242e7
09aa9fe83e2033bd51f0dfadce43dba6de647fb8
904 F20101107_AABBFE meyers_c_Page_084.txt
4d24e98fbaebef20a10396d289988f56
2140a322b3e1251318d5599a3c1f181ddccab264
2088 F20101107_AABBEP meyers_c_Page_069.txt
1c32772cad5a5cfa76ae9b1430711a4a
52c864426f07739354e4492fd02a9ad0f5e74300
37319 F20101107_AABABN meyers_c_Page_170.QC.jpg
758c2a056e9cb8ad1da63b8b2cb4f35a
4439ea4e2b796d8afa6939672226947174c77111
333 F20101107_AABAAZ meyers_c_Page_149.txt
3cbfc8283249b69a7047fbe553d36ef4
d210ca8f594442f324dfa21a8e35c0cea567e184
9004 F20101107_AAAZZS meyers_c_Page_167thm.jpg
7d650b753df5ee055040f419879fe36d
07833690a6e50763a1103cc1d8d2c2e4c26c2509
42551 F20101107_AABAZJ meyers_c_Page_093.pro
695fb0756c8656565606da32becfee49
30dfc728d62ec109ff434cd2daba892595ef85ec
29591 F20101107_AABAYV meyers_c_Page_079.pro
f552d4fe03fce9c8b4cacb03b1beb351
83e4745b9180bd3aa2d6917da9cb10c9f16f8ebc
F20101107_AABACC meyers_c_Page_111.tif
5aff24a01f020e6b140dc05a1aa9791b
5297517ed7dbb319597cbedf9b0582f3c0922d3f
2054 F20101107_AABBFF meyers_c_Page_085.txt
89cc47b234ed933f86cff4c09a59a333
d7a9dc04708c04acd0521e906236aed1f0ca7d27
2682 F20101107_AABBEQ meyers_c_Page_070.txt
5f5dde79e25109ebaf924b79df83e607
99f5c6d32b05893f460abb7019900b9a054cdd50
902182 F20101107_AABABO meyers_c_Page_116.jp2
e7f26a887083b63764ece602027115c1
87e4b16b9c64343b525ca0b2a023fd0557512d2e
22962 F20101107_AAAZZT meyers_c_Page_118.QC.jpg
6e36b045828b2878ee775ec0303d4db8
9b836c8d001375b4cb5f41eb0a7750afd94ba4f6
36464 F20101107_AABAZK meyers_c_Page_094.pro
4fa33a26601e954a3ea0f025b72c70a8
ec7af562c01dd9e0163828f0deb5e6d1fb958805
29865 F20101107_AABAYW meyers_c_Page_080.pro
f6f50190c9f9e2fd4fa58201656b70d4
e68244967ebf269036f9018bf3aec94526671923
2004 F20101107_AABACD meyers_c_Page_044.txt
8823cd86fa3954d646ac402fba10c955
9c4a8adfaec0f23f2487e2d11f75b4b757e587fb
F20101107_AABBFG meyers_c_Page_086.txt
848adf39189800b53278c5f822d3cb50
1181d41beeedf27a991f508b65348db9a224cfd1
2544 F20101107_AABBER meyers_c_Page_071.txt
294a675541215e62f1e52a97938cfc26
1399f6a77e5e612ca4e939576489cd89fd4fac30
50131 F20101107_AABABP meyers_c_Page_135.pro
02d037aca8cf31bac68d473f9af99cfa
51e4a9ff036b943852c55c5cb710fd01141efd63
F20101107_AAAZZU meyers_c_Page_143.tif
919522030a86c6c86ebdf3ca917b166e
1344b44f049fd45b066782121cb459c954a825ed
41057 F20101107_AABAZL meyers_c_Page_095.pro
ad2a184d3456903534e0707096809504
c54c85fa8c16d1da886b35010d1076ddf729091b
45343 F20101107_AABAYX meyers_c_Page_081.pro
0943d6078597312f75383d6ec805e48c
b797102fa0464e93b053e96389c741b595219a7e
13996 F20101107_AABACE meyers_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
ec3ff0af2a0d0397b7968af93034a564
4749eede7c091c08b61a0bf0c8ac3099eefb51e4
1956 F20101107_AABBFH meyers_c_Page_087.txt
bb78f73f60c774fc13a3e6869134bf81
af5a1b47de0717a359884c0108794908495c265d
2856 F20101107_AABBES meyers_c_Page_072.txt
a1d0beb5063753eb104116c7fe56a9ba
50819c27d079074cb4166f246a14f99b461d3adf
98588 F20101107_AABABQ meyers_c_Page_114.jpg
a6ae878fc16bf003b5af2f32df62ac78
381afc1df43c2610971000a3b794ad76ffc2ff3e
F20101107_AAAZZV meyers_c_Page_170.tif
2bcbc4f029517a548676a11502e7816f
d267982267884208aa510e2954fee9e41e022a0a
54681 F20101107_AABAZM meyers_c_Page_096.pro
fc299f20137282b160f08944776a5aa9
04ccbda54a46d77318ce0a75d57288a24ce06cca
53247 F20101107_AABAYY meyers_c_Page_082.pro
31bd056b5b340eb44ea7fef4bf207da6
eef42c7044a273c945c4832ad756aa486267b5e9
F20101107_AABACF meyers_c_Page_116.tif
878a592d84e110d701153809cf4af202
62f4fb350780c986bc45e0e09b8a6509dff1a6af
1948 F20101107_AABBFI meyers_c_Page_088.txt
222b511dbbe7c66f6a3e1e4619bd733b
ab18f1ff62b3f7c5c2bb43fe2444f319346d6182
2583 F20101107_AABBET meyers_c_Page_073.txt
28a45d220ca9908a9ac418fed729e529
848e79fae7e85e6d0962f2230fbb3f46421d3059
F20101107_AABABR meyers_c_Page_029.txt
912e7c2231946988ecd2cb3efd6bd68e
1ce596a55b92282162b3fa8434359754cf5eafe0
25666 F20101107_AAAZZW meyers_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
f993b106710607cd4acd61d472a79c23
ec91c47b99da4f0e776538ee1539f16d7d05efe8
50680 F20101107_AABAZN meyers_c_Page_097.pro
ad7644a5f6291b6680fac56ac5a2772a
13ba66f79f1c4352c8ef96fdc386fc99831cdbc9
41765 F20101107_AABAYZ meyers_c_Page_083.pro
54cd1aeeee7f226ac4cced842639487e
378c7586e8acb76ca6aeef9610b1f2d0e5957fb4
F20101107_AABACG meyers_c_Page_071.jp2
d249764107f21beb9d530c98a9a26f1d
7cb0b3d4ed5a24dc7866838739c292fea739bb65
1858 F20101107_AABBFJ meyers_c_Page_089.txt
d05a6b2ae07987f28976bd7fa07773cf
859bc49a8ce74c27f69a3307c41cbdf6b6155de9
2114 F20101107_AABBEU meyers_c_Page_074.txt
186299f05f9004b237626f2a37f92852
de713ce1c002c8bd3e07c1e05625f09ee525da64
33151 F20101107_AABABS meyers_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
a5f9586a76c21f7b06bc7e668c5501e3
35cc308ca7d51c0054bfc60f43f86ab498111b61
42490 F20101107_AAAZZX meyers_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
1e3da80f8455f744c6ad47a44509df65
f60f2992c8f00ae02e83c992a462c06b2091e558
45939 F20101107_AABAZO meyers_c_Page_098.pro
c97a0be810e224d9edca039f5e57eac7
7ab889868b99e091f9b558b5efa5a599ac2bfa2a
43577 F20101107_AABACH meyers_c_Page_039.pro
5f6a79a617f5e32fd9f5e1ab082f77e2
922abcfcd8576e77e4dd8e39d3b1d25b746d3920
2450 F20101107_AABBFK meyers_c_Page_091.txt
a3a6d7f94df4a5c5dde100c0a5c092b7
281d5608fa73ca61c5baece77fea8143e593e211
646 F20101107_AABBEV meyers_c_Page_075.txt
23e1080db5c942c4945a7dc916ca9315
f2cc01d0714cadfe3b0f51228b06d8e0e3a90694
36697 F20101107_AABABT meyers_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
b7f6c6c8fa13838495db9c975d6c92fc
f846c752c77a54436779e53540389f751639e449
F20101107_AAAZZY meyers_c_Page_129.jp2
ffc947bdcc12754891dedbfbdcd98fa0
d7b11a9f62b2f9056b2ea16bf8030761af5d64de
50596 F20101107_AABAZP meyers_c_Page_099.pro
f660f2dc656deb96b1504359d33455af
57bbe26890577977de1df65b8d756799af1458f0
1051943 F20101107_AABACI meyers_c_Page_005.jp2
a5da6fcbc12e583c9bf66bb89b632b9e
4f9cba505f7f854d22661c076c5771c8f526674e
2134 F20101107_AABBFL meyers_c_Page_092.txt
790ec68a268f6c90d0d8030ee5fc0cb7
e72843bd9dc07456c0aac0f02cdbacfee88edc66
2120 F20101107_AABBEW meyers_c_Page_076.txt
a6d09b630d15313fa39179c373d8416d
ad9aa227892f28c8e287e572d43eeed6ab8e4a09
1309 F20101107_AABABU meyers_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
161e8d74bccc4e21aed0db4711e4f6dd
fa334668c4f92d54331eb7bec56d9ae058db0f51
F20101107_AAAZZZ meyers_c_Page_158.tif
dbfbd95f8ec39f37989535c6993a32f7
cf0d1b2befc5871fddb85d8448d814c13de05896
50355 F20101107_AABAZQ meyers_c_Page_100.pro
b601bb73582fa51e9549a5cc6d319fd6
f863bb43395673302ec0ee2db6f8d84db6455fca
F20101107_AABACJ meyers_c_Page_020.tif
f58cc3cc5ff7aeedb8e9c1c7fef73ea1
581fbb5b67e4f165e256c7cea45642dc48f81975
2108 F20101107_AABBGA meyers_c_Page_107.txt
3853ad318e59dce7d8d2e980a3e44eb2
15ed0fa11adebb6a98f6ab350f631b886c1ff603
1983 F20101107_AABBFM meyers_c_Page_093.txt
aa756075e164c5d5c2aaa49d78ab4a45
5b3a27dce440934a8e314b1442f04fc3b2b3c0fc
2107 F20101107_AABBEX meyers_c_Page_077.txt
c0c581a8de224e1a26a441064f68e53c
d34d977acca58fbc79ef18040f32b38c289bfc29
37500 F20101107_AABABV meyers_c_Page_168.QC.jpg
8b8ce9f11a00fe8f52ff52366d61b131
e9ac5d9125b47c1264c09f6bd22bf5ac43e346c2
53105 F20101107_AABAZR meyers_c_Page_102.pro
69c86e38c2449d365d6226ed773a50b5
07a7aa351d9fdcfbd893959193366ae2a5f7c9c2
F20101107_AABACK meyers_c_Page_147.tif
c5a346d3d9f55830fad50fb6a3104716
57902c807418be78a30985a8c79ee2dc722a120f
2119 F20101107_AABBGB meyers_c_Page_108.txt
434b0e367bea5fcc9bec2766a32b84f5
b2fe30cc81f83635b2329a91784137294e419877
1518 F20101107_AABBFN meyers_c_Page_094.txt
256359da833a6f704dbb6b94b64f0be6
7e9d837d40b6be8b87308ac282a4dc80fe9392d1
1997 F20101107_AABBEY meyers_c_Page_078.txt
de1f3342931ed46243d4e736208f548f
883e3d4c10d852fbe737c81b41d94e07b302644b
7540 F20101107_AABABW meyers_c_Page_116thm.jpg
97639918d73c9bf6eb7f3aebd5810709
5488e55afbda484d0e609765fedd02e5e213af14
54610 F20101107_AABAZS meyers_c_Page_104.pro
a9a7ce043de351eaa5832a546a83f4e6
7d72f7d47b002d9fc57dd8a130aa66b13a7e3d7b
F20101107_AABACL meyers_c_Page_137.tif
5ab079b5329ba7de6331d858c8be8836
769ac84b5aea21c7216de210826c1dc34a34b4bc
2342 F20101107_AABBGC meyers_c_Page_109.txt
d68365a7a5a78c1b825b8c8911f19d18
25d8052278092e61ed30a307064ccb4415e1cafc
2096 F20101107_AABBFO meyers_c_Page_095.txt
16be05bcea4849b4d8e910127ed83165
df3b60d45cacea19d3fe6d5b1348c6249cfcda5b
1340 F20101107_AABBEZ meyers_c_Page_079.txt
7d63c409ffcc3f69c62bcd31ce67e559
23f9304603f41aef0d2c0fd2b9daf8596536afea
49047 F20101107_AABABX meyers_c_Page_055.pro
8ccb6a2af7afe68adf14bd6982e5716d
38304275f5a43265955f9c92644b17a3776745b9
42857 F20101107_AABAZT meyers_c_Page_105.pro
a4c1d9a7912958510fc22bfd95cc9458
f02fd99f5234f1cd071cd1063d8f388af0239036
52085 F20101107_AABADA meyers_c_Page_084.jpg
a7ac7c46fc7637d8ae2847ea5f505f6b
fcd1615fab5a3a68b43bfee20129cfe802801d9c
1051948 F20101107_AABACM meyers_c_Page_133.jp2
856f5e3bd00ede3c557092376005239a
99990371dcaf23bbf6c93a64771a99d34ece095b
F20101107_AABBGD meyers_c_Page_110.txt
4806c6bc80c4ae773def3c440539e1e2
48c03f810fe52921ac09e09834c98f5f724dbab8
2182 F20101107_AABBFP meyers_c_Page_096.txt
8bc0cb870e2b8eddf4c026ec34ef379c
a3de5ae40b0bfa50296738db0251e0a41cb4b30d
2343 F20101107_AABABY meyers_c_Page_017thm.jpg
e621870a895ce7aba224eb6ce3d8c2f1
40bf93015a3c82802ccd1b4cfea5b5baeb43635f
49507 F20101107_AABAZU meyers_c_Page_106.pro
90c472886d1981499b5e5c8c0b7e4cf3
74fa9062150e68a28aeaf89490380dff1c7e9ae3
2076 F20101107_AABADB meyers_c_Page_050.txt
467419d200fd22b70b1feb0d9d9c2b7b
2915d2cd898aeb0b450033a947a1e9b1d7881fc6
7499 F20101107_AABACN meyers_c_Page_110thm.jpg
27e1bea743c48ef5c5016f6466539602
b72e2ffc4de7715e1a1fa9d2d88c794e1f35f327
2298 F20101107_AABBGE meyers_c_Page_111.txt
99f45b70be90beb7078f6b977e6e11c0
0bf80107db36a67df75b9c0be99b87d04aa305b2
23932 F20101107_AABABZ meyers_c_Page_120.pro
eff7e0ebf4cae44e8d932472407d48a4
83a6ee38caeef989de6856ae117984c440606454
48845 F20101107_AABAZV meyers_c_Page_107.pro
b6b9e62043f1665282d815e073eca5da
105e80f1d0dd3374f679c56d026e51804465e3c8
55580 F20101107_AABADC meyers_c_Page_062.pro
a3fdd72e729da5fc92089a9163237890
612ba25cc9444e96465e3f8eec88b3209585213f
2470 F20101107_AABBGF meyers_c_Page_112.txt
bb9d9a29d7072fd74d1e72ec9ae94120
44cfdec2de3c47d8859a8fbab011209347437e20
2303 F20101107_AABBFQ meyers_c_Page_097.txt
b4ed83ea4c9ef6d43debb14db70e09ba
ec48662284f5c4154cd401bab45e69a7c85c3672
45812 F20101107_AABAZW meyers_c_Page_108.pro
0988a7e0ecfd761905a9fc814b023145
b7911581fb5b62e9e32048e0b5b1aaa33778db0b
F20101107_AABADD meyers_c_Page_007.jp2
462243c361ee07b0264482c372680d1c
978b8c43c9ea177a415f52c77cf183a9b1231346
109335 F20101107_AABACO meyers_c_Page_077.jpg
b186c09a295bed0a101d50bf3350e187
c721d06df71187510fa364a6b63a0315bad51ab1
2158 F20101107_AABBGG meyers_c_Page_113.txt
7e85fcb02db701dcad6954ba80227afc
aad04648696cc9b1e817d4754b1313003e565ca7
F20101107_AABBFR meyers_c_Page_098.txt
f6cb8d10dbc3530893b72cded727feb2
e71897aaa8ad65da858db92dd5d523291f3466c9
53741 F20101107_AABAZX meyers_c_Page_109.pro
c4705955e4bba768145db6a751f1d73a
9f56cc706c3bdda14ab8477216b88afa89b1a2e8
6008 F20101107_AABADE meyers_c_Page_012thm.jpg
42be691119d37c45b16beb97bd0b523a
4c9b79161904e8125ef4fe5818ce78e2317bc161
3407 F20101107_AABACP meyers_c_Page_142thm.jpg
692cd911d3952d5f9157d8f7866a0e0d
76704af56adb158a9d7ab8ff6d6b2074040b2ba8
2113 F20101107_AABBGH meyers_c_Page_114.txt
387d1822956c1df448693831b32920e8
3a2e76bea1bb7b1a61c18383f7d3f8de925fd51f
F20101107_AABBFS meyers_c_Page_099.txt
e436ed170d37a35783d32651978262e4
b852251fd879e9f8fa373bbda125571df81f2931
43860 F20101107_AABAZY meyers_c_Page_110.pro
d565fc5a75e909105ab01b8531923d77
2f4c91e12661e7fbcf33a2401415aefddd885eef
70280 F20101107_AABADF meyers_c_Page_072.pro
d90355217c3ad11ad96b2578d08c91bf
2bca381779839da02914bf54ad70d08b4616b9ff
89972 F20101107_AABACQ meyers_c_Page_088.jpg
4fe768cb5d055ffe11193c05c9ac903b
e36fea8a9cd392b226f4d1e23d431a92d55ea710
2294 F20101107_AABBGI meyers_c_Page_115.txt
92ffe052e5a7d4f1d9fea032f221b13b
367eb47102f2c9c15b2a32b6c7a94598f864cda7
2389 F20101107_AABBFT meyers_c_Page_100.txt
df120f322368ef933e58d2e390bf9fe7
b842a98c054236ac9fc23562d6afbdfec7e590ee
48430 F20101107_AABAZZ meyers_c_Page_111.pro
f813565d296f7a79249d49f08a3e164f
1617e8d7acb92030ec79279518960e1a997fe406
1030 F20101107_AABADG meyers_c_Page_138.pro
5a26d560bc5b246239531a6faaf3a18d
7337ed8475120fb448dd202d457c3b1bebec0405
4397 F20101107_AABACR meyers_c_Page_003.jpg
c297483028a78f588844d7c27300d0df
abb1dc7494540bbb0d6d9f8fb13d8acf48462c6f
2126 F20101107_AABBGJ meyers_c_Page_116.txt
795670ebd42b76dc12b344b3ee0d55e7
0b6621cc74047ac62480f22cf069bb04d06e0ff3
1816 F20101107_AABBFU meyers_c_Page_101.txt
04a5f30e0644bf0dfb24c062bffa1e5a
12a80646e1f6c0ac09005532750ffd38dd8fc044
34880 F20101107_AABADH meyers_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
0afad2d4b24eef5f96f5f14a063d8065
ffefaab9203066b229aaf73c13df47fa3adaa0a0
848 F20101107_AABACS meyers_c_Page_143.pro
abe45bbecaa029004240efe7db0cc1b4
dec185f245c8c63d2fc7a845b481af5b29d3b56a
F20101107_AABBGK meyers_c_Page_117.txt
5feec4e8fbd11e5614375ce739e6f611
c2d14821bb02cee1550d473b12cf84ecdfb2de5f
2228 F20101107_AABBFV meyers_c_Page_102.txt
943a0d5a83ccb16c306caec351eb5999
5d2b383ecfbf43291e44d38772bd0fcfd7f1ee8d
58979 F20101107_AABADI meyers_c_Page_025.pro
ed1f7d551ff3acb978b1b5205569bdd2
2bafa4cf44dd348d42ae5a1a0398c942b96d92f0
F20101107_AABACT meyers_c_Page_145.tif
0fa46ecb005607f8f314651457dd7095
0d6b5dafe8ad0e7c8f8fb65e3b1b23872bc828d1
F20101107_AABBGL meyers_c_Page_118.txt
00ad7e845fb3cf82b455b9cf95c829f5
8ecb76ade6581e942669453088fa6bab0faa0df0
2129 F20101107_AABBFW meyers_c_Page_103.txt
306948f33980116cf6217ec5e239081f
0802a9a73f92f0a8bf8db69e4cc2fcd437e43c6b
36727 F20101107_AABADJ meyers_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
71623c66bf0e086c5bdcefa0bcc6bf71
59d81a3795e4b6b1629c3fdff94cef873f559c1b
F20101107_AABACU meyers_c_Page_023.txt
69498f8198d9be4e590aa43f1e979d95
1d487f29a8cb33686897df9f0e1b0f4f60f3a7af
1987 F20101107_AABBHA meyers_c_Page_134.txt
9131a6b5549a2fdea5b1afc97832907c
54752533d10785b633296cd2dee3c887b0c15bcd
F20101107_AABBGM meyers_c_Page_119.txt
cd3c6f85c175201c0323ad2aca00b87b
e4e6b86f55e65297bd52e629614028e61478b0c9
2358 F20101107_AABBFX meyers_c_Page_104.txt
133b98aa8340c14b00359dd6bb034f5e
8befd111a74faaf2b8ebc06e4d13b0811472e977
8781 F20101107_AABADK meyers_c_Page_048thm.jpg
eb0db2212e136b6a8b3ca1dd168ceee3
9bf085c61e6a4b3577a1cb38a78902dfd1f25e46
16044 F20101107_AABACV meyers_c_Page_075.pro
727718692a734de67f058d9366cf82b6
4896bcdfac8d028761967b491309688649f3fad8
1980 F20101107_AABBHB meyers_c_Page_135.txt
b5a8337e4263410b4ce965e64ad31072
eef7d3d900e58e0fb09881a071d7963c5e0f6765
1324 F20101107_AABBGN meyers_c_Page_120.txt
30d8920e0cd0dbff9fa9efd9e88b7a2d
45775950a136c7013c1411d9757928019796cd14
F20101107_AABBFY meyers_c_Page_105.txt
39bda477e536b1eb6602404e627df7d8
d2a0ae3880e8956d116513e13cdde97210ab1d67
86441 F20101107_AABADL meyers_c_Page_116.jpg
6a316619f42228d43acc07d8cb38b385
8f07e0f6d0b34d4b3ca2a45fe13fa0a8c25259e2
3481 F20101107_AABACW meyers_c_Page_152.txt
76ec8055abb7be7433f719e228631c15
4aa00062bef3d4d82383077daa288c36bc9c9187
2122 F20101107_AABBHC meyers_c_Page_136.txt
66f9f2aaa6b0bab720e42d312acb6fc9
60b9cf145d4950a577a914fb09fa3bd1fa136cdd
F20101107_AABBGO meyers_c_Page_121.txt
8e6ec131f500b19590e29bcf9190c244
0b6f838ae5349992b4e24b88b951a78adc90a1ec
2142 F20101107_AABBFZ meyers_c_Page_106.txt
a11220c8ab02484e45e99bd4184b4ef2
fe3c31e5eca293b5c538dbbe955546fe96811f00
115288 F20101107_AABAEA meyers_c_Page_014.jpg
e9f19bc8356d00c843a958c7c8d62bbb
8d2bc4d4b6bc03af09e43f92d983c4366dcd1bd8
262961 F20101107_AABADM UFE0022509_00001.xml
69bb8adcc10bf6eeb2087d9e79eb2faa
7bd5012e340b51c137c62b444bc80398a394a4b5
37414 F20101107_AABACX meyers_c_Page_009.pro
50b141b8876562aabfdc42412799b178
c499b2fe76e320b06a87ab35c2c7ad72d9ab0fd4
1640 F20101107_AABBHD meyers_c_Page_137.txt
83521faf1bbf758f2a480cac5466bc9f
880841fa9739faa97568b7b862d056f05a8a351f
2275 F20101107_AABBGP meyers_c_Page_122.txt
b0f372fa6d193bce0625d0df53d76503
4896af2367783bf2776a2c0630b2d4c0339c9663
102110 F20101107_AABAEB meyers_c_Page_015.jpg
8f43140560b9022d52305dd94fe9a856
35fee3853c8034dd5f3a9c653ecf6c8b52852b17
F20101107_AABACY meyers_c_Page_055.jp2
d078831c0ebe16d47d98861046e63a6f
b51eca73c849c3a67636c668e38cc22b2bf38e5c
49 F20101107_AABBHE meyers_c_Page_138.txt
d8ab884387792ba921c3744f899b4f28
29addd27ca6aa0c4181f2ebe4d4b6e1f1fdd0346
F20101107_AABBGQ meyers_c_Page_123.txt
82dde8cef2aa22a8a69046092a9c1513
7fa6f9032d87e6da47b8d34b44cf13f22e4a8a8b
103001 F20101107_AABAEC meyers_c_Page_016.jpg
c63a6feb886046f3880a398e6ad5faed
5fbb677eda588d77939c17dbe5935f0b99d48596
10553 F20101107_AABACZ meyers_c_Page_153.jpg
9327cd3b653b42b9b3b790e099ca6c1e
742fb4909407d1724fdb19d4ab7e6fa8c5a14f9e
3143 F20101107_AABBHF meyers_c_Page_139.txt
15b2a9cf02b21b7666b0263b0306f0be
000ebef7bbc515118e4d658c6333a037b5722f53
27792 F20101107_AABAED meyers_c_Page_017.jpg
584f68ec50c2074e9d96fb9def552b4f
a5a5dad3565fd354dd686a0f4878f1f1cb03ea83
1234 F20101107_AABBHG meyers_c_Page_140.txt
b2293ce0a1ce9eba504d3bd5b0f34c44
5e9c18df31a5548b68edf48bd801c2e15bd05eaa
F20101107_AABBGR meyers_c_Page_124.txt
d5ea2270abb5df42dd9c506830a3fe74
8330c170b72a7cd59b07cfc49bda2b04edc61266
30407 F20101107_AABADP meyers_c_Page_001.jpg
743e68fcf904f3d57678c6d179b0f2e9
deb07f3bf6ea7aefc1985a90a9b818bda3efd56a
113119 F20101107_AABAEE meyers_c_Page_018.jpg
4560737267c302939e61409abbc59c61
39cbcf03a35c76c64bdb7f79edb832731f57e952
1410 F20101107_AABBHH meyers_c_Page_141.txt
28d3deb63805ecf74524dcbb8659977d
b8a49d239def2bca0fa7572368e643ad811ccddb
2059 F20101107_AABBGS meyers_c_Page_125.txt
658c70d47326f1945fd98e1c024fd478
d31b7ea0d95f6cc148251df7e0d384d8c1fd0b86
107567 F20101107_AABADQ meyers_c_Page_004.jpg
e80772733e12dce3bc2bd13b82d1a74c
82fd1ad68711ba47cf89e7dc914844e8c4976ff7
110227 F20101107_AABAEF meyers_c_Page_019.jpg
cea502396a4472ba854e0724939fc48c
20e3e521f67eb97273210cf45d018f11a5904d4c
793 F20101107_AABBHI meyers_c_Page_142.txt
f1383b614e7ee8440aea70b8ed569e64
2dc079e3a3eb9d83bc85ef8424c17e242f12d8bb
2082 F20101107_AABBGT meyers_c_Page_126.txt
e061c243949c3dd2580f6a4b7407e617
4f4e8b5c9b3280be32f22d88638d88c3b1f5c31c
114095 F20101107_AABADR meyers_c_Page_005.jpg
b440ae3d7aa16da9ab8bb989a157721c
106c3ce554c3ed24a19866c6eb77a12c9e8e5de2
119621 F20101107_AABAEG meyers_c_Page_020.jpg
45ecc138787a021dc34354e495d84227
088b6aa070bd4f7d1e8513d9b64437064d6aa376
39 F20101107_AABBHJ meyers_c_Page_143.txt
8bd16f6210f5a730426cfc2a24321b18
e0545c58c4c4efeeb2a66099d7a2d93c298b741a
2023 F20101107_AABBGU meyers_c_Page_127.txt
ed7d7d874f8251d6093fdc9817276ba5
4a0b9fcb555ab43d7c735fc2bc764d0fc0826513
42194 F20101107_AABADS meyers_c_Page_006.jpg
5700936afba8a7dc2cfc2394808857d2
eae18e5ef67021ea4993a4dbaa0597f427af66af
110727 F20101107_AABAEH meyers_c_Page_021.jpg
8867a5dcbab9ca9531ff0f7d056d72b4
e67c85a598dbb3e54a4a65315567e410c25829d7
1690 F20101107_AABBHK meyers_c_Page_144.txt
d30d263b289507f4a22c102f88d84f68
c57683627dd158801559166cbf162c3f4ef72550
F20101107_AABBGV meyers_c_Page_128.txt
1ed6bac5751f315d550da268385c1d1c
261e48d79084fc3664b7d7973fde284307f2a354
116017 F20101107_AABADT meyers_c_Page_007.jpg
fdc29e89fe17cef09916de8a642a325f
68a8c01635f014f4bdfcd811df25b3070cfa7c80
111324 F20101107_AABAEI meyers_c_Page_022.jpg
1a6e8d62e8b2fec1ba1e672a17613cb8
aec2135b440be8f8bbde3041bcbf7925e167f01e
1058 F20101107_AABBHL meyers_c_Page_145.txt
7e4bf6d4c09afe3c7fd98f3656db71d7
a060c1673e7914514656dbf4e703dc7aff9f843d
2131 F20101107_AABBGW meyers_c_Page_129.txt
e0f5489d79046064ece56f9a9b88540a
e74ced7010205278db0e6f7801728df4a78df14e
143211 F20101107_AABADU meyers_c_Page_008.jpg
0efd66463182cdafe23c6d746a0b1ee5
63c4c647b24a61a2d1c1be724c9c56b9b3a0838f
109680 F20101107_AABAEJ meyers_c_Page_023.jpg
478da8a8abd0c59cbc73bb5f647d1b74
a4d560fe53e278a531cdf237feab78f3ada7fbce
2604 F20101107_AABBIA meyers_c_Page_164.txt
3cf270720efb357fcaabbd1aa98b9f19
5e345ab578466363b7889230c09fddca63a173d5
3499 F20101107_AABBHM meyers_c_Page_146.txt
1d550cc5f8d3919c6d9290250ca12b91
e0a378f9146fb62196d70effc1af79fb190c6a6c
2030 F20101107_AABBGX meyers_c_Page_130.txt
588ef5a3cb1230a052702061138b9fb7
659636b203ed81422fc38e785c20bb5e21d92d2c
47965 F20101107_AABADV meyers_c_Page_009.jpg
c4e90cfd919dd4ad2b60244ae3163ae1
e55b50a4d5531da37478db523cde11c6d7c06f64
114167 F20101107_AABAEK meyers_c_Page_024.jpg
ab75bf4edd2d489d7bfc3548a1259adc
9e476f630a424a4c3fce38a2ea3fa25625dcea85
2606 F20101107_AABBIB meyers_c_Page_165.txt
94a857e6946e9d4fa02e63c1e0a31a06
c7ccea7b1c7c334998401469c7a5a9e2983ab716
2374 F20101107_AABBHN meyers_c_Page_147.txt
6104fa7e7183e96e9a0a2c5a31b34a85
6754204348f935c96e37dfd8ae3228163a52d54d
F20101107_AABBGY meyers_c_Page_132.txt
04561258277694ebe9c5aa71cd29598d
35049b68513260ce6b67c27d593ad7176a941cde
140511 F20101107_AABADW meyers_c_Page_010.jpg
709daee7b7f5a25859494522f3aaadac
a0f5244ae5fe68a8bd770c4cb013b9b824251c8d
118871 F20101107_AABAEL meyers_c_Page_025.jpg
fb783a73fb9571bd598130490e7299b5
5d275d356d45ace33850e91116c54ef6be5a0292
2454 F20101107_AABBIC meyers_c_Page_166.txt
a4f0708f0ecf23f29df63d3e2aaebbda
4e3815d1b1dd635bd50f2d5edc514518d81de151
1676 F20101107_AABBHO meyers_c_Page_148.txt
0789d20baac8202af18fe4ef19f0fc6b
6e673189a6868a74f4a50608076f3e2075d68c2e
2039 F20101107_AABBGZ meyers_c_Page_133.txt
05ff23a36e1ab762a17403d40197b3cf
555b7d69f5743799d8c5f57987d5a848dfbb9777
155319 F20101107_AABADX meyers_c_Page_011.jpg
e0e82ecffc5ad080a263b906b9b725e8
299fcb4496ab2d62c2f0e7423de8ee012262decf
99965 F20101107_AABAFA meyers_c_Page_040.jpg
39111988211974864627c5df76ba12cc
11a86e70490cb5bfcf8a8b464ab025af1b802b45
110677 F20101107_AABAEM meyers_c_Page_026.jpg
02c8f44625c6a892bb9b911fb15c14e6
8941d2708ee323ba7f3dab918297bcae5dea59d4
2425 F20101107_AABBID meyers_c_Page_167.txt
710aa0f65e65860f0bbce70ce1920faa
681416abdb24f86aabea00fab51b59b5602999d3
2145 F20101107_AABBHP meyers_c_Page_150.txt
7cbf1455e164dbb4ac20eef8384ac1b2
b3ccd0e58962d02a28f5881c27836e134c042590
87939 F20101107_AABADY meyers_c_Page_012.jpg
650cb7657c0b06aa2b05b22fa97de6c9
952579923c4e8115115cdd596267e83a44abf4bc
105818 F20101107_AABAFB meyers_c_Page_041.jpg
3e1a92c4015394ef8b9083b67e45adcc
c5b68f3292397431e4df4cae4e658390fc7316d1
113741 F20101107_AABAEN meyers_c_Page_027.jpg
a74a29420b390fd175b45aa32b024a65
0da5e28c320811e0abb3d609751fe906d1fc9194
2642 F20101107_AABBIE meyers_c_Page_168.txt
a01e875411de6442e81e23912dc1b302
cea407c3ddcea1ef85d47a2fee15ce27144c1123
2370 F20101107_AABBHQ meyers_c_Page_151.txt
4d42510456ed9719cc011916e6987928
5b4313e3106d8c79b7ef985abff02af120138c4f
15414 F20101107_AABADZ meyers_c_Page_013.jpg
8c3e0d3b8a8cefad7ca14a5404efdad8
a1fda5c9675eb4113ef88345814ec437a8166aa9
112316 F20101107_AABAFC meyers_c_Page_042.jpg
cd2cf4b9c704d159b8f5c0bae7ce6a92
358b2a2138994dce7e63b0d7a88e93c07bf6c04e
116711 F20101107_AABAEO meyers_c_Page_028.jpg
3aa47117b9b338ec787f075b1edf8cb5
ffb97ee586fdd54607bb20459f8385561dbf7a81
2716 F20101107_AABBIF meyers_c_Page_169.txt
784cfd71db5caba22c1b2682574dfc06
73501bc6e4ca1224a61812fda30dd5ea31003937
79 F20101107_AABBHR meyers_c_Page_153.txt
5e51b9e124d0c0d7d6cbc871ce2af55d
728ec4d58b82030473bd5025b3ca39d8926ebcc2
115043 F20101107_AABAFD meyers_c_Page_043.jpg
180a77caba9de666c0f65d2850b8690a
082c28297b6ef12bbb54cf2bf52236f424b0ed86
111516 F20101107_AABAEP meyers_c_Page_029.jpg
7674dd17678c740216f6f0099eb2092f
568ff9f1c267948f68f3d4adbe2e0fd34d97a029
2654 F20101107_AABBIG meyers_c_Page_170.txt
2af21f17feb0fe3423534e6b4fef53ca
0e865ec4aee6270c092cecdb150d9c1ac1b91396
104014 F20101107_AABAFE meyers_c_Page_044.jpg
e26f768493c74557edb6a8ed4dd0fed7
9033526d67a41fea0c4b14a357ca6c7e05b266ed
2568 F20101107_AABBIH meyers_c_Page_171.txt
5f515ac34df3180603d66166858c8347
c531a3fc2e1c078834fe8a2a9c5be9c75cfb027f
1207 F20101107_AABBHS meyers_c_Page_154.txt
a8a642e7315a6c35f65e8f55149c067c
b990179a7a2595e1a0701589b558081eb87d6829
106820 F20101107_AABAFF meyers_c_Page_045.jpg
2e710d0a7a868c196193efd159d50c7c
d6104390a2463278ae4a86cd68731c61b78dec33
116335 F20101107_AABAEQ meyers_c_Page_030.jpg
68c6b5c7ef1733f26fde34b537569dc2
3d6c469a853bd250bb7dbb6e51df86ac1986934c










THE AGRICULTURE ANGLE: EFFECT OF FRAMING AGRICULTURAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY MESSAGES ON ATTITUDES AND INTENT TO PUBLISH WITHIN
THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL

















By

COURTNEY ALYSSA MEYERS


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008



































2008 Courtney Alyssa Meyers


































To my husband, Daniel Meyers









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of people have contributed to my success in graduate school and the completion

of my doctoral degree. I want to first thank my committee members whose individual and

collective input made my dissertation research more rigorous and the entire process a worthwhile

endeavor. I thank Dr. Maria Gallo who provided a valuable biological scientist's perspective and

the content necessary for the message stimuli. I thank Dr. Debbie Treise whose expertise in

science communication greatly benefited the conceptual and theoretical framework for the study.

I thank Dr. Anna Ball who always asked thoughtful questions and challenged me to more closely

evaluate the organization of my arguments. I thank Dr. Ricky Telg for his close editing and

attention to detail, which improved my writing and the overall quality of my dissertation. Finally,

I thank my committee chair, Dr. Tracy Irani, for her support and encouragement, revision of

numerous drafts, and continual advice to improve my ability as a researcher and future faculty

member.

I have benefited from working in an extraordinary academic department that values

graduate students and provides numerous opportunities for their success. I thank Jodi DeGraw

who always had an answer to every question and was eager to help me through any situation

requiring paperwork. I thank the wonderful support staff, Holly O'Ferrell and Rachel Harris,

who make the department "run." I always enjoyed visiting with them both and I know they

sincerely care about the students in the department. Finally, to Dr. Edward Osborne, I want to

extend my sincere gratitude for both financial and personal support during my time in Florida.

The advice and insight he provided in Faculty Roles class was extremely beneficial in helping

me obtain a faculty position and my preparation to become an assistant professor. I thank him for

all he does to make the department a wonderful place to earn a graduate degree.









Although three years in graduate school can seem like a never-ending sequence of writing

papers and taking exams, it is the friends I have made that helped that time fly by and leave me

with mixed feelings as I move on. I thank all my fellow graduate students, past and present, who

made this experience so enjoyable. I especially thank Emily Rhoades for her guidance as my

mentor in the department and Shannon Arnold for her valuable advice and entertaining

conversations. I look forward to many collaborative research projects together as friends and

colleagues. I also want to thank many other fellow graduate students Wendy Warner, Elio

Chiarelli, Brian Estevez, Katy Groseta, Christy Windham, Ann DeLay, Lauri Baker, Robert

Strong, Marlene von Stein, Rochelle Strickland who made me laugh and relax despite any level

of stress. I thank Katie (Chodil) Abrams who has been my classmate, teaching partner, research

collaborator, and friend. I could always count on her to share my accomplishments or struggles.

Finally, I thank Carrie Pedreiro and her husband, Michael Pedreiro, for their most treasured

friendship. They are wonderful role models of a loving couple and dedicated parents.

I thank two people whose early influence helped me get this far. I thank Dr. Jefferson

Miller, my master's adviser at the University of Arkansas, who encouraged me to consider

working toward a Ph.D. when the thought had never crossed my mind. I also thank Mr. Bill

Johnston, my high school FFA advisor, who exposed me to the diverse possibilities available in

agriculture and helped channel my competitive spirit and drive for success.

My respect for education and love of learning was encouraged from an early age by my

parents, Gary and Sheila Wimmer. I thank them for establishing high standards and providing the

support necessary to realize my educational goals. I also thank my grandmother, Dorothy

Wimmer, who fostered an appreciation for agriculture and demonstrated what a good work ethic

truly is. I thank my dearest friend since conception, my twin sister, Gaea Wimmer, who I could









always count on to listen to my problems and share in my victories. Twins truly do share a

special bond and I am extremely grateful to have her as my sister.

The result of this effort and my doctoral education is shared with one very special person

in my life, my husband Daniel Meyers. I could have never completed this degree without his

constant encouragement and understanding. I thank him for taking care of chores and other

responsibilities so I could concentrate on schoolwork or attend research conferences. He and our

sweet dog Dash have been a source of great joy during any obstacles I faced. As we start the

greatest adventure in our lives as parents to Isabel, I know he will continue to be my best friend

and love of my life.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IST O F T A B L E S ...............................10........... ................

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. .... ..... ................. 13

L IST O F D E F IN IT IO N S .............................................................................. ...........................14

A B S T R A C T ......... ....................... ............................................................ 15

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ......................................................... ................. .. ........ 18

Science and the Public ................................................... ............... .... ...... 20
Science and M edia ................................................ ... ...............................22
Application: Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP) Program and
A agricultural Biotechnology ................................................................. ............... 27
Elaboration Likelihood M odel .................................................................. ............... 30
F ram ing ................. .......... ......... ......... ..................................... 3 1
P rob lem Statem en t ...................... .. ............. .. .....................................................3 3

2 R ELE V A N T L ITER A TU R E ......................................................................... ...................35

A attitudes and P ersuasion ......... ...................................................................... ........ .. .... 35
E elaboration Likelihood M odel ...................... .. .. ......... ............................ ............... 38
Issue Involvem ent and Personal Relevance ........................................ .....................39
A rgum ent Q quality ............. ................. .................. ...... ..... ...... ... 41
Need for Cognition ............. .... ..................... .. ............... ........... 44
Fram ing ................................................................... .............. ..................... 44
F ram ing B biotechnology ...................... .............. ......................... ....... .... ............. 48
Fram ing and the Elaboration Likelihood M odel ........................................ .....................50
A agenda Setting and Prim ing....................................................................... ............... 52
P public R relations and F ram ing ........................................................................ ...................53
Sum m ary .......................................................................................... 54

3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS................................................... ................... 55

O v erv iew ............... ........... .. ............. .. ....55..........
R research Q questions and H ypotheses ........................................................... .....................56
R e se a rc h D e sig n ............................................................................................................... 5 7
Subjects ............................................................................................ 60
M message Stim uli ................................................. 61
M essag e Stim u li T estin g ................................................................................................... 6 3


7










Independent Variables .................................... ... ... ........... .......... .... 64
M message F ram e ...............................65.............................
Issu e Inv olv em ent...................... ................................ .......... .......... ............. .. 65
Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology ...................................... ............... 66
Dependent Variables............. ...... ......... ... .... ............ ...................67
Argument Quality ...... .......... ..... ........................ ................. ....67
Likelihood to Publish .......................................... ............. .... ....... 68
A tribute V ariables .............................................. 68
Instrum entation ......... ..................................... ...........................69
In stru m en t P ilot T est ................................................................................................. 6 9
Instrument Content ................ ......... .................... 72
P ro c e d u re .............. .... ...............................................................7 3
D ata A analyses ................ ......... ............................................74

4 RESULTS ............. ...................................................... 76

O v e rv ie w .............. .. ............... ........................................................................7 6
D e scrip tiv e A n aly sis ......................................................................................................... 7 6
P o te n tia l E rro r ........................................................................................................... 7 7
D e m o g ra p h ic s ............................................................................................................ 8 1
Issue Involvem ent............................ ....................... .................... 85
Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology ............... ............85
Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements ....................... ............86
Attitudes Toward Message Topic.............................. ...............86
L likelihood to P publish ...............................................................87
Need for Cognition ......... _. ........ ..... ........ ..... ....... ........ .................88
T h e E L M S cales ...........................................................................89
Issue Involvem ent Scale ........... ................................. ........ ........ .......... .... 89
Attitudes Toward Argument Quality ...................................................................................90
N eed for C ignition Scale .............. ............................................................9 1
Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology ................ ........ ........92
Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements .......................... ........93
Attitudes Toward Message Topic.............................. ...............94
Likelihood to Publish .................................. .................................... 95
M manipulation C hecks ................................................................................... ...............96
T e sts o f H y p o th e se s ....................................................... ................................................ 9 9
P o st H o c A n aly ses .................. .................................................................... 10 6
M message Fram e Identification .............................................. ............... 106
A attitudes and M message Fram e ...................................................................... 107
N eed for C ignition ........ ..... ......................... .. .............. 108
Differences Between Organization Membership ............................. .......................109
Index D evelopm ent ..........................................................................................114

5 DISCUSSION ............................... ....... ............... 121

Overview ................. ............... ... .........................................121
K ey F in d in g s ............................................................................................................. 12 2


8









Im p lic a tio n s ..................................................................................................................... 1 2 6
L im itatio n s ................... ...................1...................3.........0
Recommendations.......................................... ............................133
Recommendations for Theory and Future Research ............................................... 133
Recom m endations for Practitioners ........................................ .......................... 135
C onclu sions..... .........................................................137

APPENDIX

A PRE-N OTICE LETTER .................................................................................. 138

B E -M A IL C O N T A C T S ............................................................................... ......................140

C IN STR U M EN T ............................................ ............ ..................... ........ .. 143

D M E SSA G E V E R SIO N S ......................................................................... ......................... 159

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .............................................................................. ..........................163

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................... ............... ... 175


































9









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1. Characteristics of Early and Late Survey Respondents............................................ 79

4-2. Independent Samples T-Test to Compare Age of Early and Late Survey Respondents ........80

4-3. Independent Samples T-Test for Significant Differences Between Early and Late
R e sp o n d en ts ........................................................................... .. 8 1

4-4. Characteristics of Survey Respondents ............................................................................ 83

4-5. Agreement with Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements................... ...............87

4-6. Descriptive Statistics for Likelihood to Publish........ ....... ..... ................ .. ............. 88

4-7. Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) Scale Inter-item Consistency
S ta tistic s ............................................................................... 9 0

4-8. Perceived Argument Quality Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics..............................91

4-9. Need for Cognition Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics ...............................................91

4-10. Preexisting Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology Scale Inter-item Consistency
S ta tistic s ............................................................................... 9 3

4-11. Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics......93

4-12. Attitudes toward Message Topic Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics .........................95

4-13. Likelihood to Publish Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics.........................................95

4-14. Classification of Message Frame by Assigned Frame........................................................97

4-15. ANOVA for Subjects' Perceptions of Message Frames ............................................... 98

4-16. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Attitudes toward Agricultural
Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality ............................ ....................99

4-17. Means for Attitudes Toward Argument Quality Split by High/Low Issue Involvement,
More Positive/ Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, and
M essag e F ram e ........................................................................ 10 0

4-18. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Attitudes Toward Agricultural
Biotechnology on Likelihood to Publish .............................................. ............... 101

4-19. Means for Likelihood to Publish Split by High/Low Issue Involvement, More Positive/
Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, and Message Frame........101









4-20. ANOVA for Message Frame and Issue Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality.....102

4-21. ANOVA for Message Frame and Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on
P erceived A rgum ent Q quality ........................................... ........................................... 103

4-22. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between High/Low Issue
Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality for Subjects Who Received Scientific
P rog ress M message F ram e ................................................................................ ......... ..... 104

4-23. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between High/Low Issue
Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality for Subjects Who Received Health
M essag e F ram e ........................................................................ 104

4-24. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Perceived Argument
Q u ality .......... .............................. ................................................ 10 5

4-25. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Likelihood to Publish......105

4-26. ANOVA for Subject-Identified Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Preexisting
Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality ............106

4-27. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between More Positive/Less
Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument
Quality Spilt by Message Frame..................... ............................ 107

4-28. Independent Samples T-Test for Significant Differences Between Preexisting
Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology Groups and Attitudes Toward
M message T opic ............................................................................108

4-29. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Perceived Argument
Quality, Including Need for Cognition ............. .................... ........... ............... 108

4-30. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, Preexisting Attitudes Toward
Agricultural Biotechnology, and Need for Cognition on Perceived Argument Quality..109

4-31. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization
M membership and Issue Involvem ent ....................................................................... 110

4-32. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization
Membership and Preexisting Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology ................111

4-33. Percentage of Assigned Frame Split within Membership Organization ...........................111

4-34. Classification of Message Frame within Membership Organization ..............................12

4-35. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization
Membership and Attitudes Toward Argument Quality ............................................. 113









4-36. Independent Samples T-tests for Significant Differences Between Organization
Membership and Attitudes Toward Argument Quality of Message Frames .................13

4-37. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization
M membership and Likelihood to Publish................... .... ..... ................. 114

4-38. Independent Samples T-tests for Significant Differences Between Organization
Membership and Likelihood to Publish for Each Message Frame..............................114

4-39. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Issue Involvement...............................................115

4-40. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Cognitive Issue Involvement .............................116

4-41. Cognitive Issue Involvement Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics ............................116

4-42. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Affective Issue Involvement ............... ...............117

4-43. Affective Issue Involvement Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics .............................117

4-44. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Perceived Argument Quality .............................118

4-45. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Newsworthiness Index ................ ................119

4-46. Newsworthiness Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics.............................119

4-47. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Seven-Item Argument Quality Index.....................119

4-48. Seven-Item Argument Quality Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics.............................120









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion .............................................................39

3-1. Operational framework for the current study. ............................................. ............... 57









LIST OF DEFINITIONS


Agricultural Biotechnology Agricultural biotechnology is a range of tools, including traditional
breeding techniques, that alter living organisms, or parts of organisms, to
make or modify products; improve plants or animals; or develop
microorganisms for specific agricultural uses (USDA, 2005, para. 1).

Attitude A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular
entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p.


Elaboration


Framing


Issue Involvement


Need for Cognition


Newsworthiness



Persuasion


Degree to which an individual cognitively processes issue-relevant arguments
within a persuasive communication (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

To select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient
in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem
definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment
recommendation for the item described (Entman, 1993, p. 52).

The amount of importance recipients give to a persuasive message (Petty
& Cacioppo, 1979).

An individual's tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive
endeavors" (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984, p. 306).

An indication of an event's likelihood to be included in news coverage
based on news values such as proximity, impact, timeliness, and conflict
(Clayman & Reisner, 1998).

Any instance in which an active attempt is made to change a person's
mind (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996, p. 4).


Science Communication The communication of scientific topics, concepts, or research
findings using journalistic practices through mass media, public relations,
or informal education such as museums.


Science Reporting


The communication of science-related topics following the conventions of
journalist practice.


Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP) Program A multi-dimensional
university-based program that assists University of Florida faculty in
executing the societal broader impacts of their research, engages students
in the sciences, and educates the public at large regarding scientific
knowledge and cutting edge technologies (STEP, 2007a, para. 1).









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE AGRICULTURE ANGLE: EFFECT OF FRAMING AGRICULTURAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY MESSAGES ON ATTITUDES AND INTENT TO PUBLISH WITHIN
THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL

By

Courtney Alyssa Meyers

August 2008

Chair: Tracy Irani
Major: Agricultural Education and Communication

Our purpose was to examine the effect persuasive communication has on influencing

media coverage of agricultural science, specifically agricultural biotechnology. Agricultural

issues are most commonly framed as positive versus negative or risk versus benefit. Using the

Elaboration Likelihood Model and framing theory, persuasive communication was achieved

through the use of positively framed messages (health, economics, and scientific progress) to

discover what impact the message frame had on communicators' attitudes toward argument

quality and likelihood to publish the information. Today, the media serve as the primary source

of scientific information, but do not frequently address agricultural topics, including those that

involve controversial science and technology applications. Public relations practitioners in

science, including agricultural science, can utilize message frames to shape public opinion

through media coverage. However, no empirical research has been conducted regarding the

utilization of positive message frames in a persuasive communication model to discover

communicators' reactions to agricultural biotechnology news messages.

We examined the situation of framing within the ELM, a dual-route model of persuasion.

A 2 (issue involvement: high and low) x 2 preexistingg attitude toward agricultural









biotechnology: more positive and less positive) x 3 (message frames: scientific progress,

economics, and health) between-subjects factorial quasi-experimental design was used to test the

research hypotheses. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of three message frames.

The experiment focused on determining whether an individual's issue involvement and attitudes

toward agricultural biotechnology, when provided with a specific message frame, influenced

resulting attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish agricultural biotechnology

news.

Members of the American Agricultural Editors Association (AAEA) and the National

Association of Science Writers (NASW) comprised the sample for the study. The final accessible

sample included those with active e-mail addresses (n = 1,240) with a response rate of 24.8% (n

=308).

Overall, results indicated that the interaction of message frame, issue involvement, and

preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology was not significant on attitudes toward

argument quality or likelihood to publish. However, the main effects were significant for the

independent variables on attitudes toward argument quality, but not likelihood to publish. Those

with more favorable preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology had higher mean

scores on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Similarly, those who were high in issue

involvement had higher mean scores on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. The frame

alone also had a significant influence on attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Results

indicated that the message frames do have some influence on attitudes toward argument quality

with the health frame as the most influential frame on the dependent variables regardless of issue

involvement or preexisting attitude. This study also introduced a potential new index to measure









attitudes toward argument quality as perceived by those in the media. This index was comprised

of items from newsworthiness and argument quality indexes.

The theoretical contribution of this study provides additional support for connecting

framing and the ELM. How persuasive messages are framed influences attitudes toward

argument quality, which is related to the amount of cognitive processing undertaken and the

route to persuasion used with the ELM.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The systematic acquisition of food, clothing, and shelter was the earliest form of collective
human activity and gave birth to civilization. Industry, art, and science are all products of a
civilization founded on and supported by agriculture. Thus, agriculture, directly or
indirectly, touches all aspects of human activity (National Agricultural Library, 2002).

American agriculture has a celebrated past with achievements in the distribution of public

lands, founding of land-grant colleges, application of science, and federal policy support (Hurt,

2002). According to the most recent U.S. Census of Agriculture, the United States has more than

two million farms occupying almost one billion acres, and the annual market value for

agricultural products exceeds $200 billion (United States Department of Agriculture, 2002). In

2000, the agriculture industry provided 25.8 million jobs, which is approximately 15.6% of the

total U.S. employment. These jobs include farm production employment, agricultural services,

forestry, fishing, equipment manufacturing, and agricultural processing (W.K. Kellogg

Foundation, n.d.).

Although agriculture has a significant impact on the U.S. economy and job market, the

amount of people directly involved in production agriculture has dropped to less than 1% of the

U.S. population (Hurt, 2002). This has led to a U.S. public that has limited understanding as to

what agriculture is, what agriculture does, or the future challenges facing the industry. "The

significance of changing this view of agriculture, whether it be a perceptual or a realistic one, is

critical to U.S. agriculture's structure, function, and success in the coming years" (National

Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board [NAREEE], 1997,

p. 7).

Specific goals to improve the public's understanding and appreciation of agriculture

include increasing scientific literacy among consumers and policy makers, improving confidence

in the U.S. food production system, and establishing public understanding and support of









agricultural research and education (NAREEE, 1997). These goals are still in effect today as the

public's agricultural literacy, knowledge or understanding of agricultural concepts (Frick,

Birkenholz, & Machtmes, 1995), remains low. For example, in 2002 less than 10% of the Florida

public understood agriculture's impact on the state economy or the importance of agriculture in

general (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2002).

Historically, American agriculture has gone through a series of revolutions. The first was

the integration of horse-powered equipment; the second revolution involved increased use of

mechanical power and chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. The third revolution in

American agriculture at the end of the 20th century was marked by the increased application of

science (Hurt, 2002). Agriculture utilizes scientific advances in the life, environmental, and

social sciences to advance and improve production practices; to develop new products; to

improve nutritional content; to provide environmental benefits; and to enhance biosecurity and

food safety (National Research Council, 2003). Advances in science and technology have helped

American agriculture become successful through improved production practices and consumer

benefits, such as food with a longer shelf life, new flavors, more convenience, and better

nutrition (USDA ARS, 2005). Continued research in agriculture strives to discover scientific

answers to further advance the industry and meet future needs (Buchanan, 2007). "Science has

served as a vitally important foundation for our agricultural system and its ability to provide this

nation and the world with its needs for food, fiber, and feed of our livestock" (Buchanan, 2007,

p. 1).

As mentioned, the third revolution in American agriculture is characterized by the

utilization of innovations in science, specifically in genomics and biotechnology (Hurt, 2002).

"A new word, biotechnology, reflected the merging of agricultural sciences with engineering and









the promise of improved production" (Hurt, 2002, p. 383).The U.S. Department of Agriculture

defines agricultural biotechnology as "a range of tools, including traditional breeding techniques,

that alter living organisms, or parts of organisms, to make or modify products; improve plants or

animals; or develop microorganisms for specific agricultural uses," (USDA, 2007, para. 1).

Biotechnology also encompasses the tools of genetic engineering or genetic modification

(USDA, 2007). As a subset of research in genetics, biotechnology has intrigued both the media

and public beginning in the 1970s (Nelkin & Lindee, 1995). Organizations such as the National

Academy of Science (NAS) have encouraged the development of a "genetically literate public

that understands basic biological research, understands elements of the personal and health

implications of genetics, and participates effectively in public policy issues involving genetic

information" (Andrews, Fullarton, Holtzman, & Motulsky, 1994, p. 185).

Science and the Public

At a time when the challenges facing humanity are growing rapidly, and when meeting
those challenges increasingly depends on scientific research, the need for public support
and understanding of science has never been greater. (Holsinger, 2006, p. 955)

An interest and appreciation for science is ingrained in American culture (Miller, 2000).

Most American adults (90%) report being very or moderately interested in scientific and

technological discoveries (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2006b). However, the attention

given to science and technology has not promoted public understanding of the basic concepts

that make these innovations possible. Although the percentage of scientifically literate U.S.

adults has doubled in the past 20 years, it is low considering the democratic principle of citizen

understanding and involvement in policy decisions. By the end of the 20th century, only 17% of

U.S. adults were classified as scientifically literate (Miller, 2000). Scientific literacy is related to

the public's ability to understand scientific concepts, including those related to agricultural

science endeavors. The appropriate level of understanding to be considered scientifically literate









is the ability to "read and comprehend the Tuesday science section of The New York Tilme,

(Miller, 2000, p. 274).

Hacker and Harris (1992) stated that an individual's formal education in science occurs

early in life and "cannot equip the individual for a scientifically literate lifetime in an

increasingly technological society" (p. 217). Although science is an emphasized subject in

formal education, most Americans continue to struggle to comprehend the foundational concepts

of science necessary to interpret current research findings (Miller, 2000). Consequently, the

American public is largely illiterate about science (Gregory & Miller, 1998).

Beyond politics, science has an influence on economic and social issues (Nelkin, 1995).

Diamond (1997) posited that everyone needs to understand science to help make personal

choices regarding health and safety, to guide policy-decisions, to be informed voters, and to

support science's impact on the economy, education system, and society. After the completion of

formal education, the majority of people have little exposure to science except through media

reports. As Nelkin (1995) explained:

For most people, the reality of science is what they read in the press. They understand
science less through direct experience or past education than through the filter of
journalistic language and imagery. The media are their only contact with what is going on
in rapidly changing scientific and technical fields, as well as a major source of information
about the implications of these changes for their lives. (p. 2)

The science information presented in the media is different from what is taught in

educational settings. In formal education, people learn "textbook science" that is classified as

uncontroversial or established. The media, however, report on "frontier science" that is often

uncertain or preliminary (Bauer, 1994). Within agricultural science, an example of "frontier

science" includes the application of biotechnology for the recent and future development of

"functional" foods that provide nutritional attributes (National Research Council, 2003).









Beginning in the 1980s, interest in defining and discovering the public's understanding of

science has initiated a vast number of research endeavors (Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007).

Defining "public understanding of science" is difficult and often depends on the study's author

or authors. In order to operationally define the term, it is often broken into three distinct pieces:

public, understanding, and science. "Public" includes almost anyone who might receive

information concerning scientific topics, but is most often used to describe a "lay public" of

those not directly involved in scientific research. "Understanding" includes both knowledge and

appreciation of scientific topics. "Science" is defined as scientific knowledge produced by those

recognized as members of the scientific community (Thomas & Durant, 1987). Although

defining the public understanding of science is difficult, many people agree that more emphasis

on it would be beneficial (Gregory & Miller, 1998). Thomas and Durant (1987) outlined nine

benefits that should serve as motivation for improved public understanding of science: (1)

benefits to science; (2) benefits to national economies; (3) benefits to national power and

influence; (4) benefits to individuals; (5) benefits to democratic government; (6) benefits to

society as a whole; (7) intellectual benefits; (8) aesthetic benefits; and (9) moral benefits. The

diversity of these benefits illustrate that although many people agree on the need for public

understanding of science, the underlying motivations, outlooks, and purposes are varied and

distinct.

Science and Media

The mass media serve as the primary source of current scientific information for American

adults (Friedman, Dunwoody, & Rogers, 1986; LaFollette, 1990; Nelkin, 1995). Other sources of

scientific information such as science classes, science museums, and interpersonal

communication exist, but the mass media provide the public with the most access to science-

related information (Nisbet et al., 2002). The media are often the only source the public has to









learn about scientific discoveries, events, and controversies. If readers have limited experience or

prior knowledge with a scientific topic, they rely on the media to provide an explanation as to

what effect scientific findings have on their lives (Nelkin, 1995). Due to the large amount of

scientific information available, the public relies on the media, to some degree, to keep them

informed of recent advances in scientific pursuits (Zimmerman, Bisanz, Bisanz, Klein, & Klein,

2001).

The most common channels for science information are electronic. The National Science

Foundation (2006b) reported television is the most utilized source for science information (41%),

followed by other media channels including newspapers (14%), magazines (14%), and radio

(2%). The Internet (18%) was the second highest source of science information, which may or

may not include online media sources. Additional sources were friends and family (4%), books

(5%), and other (2%) (NSF, 2006). Nisbet et al. (2002) concluded that science-specific television

programming can positively influence public understanding of science, but the amount of

sensational and fictionalized accounts of science (i.e. science fiction, fantasy, or paranormal

mystery shows) overwhelm solely educational efforts. Therefore, when education is the primary

goal of public outreach of science, the preferred media channel should be print, specifically

newspapers and magazines (Nisbet et al., 2002).

A number of internal and external factors influence what is covered in the mass media.

Within media organizations, the responsibility of reporting science lies with journalists, who face

many challenges when covering scientific topics including news-gathering norms, editorial

pressures, uncooperative scientists, and a diverse audience (Treise & Weigold, 2002). External

factors include sources, interest groups, public relations campaigns, other media organizations,

advertisers, and audiences (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). When reporting news events, including









science, the media are actively deciding what stories to cover and this process, along with what

interpretation the media provide, can influence the public's agenda (Priest, 2001). Science stories

are more likely to be covered by the media if they meet certain newsworthy characteristics called

news values. In reference to science stories, these news values include threshold or magnitude;

meaningfulness, relevance, and consonance to the audience; co-option and composition in terms

of what has been published and available space or time; frequency, unexpectedness, and

continuity of news items; competition of stories; unambiguity and negativity of information;

reliability of facts and sources; and elitism and personalization (Gregory & Miller, 1998).

The scientific process is often ambiguous, complex, and controversial, and these factors

lead to ever-present scientific uncertainty, which is created through a limited amount of scientific

knowledge or a disagreement about what that knowledge means. Scientific stories that contain

some amount of uncertainty are considered newsworthy because of the inherent conflict and

controversy. How journalists write about and describe stories containing scientific uncertainty

can affect how the audience interprets that information (Friedman, Dunwoody, & Rogers, 1999).

Hartz and Chappell (1997) contend that media inattention to complex scientific topics has

encouraged a public that is unsupportive of science and technology.

Rogers (1999) identified two characteristics of science reporting that inhibit the audience's

ability to understand the scientific topic: lack of information and lack of context. Audience

members need basic information to understand the content of a science story. Without this

foundation, readers must make assumptions, which may or may not be correct. In regard to the

context, audience members want to know how the latest information fits into the larger body of

research, what came before, and what is next. The structure and framing of a science news story

can also influence how well the audience is able to understand the issue being presented. When









writing about science, journalists should make the stories informative, useful, and

understandable, which can be difficult when reporting on controversial or new scientific issues

(Rogers, 1999). Journalists' inability to adequately report on science by explaining the context

and process of research contributes to the separation between science and public understanding

(Nelkin, 1995). The ability of journalists to report on science has implications for the audience:

Good reporting can enhance the public's ability to evaluate science policy issues and the
individual's ability to make rational personal choices; poor reporting can mislead and
disempower a public that is increasingly affected by science and technology and by
decisions determined by technical expertise. (Nelkin, 1995, p. 2)

Agricultural science covers a variety of disciplines and involves a number of stakeholders

including scientists, producers, conservationists, and consumers (National Research Council,

2003). Lundy, Ruth, Telg, and Irani (2006) found that agricultural scientists did not believe the

public understands either agriculture or its parent sciences. Agricultural scientists also reported a

lack of confidence in the public's ability to get necessary information through the news media to

understand agriculture or science in general (Lundy et al., 2006).

Despite its significant contribution to America's economic, cultural, and environmental

progress, agriculture is often overlooked as a newsworthy topic by the mass media (Stringer &

Thomson, 1999). Although no empirical literature could be found regarding dominant agriculture

issues in news media, recent coverage of agriculture in U.S. news media focused on topics such

as food safety (Schmit, 2008; Shin, 2008), biofuels and rising food prices (Martin, 2008; Sands,

2008), organic food (Rosenwald, 2008; Martin & Severson, 2008), and the U.S. farm bill

(Lengell, 2008; Weisman & Morgan, 2008).

Lichter, Amundson, and Lichter (2005) analyzed content from 10 news outlets (print and

television) during a six-month period in 2004 to discover how rural life is portrayed. Although

the overall number of articles containing "rural" increased 57% from 2002 to 2004, the amount









of farm-related coverage decreased 50%. Agriculture and rural life were rarely associated, with

farming mentioned in only 3% of the media coverage (Lichter et al., 2005). Agricultural news

coverage may not always be classified as science stories because agriculture, like health

communication, involves the use of several news angles, including human interest or business.

However, as previously mentioned, agricultural news coverage can include the use of a science

news angle.

Journalists who do not regularly report on agricultural news do not provide an accurate

description of the industry (Reisner & Walter, 1994). Print stories in general newspapers tend to

be superficial and stereotyped. These media sources do not provide in-depth or long-term

coverage of agricultural science issues or events. Reisner and Walter (1994) found that general

newspapers and farm magazines do not provide consistent or complete coverage of agricultural

issues or events that would "increase public understanding of issues facing farmers or farmer

understanding of public concerns about agriculture's environmental and social effects" (p. 535).

Biotechnology is one area of agricultural science that has received a great deal of media

coverage, and the media play an important role in shaping public perceptions of this topic

(Kalaitzandonakes, Marks, & Vickner, 2004). A recent International Food Information Council

study found that although about 75% of consumers have heard or read at least "a little" about

food biotechnology, they remain unaware of the prevalence of these types of foods currently in

the market (IFIC, 2007). Only 23% of consumers said these products are currently available.

Consumer approval for plant biotechnology is greater than that for animal biotechnology,

although approval for animal cloning did increase from 19% in 2006 to 24% in 2007. Most

consumers (54%) are unsure about the potential of food biotechnology, while one-third said

biotech foods will provide some benefits to them and their families. These benefits include better









tasting food, reducing saturated fat content, and increasing healthful fats (IFIC, 2007). The Pew

Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2006) noted that media coverage of agricultural

biotechnology has an influence on the public's attention to the issue. After the StarLinkTM corn

recall in 2001, media coverage about agricultural biotechnology was significant and public

awareness was at its highest level. In 2001, 45% of American consumers said they had heard "a

great deal" (9%) or "some" (35%) about genetically modified foods, which are developed using

the tools of agricultural biotechnology. As media coverage dedicated to genetically modified

foods coverage decreased, so too did the public's awareness of the issue. In 2006, 41% of

American consumers indicated either hearing "a great deal" or "some" about the topic.

The amount and tone of media coverage has an influence on consumer opinions regarding

agricultural biotechnology (Hoban, 1998). In European countries where media coverage has

focused less on the benefits and more on the potential risks of this area of agricultural science,

survey respondents are generally more negative in their opinions toward agricultural

biotechnology (Hoban, 1998). Past research has indicated that U.S. media are generally more

positive in their coverage of agricultural biotechnology (Gaskell, Bauer, Durant, & Allum,

1999), but the public perceptions of the quality of newspaper and television coverage of the topic

are less supportive with only 44% of respondents indicating the media were "doing a good job

for society" (Priest, 2001, p. 940).

Application: Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP) Program and
Agricultural Biotechnology

United States academic institutions significantly contribute to the scientific research and

development conducted nationwide. In 2004, academia dedicated $42 billion to research and

development efforts. The contribution is especially important in the basic sciences of which

academia conducts more than half (NSF, 2006a). Academic institutions are also charged with the









mission of providing the results of that research to the public. This is most often conducted

through outreach and education programs that help scientists listen to concerns and proactively

strive to provide the public with information regarding scientific issues (Leshner, 2007).

To meet the research and development priorities, academic institutions rely on both public

and private funding agencies. In 2003, the government funded 60% of the research at academic

institutions, and 96% of these funds are from six federal agencies. Beginning in 2001, the NSF,

one of the leading funders of academic research, requires grant applicants to demonstrate how

they will incorporate broader societal impacts into their research proposal. According to the NSF

(2006a), broader impacts include "aspects of teaching and learning, integration of research and

education, technology transfer, societal benefits, technological innovation, infrastructure

development, and opportunities to include a diversity of participants, particularly from

underrepresented groups in science" (p. 17).

Scientists often struggle to develop and include outreach strategies in their grant proposals

that can meet the broader impacts criterion of the merit review system (Frodeman & Holbrook,

2007). One reason for this hesitancy may be that scientists are traditionally not trained in how to

communicate to or educate the public. Although scientists may want to discuss their work with

the public, they are pressured to dedicate their time and energy to conducting more research,

securing grants, and publishing in scholarly journals. Leshner (2007) said more should be done

to encourage public engagement and outreach training for scientists:

If science is going to fully serve its societal mission in the future, we need to both
encourage and equip the next generation of scientists to effectively engage with the
broader society in which we work and live (p. 161).

To help address this issue and provide support to scientists when seeking grants with the

requirement of broader societal impacts, several researchers at the University of Florida

(Gainesville, FL) developed the Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP)









Program. STEP works with researchers to write grants and develop strategies to provide research

findings to the broader public. In 2007, STEP launched ufgenetics.com, an interactive website

that highlights research of faculty associated with the University of Florida's Genetics Institute.

The site includes information for the target audiences of teachers and journalists. The teachers'

page has feature videos and lesson plans. The journalists' page includes feature videos, print

news stories, and photographs in what can best be described as an online newsroom (STEP,

2007b).

When journalists or reporters need to identify story ideas, conduct article research, or

locate press releases, they are increasingly relying on the World Wide Web and e-mail ("No

One's Yelling 'Copy' Anymore," 2001). The Web has exposed journalists to more story ideas

and has created job opportunities that are more directly involved with communication efforts,

which "represents a change in the news-making route of science journalism as well as in the

dissemination of this content" (Trumbo, Sprecker, Dumlao, Yun, & Duke, 2001, p. 361).

Science public relations practitioners are also utilizing the Web and e-mail to reach the

media. Professionals in this career field are "enthusiastic about the Web as a tool that helps

persuade journalists to cover their organizations" (Duke, 2002, p. 321). Duke (2002) conducted a

study of science public relations practitioners and found almost all respondents said e-mail is

essential (66%) or sometimes useful (29%) in media relations. Almost half (47%) of those

surveyed routinely or always use e-mail to send press releases to journalists. A majority of

practitioners (66%) reported that e-mail has helped increase media coverage of their organization

to some degree, and 20% said it has greatly increased coverage (Duke, 2002). Having a Web

presence also contributes to increased media coverage. Two-thirds (76%) of respondents said

they post press releases on the Web, and 66% said it is easier to receive media coverage with the









use of the Web. Public relations practitioners in science communication utilize the Web for a

number of purposes beyond media relations, including tracking issues, crisis communication,

rumor control, and education and outreach (Duke, 2002).

Online newsrooms are a critical element organizations need in order to interact with the

media (Woodall, 2007). In the 2007 Online Newsroom Survey, all journalists surveyed said it

was important for an organization to have an online newsroom, and 98% of the respondents

prefer to receive e-mail alerts generated through these newsrooms. Interest in specific online

newsroom features, such as photographs, audio, and video, increased when compared to previous

years (Woodall, 2007). Additional research is needed to discover journalists' perceptions of the

information provided by an organization through an online newsroom format (specifically online

news releases) that may persuade them to utilize that information in communication efforts.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Within the context of the current study, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) provides

a framework to examine the individual variables (need for cognition and issue involvement) and

situational variables (argument quality and message frame) that may influence the persuasion

process through either the central or peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The central route

to persuasion is based on careful attention to the issue-relevant arguments within a message, and

attitudes are formed based on evaluation of these arguments. The peripheral route to persuasion

is based less on consideration of the arguments and more on the peripheral cues such as source

credibility and graphic elements (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996).

An individual's motivation and ability influence the elaboration likelihood, or the degree to

which a person cognitively assesses issue-relevant messages within persuasive communication.

Individuals who are highly motivated and have the ability to cognitively process the issue-

relevant messages utilize the central route to persuasion. When individuals lack either the









motivation and/or ability to evaluate the issue-relevant arguments, they are persuaded via the

peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996).

The ELM contains several constructs that influence which route to persuasion an

individual is more likely to utilize. One construct is issue involvement, which addresses the

amount of importance recipients give to the issue-relevant arguments in a persuasive message.

Individuals who are more involved will be more likely to be persuaded through the central route

than those who are less involved in the issue (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). Another construct is the

need for cognition, which is a personality trait that influences how much an individual evaluates

a persuasive message (Petty, Cacioppo, & Strathman, 2005). The higher an individual's need for

cognition, the more likely they will pay attention to the issue-relevant messages and utilize the

central route to persuasion (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982).

Argument quality is another construct that may influence the resulting attitude of a

persuasive message. If an individual is motivated and able to use the central route to persuasion,

arguments that are seen as strong and compelling will result in more favorable thoughts than

those that are interpreted as weak. In contrast, when the peripheral route is utilized, an individual

is more likely to depend on preexisting thoughts to form an attitude than issue-relevant

arguments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). With any given message topic, research is necessary to

explore what elements of a persuasive message could influence argument quality and the

resulting persuasion process. Through the use of communication theories such as framing,

messages could then be developed to purposively draw upon those message elements.

Framing

Framing is a communication strategy used to organize and make sense of information

(Goffman, 1974). Framing occurs in a variety of communication contexts, including media

representations of information (Scheufele, 1999). Entman (1993) explained that framing helps









organize information by drawing attention to important elements, emphasizing key pieces of

information, and ignoring superfluous details. In the media, frames can appear through the

inclusion or exclusion of key words and the selection of sources (Entman, 1993). In regard to

science information, individuals do not actively think about scientific matters or know how to

interpret scientific information; therefore, the media can influence public opinion of science and

technology by legitimizing an issue or framing it in a way that will influence resulting public

opinion (Priest & Eyck, 2003). Examination of news frames, and any corresponding event that

encourages them, offers an opportunity to explore the media's influence on public opinion

(Marks et al., 2007).

Several studies have examined media coverage of agricultural biotechnology to discover

prominent frames. Upon review of the literature, two frames in particular seemed to appear

frequently in studies that included media coverage in a variety of leading newspapers in the

United States and abroad "economic costs/economic progress/economic" and "scientific

progress/progress" (Gaskell et al., 1999; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002; Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003;

Lundy & Irani, 2004). Crawley (2007) noted that media coverage of agricultural biotechnology

has been prominently framed as "scientific progress" and "economic prosperity." Additionally,

the frame of "health" or "health benefits" was noted in several framing analysis studies of media

coverage regarding agricultural biotechnology (Gaskell et al. 1999; Kohring & Matthes, 2002;

Marks, Kalaitzandonakes, Wilkins, & Zakharova, 2007).

Framing has long been used to research how the media portray any number of issues.

However, less research has been conducted on how public relations practitioners can utilize

various frames to shape the discourse on a topic or issue. Lundy (2004) conducted an

examination of positively framing internal communication messages within the ELM. Results









indicated that positive frames had some influence on attitudes toward internationalizing

extension, but more research is necessary to explore the persuasive influence of frames within

the ELM (Lundy, 2004).

Public relations practitioners exist in both public and private scientific institutions

(including agricultural organizations and institutions) to provide information to the media and

encourage coverage of scientific endeavors (Nelkin, 1995). Public relations practitioners can

utilize framing when writing news releases and can help influence how chosen topics are

portrayed in the media (Knight, 1999). Journalists should be considered as an audience for

messages that contain frames because they "are equally susceptible to the very frames that they

use to describe events and issues" (Scheufele, 1999, p. 117). More research is needed to

investigate if j journalists' frames of an event or issue are a result of how sources have framed the

information, or if they rely on other news sources' framing of the issue (Scheufele, 1999).

Problem Statement

Agricultural science encompasses a variety of scientific disciplines that conduct research

for a number of stakeholder groups. Although the public relies on agriculture for food, feed and

fiber, public understanding of science and its application in agricultural research pursuits is quite

limited. The media serve as the primary source of modern scientific information, but do not give

much attention to agricultural topics, including those that involve controversial science and

technology applications. One such area of agricultural science that has received media attention

is agricultural biotechnology, due to the inherent uncertainty surrounding new applications of

this science.

Public relations practitioners in science, including agricultural science, can utilize message

frames to shape public opinion through media coverage. However, no empirical research has

been conducted regarding the utilization of positive message frames in a persuasive









communication model to discover communicators' reactions to agricultural biotechnology news

messages. The purpose of this study was to examine what effect persuasive communication has

on influencing media coverage of agricultural science, specifically agricultural biotechnology.

Persuasive communication was achieved through the use of positively framed messages (health,

scientific progress, or economics) to discover what impact the message frame had on

communicators' attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish the information.

RQ1: When exposed to a specific positively valenced news frame, to what extent do issue
involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influence
communicators' attitudes toward argument quality of the message?

RQ2: When exposed to a specific positively valenced news frame, to what extent do issue
involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influence
communicators' likelihood to publish the information?









CHAPTER 2
RELEVANT LITERATURE

The previous chapter established the need for the current study and the research purpose,

which was to examine the effect persuasive communication (in the form of positively framed

messages) about an application of agricultural biotechnology has on influencing media coverage

of agricultural science, specifically agricultural biotechnology. This chapter provides an

overview of research related to attitudes and the persuasive communication process with specific

emphasis on the ELM and its constructs involved in the current study. The literature review

continues with an explanation of framing theory, how framing is used in a variety of

communication processes, and an overview of empirical studies that identified common frames

utilized in media coverage of agricultural biotechnology. The chapter concludes with an outline

of agenda setting and priming theories and how framing theory can be utilized in public relations

endeavors.

Attitudes and Persuasion

Eagly and Chaiken (1993) defined attitude as "a psychological tendency that is expressed

by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor" (p. 1). Attitudes can be

held toward what are termed "attitude objects" (Ostrom, Bond, Krosnick, & Sedikides, 1994).

These attitude objects can be concrete (i.e. furniture, clothing) or abstract (i.e. socialism,

capitalism) and include particular entities (i.e. personal belongings) or behaviors (i.e. voting)

(Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

When measuring attitudes, researchers are concerned with the evaluative property, which

is the degree of positive or negative expression toward the attitude object. On the evaluative

dimension, attitudes can range from strongly positive to neutral to strongly negative (Ostrom et

al., 1994). Because attitudes cannot be directly observed, researchers rely on observable









evaluative responses to infer relevant attitudes. Three specific responses made when sharing

attitudes are affective responses, cognitive responses, and conative responses. Affective

responses are the emotional feelings connected to thinking or experiencing an attitude object.

Cognitive responses are based on beliefs, inferences, knowledge, facts, and assumptions

regarding the attitude object. Finally, conative responses are the behaviors or actions taken in

response to the attitude object (Ostrom et al., 1994).

Attitudes are an essential construct in persuasion theories because attitudes are predictive

of behavior (Stiff, 1994; Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). Perloff (2003) defined persuasion as:

a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their
attitudes or behavior regarding an issue through the transmission of a message, in an
atmosphere of free choice (p. 8).


This definition states that the persuasion process has five criteria: 1) Symbols can be

words, images, or nonverbal signs; 2) Persuasion is an intentional, deliberate process; 3)

Persuasion is also an internal process to change attitude or behavior; 4) Transmission of a

persuasive message can be verbal or non-verbal, interpersonal or via mass media; and 5)

Individuals have free-choice regarding how to think or act in response to persuasive

communication (Perloff, 2003).

The Yale Attitude Change Approach (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953) was among the

earliest empirical studies on the effects of persuasion communication. The researchers set out to

investigate who says what to whom with what effect. The Hovland/Yale Model of Persuasion

describes persuasion as a learning process where attitude change occurs after a series of steps:

attention, comprehension, learning, acceptance, and retention (Hovland et al., 1953). Learning

has long been recognized as a part of the persuasion process with the original research

assumption that people attend to all the information they receive (Chaiken, Wood, & Eagly,









1996). During the 1950s and early 1960s people were viewed as passive recipients of persuasive

communication. This viewpoint changed in the 1960s when more emphasis was given to the

active learning process found in cognitive models of persuasion. The learning process indicated

that people were able to concentrate on the persuasive message, speaker, or context and generate

thoughts to support (proarguments) or challenge counterargumentss) the message (Perloff, 2003).

The Cognitive Response Approach to Persuasion states that a person's cognitive response

to a message, more than the message itself, plays an important role in the persuasion process

(Petty, Ostrom, & Brock, 1981). This approach places more emphasis on cognitive processing,

but has two major limitations. First, the assumption that people always carefully think about

messages is not always the case. Second, this approach does not provide adequate explanation of

the various ways messages can influence people (Perloff, 2003).

The limitations in the cognitive process approach led to the development of two process-

based models of persuasion: the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) (Chaiken, Liberman, &

Eagly, 1986; Chaiken et al., 1996) and the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The HSM proposes

that persuasion can occur through two processes called systematic and heuristic processing.

Systematic processing is characterized by careful attention and examination of issue-relevant

arguments. Heuristic processing relies on the use of cognitive shortcuts to assist in the evaluation

of persuasion messages (Chaiken et al., 1986). Of the two process-based models, the ELM has

been used more extensively in empirical investigations of the persuasion process because its

framework provides a more comprehensive explanation to understand communication effects

(Perloff, 2003). The following section provides additional description of the ELM and its

specific constructs of interest for the current study.









Elaboration Likelihood Model

The ELM states that the amount and type of thinking one does in regard to a persuasive

message will influence the result of that persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Elaboration

likelihood is determined by variables that affect the motivation and ability to process a message.

Motivational factors address an individual's desire to expend cognitive effort to consider

message arguments. Ability factors include those that address whether an individual possesses

the knowledge, skills, or opportunity to consider the persuasive message (Petty et al., 2005).

The ELM is comprised of two distinct routes to persuasion: the central route and the

peripheral route. In the central route, more attention is given to the information contained in a

message. People focus on the message arguments and develop a new understanding or integrate

the information with prior knowledge. Attitudes formed via this route are usually rational

because people pay attention to the message, make a cognitive effort to interpret the message,

and evaluate it. This process may not be completely rational, however, due to preexisting

opinions regarding the value of some message arguments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996).

The other route in the ELM, the peripheral route, is based on less careful consideration of

the message arguments. This route focuses less on the quality of the arguments and more on

emphasizing peripheral cues. These cues are characteristics or factors present in a message that

do not require any cognitive effort on behalf of the issue or object. Peripheral cues work as

cognitive shortcuts so people do not have to carefully consider message-relevant information

(Petty & Cacioppo, 1996).

An important assumption of the ELM is that people cannot pay attention to every message

they encounter. Attention relies on how much motivation or ability one has to attend to a

persuasive message. Typically, persuasion occurs when a person receives a message from











another source in a specific setting. This communication message can contain information about

an issue, person, or object (Petty et al., 2005).



PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION
PERIPHERAL ATTITUDE SHIFT
Changed attitude is relatively

MOTIVATED TO PROCESS? counterpersuasion, and
(personal relevance, NO unpredictive of behavior.
need for cognition, etc.)

YES
YES
ABILITY TO PROCESS? IS A PERIPHERAL
(distraction, repetition, NO PROCESS OPERATING?
knowledge, etc.) 411
(identification with source,
YES use of heuristics,
balance theory, etc.)

WHAT IS THE NATURE NO
OF THE PROCESSING?
(argument quality.
Initial attitude, etc.) RETAIN
INITIAL ATTITUDE
MORE MORE
FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NO Attitude does not
THOUGHTS THOUGHTS change from
THAN BEFORE? THAN BEFORE? prevo poon.
previous position.
YES YES

IS THERE A CHANGE IN
COGNITIVE STRUCTURE? NOb
(thought rehearsal,
reflection time, etc.)

| YES YES
(Favorable) (Unfavorable)


r


CENTRAL CENTRAL
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
ATTITUDE ATTITUDE
CHANGE CHANGE
Changed attitude is relatively
enduring, resistant to
counterpersuasion, and
predictive of behavior.


p


Figure 2-1. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion (Petty & Wegener, 1999).

Issue Involvement and Personal Relevance

Issue involvement influences the amount of importance recipients give to a persuasive

message. The more involved an individual is, the more importance the individual will place on









the issue-relevant arguments in a persuasive message. When involvement is low, an individual

will focus less cognitive effort on the message and focus on peripheral cues such as source

credibility (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979).

The strength of involvement influences the ability of a persuasive message to encourage

thoughts either in support of or against the argument. When a person is highly involved with the

message content, counter-arguments are likely to produce adverse thoughts and decreased

agreement. However, when the arguments are in agreement with a highly involved individual,

the corresponding thoughts will be positive and provide more support to the argument (Petty &

Cacioppo, 1979).

Personal relevance to a persuasive message influences what message attributes contribute

to its effectiveness. When the persuasive message contains an issue of high relevance, the logic

of message arguments contribute to message effectiveness. In a situation of low personal

relevance, peripheral cues contribute to the message effectiveness (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman,

1981).

People are exposed to countless messages each day. It is impossible and impractical to give

attention to every single message (Petty et al., 2005). Therefore, when a message is personally

relevant, it becomes worthwhile to expend the mental effort to form an opinion. When the

message is not as relevant, people will not be as motivated to expend the energy to form an

opinion based on careful examination of the message arguments (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman,

1981).

In addition to motivation, the ability to process message arguments may vary depending on

personal relevance. When a message is highly relevant, people have most likely dedicated

cognitive effort to developing knowledge and opinions about the issue and, therefore, have the









ability to evaluate the arguments in a persuasive message. "Any variable that increases the

likelihood that people will be motivated and able to engage in the difficult task of evaluating the

message arguments increases the likelihood of the central route to persuasion" (Petty, Cacioppo,

& Goldman, 1981, p. 854). Alternatively, variables that decrease the motivation and/or ability to

evaluate message arguments will encourage persuasion via the peripheral route (Petty, Cacioppo,

& Goldman, 1981).

Argument Quality

Petty and Cacioppo (1986) stated that "one of the least researched and least understood

questions in the psychology of persuasion is: What makes an argument persuasive?" (p. 31).

Fishbein and Ajzen (1981) said that "the general neglect of the information contained in a

message... is probably the most serious problem in communication and persuasion research" (p.

359).

Within the ELM, the construct addressing the characteristics of the persuasive message is

argument quality. Argument quality deals with the attributes of any information contained in a

message that assists in evaluation of the message's target, which could be an object, person, or

issue (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). The argument quality construct is important because this feature

of a persuasive message can influence the resulting thoughts and persuasion route utilized (Petty

& Cacioppo, 1996). However, this construct has not received a great deal of attention in ELM

studies (Areni & Lutz, 1988).

Petty and Cacioppo (1981) defined argument quality empirically through the development

of "strong" and "weak" arguments. A "strong" message contains message arguments that upon

evaluation lead to favorable thoughts (in agreement with the message). A "weak" message

contains message arguments that elicit unfavorable thoughts when recipients think about them.

During the message development process specific arguments are also checked for believability to









develop plausible strong and weak arguments. The final step is to pre-test the messages for

comprehensibility, complexity, and familiarity (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

Argument quality is incorporated in the ELM because this construct has some influence on

which route to persuasion is more likely to be utilized. The central route to persuasion is

characterized by more cognitive effort than the peripheral route. Message elaboration via the

central route occurs when a message recipient has both the motivation and ability to attend to a

persuasive message. In this route, a message recipient pays attention to messages, attempts to

understand them, and evaluates them. The description of that persuasion is then determined

primarily by the recipient's subjective evaluation of the message's argument quality. This

process is not entirely objective because message recipients integrate these messages into their

existing knowledge base and the resulting opinion of the message may differ among recipients. If

the recipient evaluates the message as containing strong and effective arguments, then additional

thought about the message will lead to more favorable thoughts and lasting persuasion; however,

if the message arguments are perceived as weak, additional thought will lead to

counterarguments and the possibility that the recipient will move in the opposite direction of the

position advocated in the persuasive communication (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996).

In instances when a person is either unable or unmotivated to think about a persuasive

message, the peripheral route to persuasion is utilized. As discussed previously, a recipient's

issue involvement and personal relevance influence persuasion. If a person is high in issue

involvement but does not understand the message arguments (or arguments are absent),

elaboration cannot occur because a recipient must first attend and comprehend the message.

Without attention and comprehension of the message arguments, elaboration is not possible.

When this is the case, the recipient can still develop thoughts regarding the issue based on the









subjective quality of the arguments and preexisting attitudes (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). A more

positive preexisting attitude will lead to additional favorable thoughts and strengthening of the

initial attitude while a more negative preexisting attitude will encourage unfavorable thoughts

and a more negative attitude (Tesser, 1978). This indicates that when a person lacks either the

motivation or ability to think about the message-relevant arguments, the resulting thoughts will

be determined more by preexisting attitudes than the arguments in the message (Petty &

Cacioppo, 1996).

Although argument quality is often manipulated pre-exposure to develop a "strong" and

"weak" message treatment, in the current study argument quality will be operationalized and

empirically evaluated using three distinct frames scientific progress, economics, and health

(further explained below). This study will utilize attitudes toward argument quality to provide an

objective measure of newsworthiness, which is a subjective measure of news quality.

Events that make it into the news often do so because journalists see these events as

"newsworthy" (Fishman, 1980; Tuchman, 1978). A diverse set of characteristics influence

newsworthiness (Oliver & Myers, 1999). As Meyers (1997) explained, the construct of

newsworthiness is complex and multi-dimensional:

Newsworthiness... qualities journalists believe make an event worth reporting... has never
been easy to define. There are no hard-and-fast rules about what constitutes the news, and
reporters and editors themselves are often vague about how they separate what to cover
from what to ignore within the vast pool of occurrences that could, potentially, be news. (p.
18)

Fundamental news value criteria include human interest, prominence of the issue, number

of people affected, controversy or conflict, uniqueness, proximity, timeliness, and locality

(Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Schmierbach (2005) utilized the news values of timeliness,

significance, and relevance of readers to develop a newsworthiness index. Findings indicated that

newsworthiness was a reflection of journalists' individual perceptions and this variable is









important when exploring the gatekeeping decision process regarding what information is

eventually reported on or published.

Need for Cognition

Some people evaluate messages regardless of whether or not they need to, while others

will evaluate a message only when they absolutely must. This personality trait is called the need

for cognition (Petty et al., 2005). Need for cognition influences "the persistence and resistance of

newly formed or changed attitudes" (Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992, p. 317). Need for cognition is a

motivating factor that influences which persuasion route message recipients will use (Cacioppo,

& Petty, 1982).

Individuals who are high in need for cognition are more concerned with the quality of

information than those who are lower in need for cognition (Petty et al., 2005) and develop

opinions that are more persistent over time and more resistant to change (Haugtvedt & Petty,

1992). Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao (1984) developed an 18-item scale for need for cognition that

measures the intrinsic motivation one possesses to partake in cognitive effort.

Framing

Framing occurs every day as a function of individuals' cognitive attempts to organize life

experiences and help make sense of them. A frame is used to take a situation that would

otherwise not be meaningful and communicate it in a different way that gives it meaning

(Goffman, 1974). Frames are structures found in culture to organize understanding of social

phenomena (Hertog & McLeod, 2001). In communication, framing helps organize information

by drawing attention to important elements, emphasizing key pieces of information, and ignoring

superfluous details. Entman (1993) said:

To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a
communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal









interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.
(p. 52)

Frames can appear in four distinct phases of the communication process: the

communicator, text, receiver, and culture. Relevant to the creation of news frames,

communicators make deliberate or unintentional decisions when deciding what to say. As

Entman (1993) explained, the text of a communication process can also contain frames. These

frames are formed through inclusion or exclusion of key words, phrases, images, sources, and

sentences that reinforce a theme. How the receiver interprets frames may or may not reflect the

original intention of the communicator when the frame was established. Finally, an individual's

culture provides an inventory of common frames shared by people in a social grouping. The

appearance and attention to frames at each of the phases of the communication process promotes

a shared function to highlight information, develop arguments about a problem, and subsequently

focus on causation, evaluation, and/or solution.

Framing involves selection and salience. When a piece of information is emphasized, it

increases the audience member's perception of salience, which is how noticeable, meaningful, or

memorable a piece of information is to the audience (Entman, 1993). Hertog and McLeod (2001)

outline five applications of frames: to determine what content is relevant to discussion of a

concern; to define the roles of stakeholders, to outline relevant beliefs, actions, and values; to

determine the language used to discuss the topic; and to outline the values and goals of the

content area.

In regard to frames in news coverage, "a frame is a central organizing idea for news

content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection,

emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration" (Tankard, Hendrickson, Silberman, Bliss, & Ghanem,

1991, p. 11). Within media content, frames can be identified in a number of "focal points:" (1)









headlines and kickers, (2) subheads, (3) photographs, (4) photo captions, (5) leads, (6) selection

of sources or affiliations, (7) selection of quotes, (8) pull quotes, (9) logos, (10) statistics, charts,

and graphs, and (11) concluding statements or paragraphs of articles (Tankard, 2001). Journalists

rely on frames to filter large amounts of information, determine what is important, and efficiently

communicate that information to their audiences (Gitlin, 1980). "The news frame organizes

everyday reality and the news frame is part and parcel of everyday reality... [it] is an essential

feature of news" (Tuchman, 1978, p. 193). Thus, how the media chooses to select and present

issues may impact how audience members interpret the event (Price, Tewksbury, & Powers,

1997).

Scheufele (1999) synthesized several approaches to framing research and developed a

process model of framing. This model divides framing into four processes: "frame building;

frame setting; individual-level effects of framing; and a link between individual frames and

media frames" (p. 114). The frame building process addresses how media frames are developed,

and Scheufele (1999) states that more research is needed to examine how journalists select

frames or make changes to existing frames. Specifically, more work is needed to determine what

individual characteristics, organizational factors, or external sources may influence how news

content is framed.

The frame setting process is similar to agenda setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) or more

specifically, second-level agenda setting (McCombs, Llamas, Lopez-Escobar, & Rey, 1997).

While agenda setting addresses the salience of issues through examination of the coverage and

placement of news events, second-level agenda setting is concerned with the salience of issue

attributes (McCombs et al., 1997). Second-level agenda setting refers to the tone of news

coverage and attributes given to issues or individuals. The emphasis given to the specific









attributes within news coverage connects this theoretical work to framing theory. McCombs

(1997) stated that "framing is the selection of a restricted number of thematically related

attributes for inclusion on the media agenda when a particular object is discussed" (p. 37).

Despite the similarities of framing and second-level agenda setting, Scheufele (2000) affirmed

that framing is a distinct theory because it deals with the subtle changes in wording that may

affect how the audience thinks about the topic, while agenda setting (including second-level

agenda setting) is based on the concept of attitude accessibility. Fazio (1989) defined attitude

accessibility along a continuum based on the strength of an association between an object in

memory and an individual's evaluation of that object. The media, through coverage or non-

coverage, have the ability to influence both the issue and attribute salience of topics, thereby

influencing attitude accessibility (Scheufele, 2000).

The individual-level effect of the framing process is concerned with behavioral, attitudinal,

and cognitive variables that influence the outcome of framing. Media frames have been found to

influence the amount of importance individuals' assign to covered issues (Nelson, Clawson, &

Oxley, 1997). Empirical work has described the effects of media framing on individual variables,

but has not provided explanation as to why or how the variables are connected. Iyengar (1991)

explored how "episodic" and "thematic" frames impact viewer's attributions of responsibility for

political issues, but it is unknown what role audience framing played in the framing process.

The link between individual and media frames relates to how journalists respond to the

frames utilized to describe events and issues. This aspect of the framing process is concerned

with the influence that existing frames such as those from sources, interest groups, and elites

have on journalists' use of frames (Scheufele, 1999). Through examination of crime news









coverage, Fishman (1980) found that journalists are susceptible to media frames in which a

frame first utilized by a small number of news media was soon adopted by other media.

In print or broadcast news, frames provide the "angle" for a story. News frames can

provide a theme or style that would appeal to the audience, and potentially influence opinions or

judgments of the news topic (Stone, Singletary, & Richmond, 1999). Price et al. (1997) stated

news frames can influence readers' opinions and thoughts because readers' cognitive responses

varied depending on how the news story was framed. Framing also influenced how readers

evaluated the presented messages by activating knowledge relevant to the frame. This finding

indicates that frames can act as prompts for what knowledge audience members need to utilize to

evaluate the message (Price et al., 1997).

News frames have been used and studied in a number of contexts such as politics (i.e.

Rhee, 1997; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000), violence (i.e. Husselbee & Elliot, 2002),

international news (i.e. Entman, 1991), and health (i.e. Lawrence, 2004). One of the areas of

research in which news frames have been shown to be particularly relevant is in the area of

scientific issues (Einsiedel, 1992; Nelkin, 1995; Trumbo, 1996). Empirical studies have explored

the frames present in news media coverage of nanotechnology (i.e. Stephens, 2005),

environmental risks (i.e. Griffin & Dunwoody, 1997; Anderson & Marhadour, 2007), genetics

(i.e. Ten Eyck & Williment, 2003), and agriculture (i.e. Ashlock, Cartmell, & Kelemen, 2006;

Ruth, Eubanks, & Telg, 2005).

Framing Biotechnology

Biotechnology is an area of science that has received a great deal of attention from

communication scholars. Prior to the 1970s, biotechnology referred to applications in food

processing and agriculture. Since that time, it has expanded to incorporate a broader definition of

biological research using laboratory techniques (Bunders, Haverkort, & Hiemstra, 1996). Beyond









agricultural and food science, biotechnology has been applied to medical, industrial, and

environmental uses.

A number of studies have been conducted to examine what types of frames are utilized in

mass media coverage of this topic. Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) found an increase in

agricultural biotechnology coverage in The New York Times and Newsweek from 1970 to 1999.

Despite a few cases of negative coverage, the overall tone was positive. Prominent frames

included "economic costs" and "scientific progress." A recent study of frames utilized in the

Washington Post, the Sunday Times, and the London Times found that medical biotechnology

was portrayed more approvingly than agricultural biotechnology. Although the researchers

identified benefits of agricultural biotechnology including health, environmental, social,

humanitarian, and economic, the media examined in their study utilized frames that emphasized

the risks associated with agricultural applications of biotechnology over the benefits (Marks et

al., 2007).

Gaskell et al. (1999) examined news coverage of agricultural biotechnology in the United

States and Europe and also found the dominant frames of "progress" and "economic prospect" as

well as a dominant theme of "health" regarding applications of agricultural biotechnology. In an

examination of how agricultural biotechnology was framed in German media from 1992 to 1999,

Kohring and Matthes (2002) discovered early emphasis on the economic, health, and

environmental advantages and disadvantages of biotechnology applications, which was defined

as the "Agri-Food: Pros & Cons" frame. Lundy and Irani (2004) examined U.S. and British print

media coverage of agricultural biotechnology, and identified several prominent frames:

contamination of the food supply, human risk, environmental risk, scientific progress, and world

hunger.









Priest and Ten Eyck (2003) analyzed news media coverage of biotechnology in the United

States, Canada, and 14 European countries. Eight prominent frames were identified: progress,

economic, ethical, Pandora's box, runaway technology, nature/nurture, public accountability, and

globalization. Several of these frames focused on presenting the benefits and risks of agricultural

biotechnology. The progress (or progressive) frame was the most identified frame in 11 of the

countries and was at least in the top three in all countries. When this frame was utilized, only 8%

of the articles mentioned the likelihood of a risk while 58% mentioned a potential benefit. The

economic frame was the third most popular frame overall. When it was identified as the

dominant frame in news coverage of biotechnology, 16% of the articles focused on the

likelihood of risks, while 48% mentioned benefits (Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003).

Framing and the Elaboration Likelihood Model

In the ELM, research regarding argument quality has explored the influence of utilizing

positively and negatively framed messages to encourage persuasion (Petty & Wegener, 1998).

Health communication research has investigated which message frames are most effective in

persuading individuals to change behavior and have focused on negative versus positive frames

(Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990) or benefits versus costs frames (Rothman & Salovey,

1997).

Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990) examined how a negative or positive message frame

influenced persuasion at different levels of issue involvement. The context of this study was a

preventative health issue (high cholesterol) and addressed how message frames and issue

involvement may jointly influence attitudes toward acceptance of an advocated behavior. Results

indicated that when respondents had low issue involvement, the positively framed message

arguments were more persuasive than negative message framing. Alternatively, when issue









involvement was high, respondents reported the negatively framed messages were more

persuasive (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990).

Donovan and Jalleh (2000) also explored the use of positively and negatively framed

persuasive messages in the context of attitudes toward immunization of infants. Respondents

with low-issue involvement were more persuaded through positive framing of messages,

consistent with the Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990) finding. However, no framing effect

was found for respondents with high levels of issue involvement indicating that either frame

choice would be equally successful in the persuasion process (Donovan & Jalleh, 2000).

These studies provide empirical support for the use of frames in the development of

persuasive communication; however, the use of positive versus negative frames may not always

be the most practical option in persuasive communication campaigns. In political persuasive

campaigns, issue framing is a fundamental component that influences attitudes and opinions.

Nelson and Oxley (1999) conducted two experiments to explore different frames for policy

problems (land development dispute and welfare reform). Drawing from discourse on the topics,

the frames utilized to present the land development dispute were "environmental preservation"

versus "economic growth." The second study with the welfare reform context used "personal

responsibility" versus "protecting children's well-being" issue frames. In both experiments, the

frame influenced opinions regarding the issue and significantly affected evaluations about the

importance of different beliefs for each policy area (Nelson & Oxley, 1999).

Lundy (2004) conducted another study of the influence of two positively valenced message

frames: "mutual benefit" and "moral norms." Findings indicated that the message frames

influenced cognitive processing, which may indicate a salience effect, but issue involvement and

need for cognition influenced attitudes more than the message frames alone (Lundy, 2004). More









research regarding how events are framed in the media can provide additional understanding of

how public opinion is guided and formed as a result of news coverage (Marks et al., 2007).

Agenda Setting and Priming

In addition to framing, agenda setting and priming are distinct communication theories that

share some similarities in the underlying cognitive process and effects (Weaver, 2007). Agenda

setting basically describes the media's ability to tell people what to think about through the

selection and coverage of certain issues or events (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The agenda-setting

hypothesis is related to cognitive psychology because it is concerned with the importance people

place on certain issues and how that salience is reached (Severin & Tankard, 1992). Funkhouser

(1973) found a strong relationship between the public's ranking of important issues and the

amount of coverage these issues received in the media. This finding supported the agenda-setting

hypothesis, but also raised a causal question of whether the media sets the public agenda or if the

public is setting the media agenda.

Agenda setting can be further divided into two levels. The "first level" of agenda setting is

concerned with the salience given to "objects," which have characteristics or attributes that

describe them. The "second level" of agenda setting emerged when more attention was given to

connecting agenda setting research with other communication theories such as framing

(McCombs, 2005). The similarity of second-level agenda setting and framing lies in the

emphasis on how issues are portrayed in the media rather than what issues are presented to a

greater or lesser extent (Weaver, 2007). Theoretically, agenda-setting focuses on which issues

are covered, while framing research studies how issues are reported (Tankard, 2001).

Whereas framing research investigates the selection and presentation of issues in the

media, priming research investigates the mental processing of information supplied via the mass

media (Stone et al., 1999). Iyengar and Kinder (1987) found that when evaluating political









candidates, people rely on heuristics and cognitive shortcuts. People use available knowledge to

make decisions or form opinions instead of actively thinking about all the information. The

media assists in priming through the emphasis on certain topics or issues that then "prime" the

public to form opinions.

Public Relations and Framing

Knight (1999) states that public relations practitioners already utilize framing as a tool

when writing news releases and developing internal communications. "Public relations

practitioners occupy positions ideally suited for framing issues in a way likely to advance both

public and organizational interests" (Knight, 1999, p. 384). When framing is used consistently

over time, these practitioners can help benefit the organizational goals and address complicated

social problems (Knight, 1999).

Public relations practitioners use news releases to provide information to the media, to

suggest story ideas, and give names of sources for use in news articles. Studies have found a

limited, but discernable, impact of public relations practitioners' ability to utilize frames to shape

the media's message (Barnett, 2005). More skillful crafting (i.e. framing) of messages from

organizations may influence how journalists frame news and the resulting public opinion.

"Framing may offer a way for public relations professionals to challenge journalistic narratives;

to present views ignored or derided by the mainstream press; to correct perceptions; and,

ultimately, to redefine issues for their publics" (Barnett, 2005, p. 358).

Framing is integral to the practice of public relations because "the establishment of

common frames of reference about topics or issues of mutual concern is a necessary condition

for effective relations to be established" (Hallahan, 1999, p. 207). Although framing research has

been increasing in popularity for several decades, little attention has been given to the role of

public relations as a source in news framing (Hallahan, 1999).









Dunwoody (1992) said the use of frames is crucial to journalists because they allow for

quick recognition and minimize mental effort. Public relations practitioners can assume the role

of "frame strategists who strive to determine how situations, attributes, choices, actions, issues,

and responsibility should be posed to achieve favorable outcomes for clients" (Hallahan, 1999, p.

224). When suggesting information for news, public relations professionals attempt to frame the

story to meet the news outlet's preferred framing. Skilled practitioners are able to package the

information in ways to meet the journalists' expectations for news value, content, and flow. In

turn, journalists attempt to present an issue using frames that will resonate with their perceptions

of the audience (Hallahan, 1999).

Summary

The review of literature outlined in this chapter provided an overview of research

regarding the persuasive communication process and specific application of the ELM. Current

gaps in knowledge illustrate a need to further explore how agricultural communicators can utilize

the ELM and framing theories to improve media coverage and public awareness of agricultural

biotechnology.









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Overview

As demonstrated in Chapters 1 and 2, the American public has a limited understanding of

agricultural issues, and the amount of people directly involved in agriculture and natural

resources continues to decrease. Without direct exposure to agriculture, the public will tend to

increase its reliance on news media reports for knowledge about pertinent agricultural science

issues. However, journalists' ability to report on scientific endeavors, including agricultural

scientific applications, is hampered due to a number of individual and organizational constraints.

To assist journalists who are reporting on complex agricultural topics, communicators need to

effectively provide messages to the media that contain newsworthy information in an easily

accessible format.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of message framing on: 1)

communicators' attitudes toward the argument quality, and, 2) likelihood to publish a specific

science application, agricultural biotechnology. To conduct this study, attitudes toward argument

quality were assessed within the framework of the ELM. Message framing has a rich research

history and has received some attention in connection with persuasive communication theories

such as the ELM. However, these empirical studies often present information using opposite

frames such as positive vs. negative or benefits vs. costs while situations exist where

communicators attempt to get positive messages in the media about agricultural issues or events.

Thus, more research is needed to explore the salience of positively valenced frames and the

influence on relevant attitudes or behaviors regarding these issues. Through investigation of how

message framing influences attitudes of argument quality and likelihood to publish science









related agricultural information, communicators will be better equipped to reach journalists, and

the broader public, with positively valenced messages.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The current study seeks to address the following research questions:

RQ1: When exposed to a specific positively valenced news frame, to what extent do issue
involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influence
communicators' attitudes toward argument quality of the message?

RQ2: When exposed to a specific positively valenced news frame, to what extent do issue
involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influence
communicators' likelihood to publish the information?


Based on the above research questions, the following research hypotheses were developed:

H1: Attitudes toward argument quality of a positively valenced message will differ
significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural
biotechnology, and message frame.

H2: Attitudes toward likelihood to publish information presented in a positively valenced
message will differ significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude
toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame.

H3: Subjects who are high in issue involvement and are presented with the scientific
progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than
those who are low in issue involvement and receive either the economics or health
frames.

H4: Subjects who have more positive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology
and are presented with the scientific progress frame will have more favorable
attitudes toward argument quality than those who have less positive attitudes toward
agricultural biotechnology and receive either the economics or health frames.

H5: For those who receive the scientific progress frame, subjects who are high
in issue involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argument
quality than subjects who are low in issue involvement.

H6: For those who receive the health frame, subjects who are low in issue
involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than
subjects who are high in issue involvement.

H7: A combination of issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural
biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in
attitudes toward argument quality.









H8: A combination of issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural
biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in
likelihood to publish the information.


Research Design

This study utilized a 2 (issue involvement: high and low) x 2 preexistingg attitude toward

agricultural biotechnology: more positive and less positive) x 3 (message frames: scientific

progress, economics, and health) between-subjects factorial quasi-experimental design. Subjects

were randomly assigned to receive one of three message frames using an online random number

generator. The experiment focused on determining whether an individual's issue involvement

and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, when provided with a specific message frame,

influenced resulting attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish agricultural

biotechnology news (Figure 3-1).

Preexisting Attitudes toward Argument Quality Likelihood to Publish
Agricultural Biotechnology High High
(more positive vs. less positive) '-A

Issue Involvement -----.....
(high vs. low) ,
-- Argument Quality Likelihood to Publish
Message Frame I Low Low
(health, economics, scientific
progress)

Figure 3-1. Operational framework for the current study.



A factorial design was chosen in order to determine the effect of two manipulated

independent variables on the dependent variables, and the interaction among the variables (Ary,

Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). In this posttest-only, randomized subject design quasi-experiment: R

= random assignment; 1 = posttest measures; Xi = scientific progress frame, high issue

involvement, and more positive attitude; X2 = scientific progress frame, high issue involvement,









and less positive attitude; X3 = scientific progress frame, low issue involvement, and more

positive attitude; X4 = scientific progress frame, low issue involvement, and less positive

attitude; X5 = economics frame, high issue involvement, and more positive attitude; X6 =

economics frame, high issue involvement, and less positive attitude; X7 = economics frame, low

issue involvement, and more positive attitude; X8 = economics frame, low issue involvement,

and less positive attitude; X9 = health frame, high issue involvement, and more positive attitude;

X1o = health frame, high issue involvement, and less positive attitude; X11 = health frame, low

issue involvement, and more positive attitude; and X12 = health frame, low issue involvement,

and less positive attitude. The group design is as follows:

R X1 O1

R X2 01

R X3 01

R X4 01

R X5 01

R X6 01

R X7 01

R X8 01

R X9 01

R Xio 01

R X11 01

R X12 01

The research design took into account a number of threats to internal and external validity.

Internal validity addresses the extent to which changes in the dependent variable can be









attributed to the independent variable(s) within an experimental situation. Ary et al. (2002)

outline a number of threats to internal validity. The post-test only research design of the current

study, combined with random assignment of subjects, addressed the threats of history,

maturation, protesting, regression, mortality, and selection-maturation interaction. Measuring

instruments can be a threat to internal validity. This threat was addressed by using a panel of

experts to establish face validity and pilot-testing the instrument for construct validity. The

messages were also developed using a panel of experts and two rounds of message testing. No

changes were made to the instrument during the timeframe of the experiment, which could have

introduced a threat to internal validity.

Other threats to internal validity are experimenter and subject effects. The use of an online

instrument reduced the experimenter effect because this reduced any influence of the

researcher's personal characteristics on subjects. Subject effects such as the Hawthorne effect

and John Henry effect were reduced because subjects completed the experiment in their own

setting, and although subjects were aware they were completing an online survey, they most

likely were not aware they were participating in an experiment due to the unobtrusive nature of

data collection. The final potential threat to internal validity was diffusion in which subjects in

one group may communicate with those in another group regarding the experiment. This threat

was addressed by not emphasizing that an experiment was being conducted or that people may

have received different message frames (Ary et al., 2002).

In addition to threats to internal validity, the research design also accounted for a number

of threats to external validity such as population validity, ecological validity, and validity of

operations (Ary et al., 2002). Population external validity addresses the ability to generalize the

results of a sample to a larger population. The target population for the current study includes









communicators in science and agricultural content areas. The experimentally accessible

population includes members of two professional organizations (explained in more detail below).

In the current study, it is possible to generalize from the study sample to the experimentally

accessible sample because all members of the organizations were included and randomly

assigned to message conditions (Christensen, 2001).

Ecological validity refers to the environment in which the research was done. This threat to

external validity was reduced because subjects completed the online instrument in their real

world environment instead of a laboratory setting (Ary et al., 2002; Christensen, 2001). The final

threat to external validity is the validity of operations, which was addressed by providing

operational definitions and details of the procedure to improve the likelihood that similar results

could be obtained in the future with different researchers or measurement procedures (Ary et al.,

2002).

Subjects

The population for this study includes communicators in both science and agricultural

science content areas who are members of the American Agricultural Editors Association

(AAEA) and the National Association of Science Writers (NASW). As of January 2008, AAEA

had 238 members classified as "active" who work on the editorial staff of agricultural

publications across the nation with an e-mail address contact. AAEA members who were

classified as "affiliate," "student," or "honorary" were not relevant to the study and were not

included in the sample. The 2007 NASW directory included the names of 2,181 individuals with

e-mail addresses. A thorough examination of these names indicated 1,167 people who were

listed as staff reporters, editors, and freelance journalists in the United States. This list does not

include research journal editors, retirees, university professors, or public information officers.

Previous studies with communicators and journalists indicate the need to over-sample in order to









reach an appropriate sample size based on poor response rates (Schmierbach, 2005). Therefore,

the accessible sample of all 237 members of AAEA and 1,167 members of NASW who fit the

sampling frame were included in the study for a total sample size of 1,404. From the initial e-

mail sent to all subjects, 164 (11.7%) were returned due to inaccessible addresses after two

attempts (23 from AAEA, 141 from NASW). This was determined to be an inaccessible group in

the sample. After removing the invalid addresses, the final accessible sample size was 1,240.

From this sample, 362 started the survey, but 54 had to be removed due to incomplete responses

resulting in a final response rate of 24.8% (n = 308). In respect to each organization, response

rates were 35.0% (n = 75) for AAEA and 21.0% (n = 215) for NASW. Eighteen respondents

included in the study (5.8%) said they did not belong to either organization although their contact

information was located in one of the membership directories.

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three message groups, which helped

mitigate the influence of extraneous variables. Random assignment improves internal validity

because each subject has an equal chance of being assigned to any group and any confounding

variables are distributed in the same way (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003). The groups differed by

the message frame scientific progress, economics, and health.

Message Stimuli

The experiment in this study was designed to test message stimuli. Subjects were randomly

assigned (with the use of a random number generator) to one of three messages about peanut

allergen research. The topic of the messages was based on actual research conducted at the

University of Florida and featured by the Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership

(STEP) Program. The researcher quoted in the message, Dr. Maria Gallo, assisted in the message

development and approved each version for accuracy. Each of the messages (see Appendix D)

was presented using a press release format with masthead, dateline, contact information (which









was left unassigned), Associated Press style, and the inverted pyramid style of news writing. The

purpose of the message was to look close enough to an actual press release without using an

actual contact person who might be contacted for additional information.

Each of the messages presented a frame, two of which were positively valenced (scientific

progress and economics) while the third acted as a conditional control (health). The conditional

control message was developed to contain factual information to resemble the way this type of

information is commonly presented. Identified as a dominant theme and benefit of agricultural

biotechnology applications (Gaskell et al., 1999; Marks et al., 2007), the health message

contained a human interest lead about someone with peanut allergies and continues with details

about the prevalence of this type of allergy, foods to avoid, and one quote from the researcher.

The headline read: "Recent study explores possibility of allergen-free peanuts." This frame did

not provide any specifics about the research process or future research endeavors.

The scientific progress frame has been identified as a dominant frame in news media

coverage of agricultural biotechnology (Gaskell et al., 1999; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002; Priest

& Ten Eyck, 2003; Lundy & Irani, 2004; Crawley, 2007). The message developed that utilized

this frame highlighted the research process and used keywords or phrases such as

"breakthrough," "paving a new path," "progress," "discovery," and "future investigation." The

message also featured step-by-step organization to highlight the research process. The headline

for this message read: "Scientific breakthrough may lead to allergen-free peanuts." The

researcher explained the research process and what the findings mean for future research.

Also identified as a dominant frame in news coverage of agricultural biotechnology

(Gaskell et al., 1999; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002; Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003; Crawley, 2007), the

economics frame emphasized the impact the development of allergen-free peanuts may have on









the peanut industry. The headline read: "Work on allergen-free peanuts may lead to substantial

economic growth for $800 million peanut industry." This message utilized a number of

keywords or phrases including "economics," "supply and demand," "sales," "growth," and

"peanut commodity market." The researcher provided her opinion about what this research may

mean for the peanut industry and how commodity representatives are involved in the research

project. All three messages were revised by a panel of experts and pre-tested with professional

communicators. A manipulation check was also included in the final instrument.

Message Stimuli Testing

To pre-test the message frames, 162 members of the Association for Communication

Excellence in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Life and Human Sciences (ACE) who are

involved in the Writing Special Interest Group (SIG) received one of three messages (see

Appendix B). ACE is a professional organization of communicators and information

technologists who work in a variety of positions for universities, government agencies, and

private companies. Members of the ACE Writing SIG were chosen due to their expertise and

experience in writing and editing press releases. Three messages were developed to exhibit a

health, economics, or scientific progress frame. In the first round of message testing, respondents

were asked to read a randomly assigned press release then list the main topic of the message. The

health frame was initially developed to serve as a conditional control so it was not provided as a

frame option. Following several more questions, respondents were provided with a list of

possible options to describe the frame: economics, scientific progress, neither, or don't know.

Less than half of the respondents correctly identified their assigned message frame (48.7%, n =

19). Using comments from the respondents, messages were further refined to be more distinct,

especially between the health and scientific progress frames.









In the second round of message testing, respondents were randomly assigned to receive

one of the three message treatments and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback regarding

the message topic or frame. Respondents were asked to select a provided message frame that

they would use to describe the press release: economics, scientific progress, health, or don't

know. The health frame was included as an option after the first round of message testing

indicated the possibility that respondents wanted to choose the "best" option instead of choosing

"neither." The messages showed improvement in testing with 73.5% (n = 25) of the respondents

selecting the correct message frame (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1. Frequency of Subjects Correctly Identifying the Message Frame
Main Frame of Message N %
Round 1 Economics 6 50.0
Scientific Progress 12 92.3
Control 1 .1
Total 19 48.7

Round 2 Economics 7 70.0
Scientific Progress 10 76.9
Health 8 72.7
Total 25 73.5

In the second round of message testing, respondents were asked to evaluate the argument

quality of the message using a 10-item index of attributes measuring on a semantic differential

scale. A one-way ANOVA found no significant difference between the three message frames

(F2,33 = .43, p = .66) indicating that the respondents found them to be the same in argument

quality regardless of the identified frame.

Independent Variables

This study has three independent variables one of which was manipulated. The message

frame was manipulated so as to specifically focus on the scientific progress, economics, or health

(the conditional control) frame. The other independent variables are issue involvement and









attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Issue involvement was not manipulated, but was

measured as a preexisting disposition using instrumentation to indicate whether a subject was

high or low in involvement. The final independent variable of attitude toward agricultural

biotechnology was also not manipulated. It was measured as a preexisting disposition for the

purposes of comparison.

Message Frame

For the purpose of the study, three press releases were prepared regarding the same

agricultural biotechnology news story about the development of an allergen-free peanut. This

context was selected because it is an area of biotechnology that includes both human and plant

aspects. The Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP) featured this research area

in its outreach endeavors.

Within the press releases, the key information was consistent in all versions, but certain

facts were emphasized or de-emphasized to utilize a specific frame. Manipulation checks during

a preliminary round of message testing were conducted to establish the messages as distinct and

identifiable by frame. As explained previously, the two treatment message frames (scientific

progress and economics) were selected based on a review of the literature (Gaskell et al., 1999;

Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002; Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003; Lundy & Irani, 2004; Crawley, 2007).

The conditional control frame (health) was selected because it has been identified as an

important theme in news media coverage of biotechnology (Gaskell et al., 1999) and benefit of

agricultural biotechnology (Marks et al., 2007).

Issue Involvement

Issue involvement affects the amount of importance and attention individuals give to a

persuasive message. The level of involvement influences what message elements (i.e. issue-

relevant arguments, peripheral cues, etc.) a message recipient attends to and what thoughts are









developed as a result of the persuasive message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). Issue involvement

was not purposively manipulated in this study although it is assumed that members of the two

organizations (AAEA and NASW) may have different levels of issue involvement. Two different

groups were used in order to ensure there would be some variation in issue involvement. Within

the context of this study, communicators who regularly cover issues related to agriculture or

agricultural biotechnology are hypothesized to have higher levels of issue involvement.

Conversely, individuals who do not report on agriculture or agricultural biotechnology issues

regularly will have less personal relevance or issue involvement.

This variable was measured using Zaichkowsky's (1994) Personal Involvement Inventory

for Advertising (PIIA) scale (cited in Bearden & Netemeyer, 1999). The 10-item PIIA scale was

adapted from Zaichkowsky's (1985) original 20-item Personal Involvement Inventory (PII)

scale. The purpose of the PII scale is to measure a person's perceived rational and emotional

relevance toward an advertisement or object through assessment of interests, values, and needs

(Zaichkowsky, 1985). The revised scale was selected apriori in an effort to minimize the time

needed to complete the entire instrument. The PIIA presents an individual with the product of

research interest followed by 10 semantic differential items, each measured on a 7-point scale (a

5-point scale was used in the current study). The opposing adjectives include items such as

"Important" versus "Unimportant" and "Irrelevant" versus "Relevant." Individuals then indicate

the level of personal relevance to the object by marking along the 7-point scale for each semantic

differential item. The PIIA scale has a reported reliability alpha coefficient ranging from .68 to

.95 with a unidimensional structure in factor analysis (Zaichkowsky, 1994).

Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology

Two separate indices were used to measure the third independent variable of attitudes

toward agricultural biotechnology. On the first measure, respondents indicated their attitude to









the statement: "I feel agricultural biotechnology is." This index used a five-point semantic

differential scale with six bipolar adjective pairs: foolish/wise, wrong/right,

unacceptable/acceptable, unfavorable/favorable, bad/good, and negative/positive. Wood (2006)

adapted this index from Burgoon, Cohen, Miller, and Montgomery (1978) to determine attitude

toward agricultural biotechnology with an alpha reliability coefficient of .95.

The second attitude index included seven belief statements derived from an original 20-

item list of arguments and counterarguments utilized by Wood (2006). Respondents were asked

to indicate their level of agreement from strongly disagree to strongly agree to each of the belief

statements. No alpha reliability coefficient was provided in the original study for the 20-item

index.

In addition to preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, respondents also

indicated their attitude toward the message topic (peanut allergen research) after receiving the

message treatment. This variable was measured using the same six-item semantic differential

index used to gather preexisting beliefs.

Dependent Variables

Argument Quality

Petty and Cacioppo (1986) outline several subconstructs of argument quality including

believability, comprehensibility, complexity, credibility, and familiarity of the message.

Argument quality is often manipulated in studies of persuasive messages, but in the current study

this construct is utilized to provide an objective measure of newsworthiness, which is a

subjective measure of news quality. To measure attitudes toward argument quality, a 10-item

semantic differential scale was utilized to measure subjects' perceptions of the issue-relevant

arguments within the message they received. Seven of the items were adapted from a 10-item

index Lundy (2004) utilized to measure argument quality attributes, which was adapted from









several scales (Beltramini, 1982; Thorson, Christ, & Caywood, 1991). These attributes were

presented on a semantic differential scale to determine whether messages are perceived as

believable, high quality, convincing, credible, reasonable, conclusive, and accurate. The

remaining three items were taken from Schmierbach's (2005) index of newsworthiness based on

journalists' rating of timeliness, significance, and relevance to readers. This 3-item index had an

alpha of .80. Combining the two indices created a 10-item semantic differential index to measure

the dependent variable of attitudes toward argument quality. By utilizing attitudes toward

argument quality as a determinant of newsworthiness, this study seeks to provide a more

objective measure of newsworthiness when communicators are presented with a positively

valenced news frame.

Likelihood to Publish

To assess the likelihood a newspaper would publish a story based on information in a press

releases, Schmierbach (2005) used a 2-item 10-point scale that asked how likely respondents

would be to write a story based on the press release and how likely they would be to use a wire

story based on the information in the press release. The scores on these items were then averaged

to develop an index about the likelihood a newspaper would publish a story based on the

information (Cronbach's alpha = .72). These questions were adjusted in the current study to

utilize a 5-point scale and an additional question was added to determine the likelihood a

respondent would be to seek out a source to write or publish a story.

Attribute Variables

In order to improve the generalizability of research findings, several attribute variables

were included in the factorial design (Ary et al., 2002). These variables included age, gender,

education, years as a professional in the communications field, position title, type of news

publication, circulation of publication, and need for cognition. Need for cognition was measured









using the 18-item Need for Cognition Scale (NCS) with one item removed to improve the

reliability coefficient alpha (Cacioppo et al., 1984).

Instrumentation

The instrumentation for this study was distributed via an online survey using

SurveyMonkey, which is an online tool used to create, deliver, and analyze online survey

questionnaires. Online or Web surveys are the latest development in survey research as they

become more frequently utilized. Web surveys are more common due to an increased familiarity

and adoption of computers for everyday use as well as increased Internet access. Computer

hardware and software make online surveys easier to construct and less expensive to conduct

(Dillman, 2007).

Instrument Pilot Test

To determine the instrument's reliability and validity, it was pilot tested in April 2008 with

a sample (n = 111) of media representatives within the state of Florida who were not members of

either AAEA or NASW. Thirty-seven surveys were completed for a 33% response rate.

Prior to disseminating the survey, it was reviewed by a panel of experts for face and

content validity. Construct validity was established through the logical approach, which

measures each concept within a theory using a set of questions. These questions are piloted and

only those with high reliability are used in the final instrument (Black, 1999). Using SPSS 16.0

for WindowsTM, item analysis statistics were run to determine the construct validity of each of

the scales measuring concepts of interest. In the social sciences, a reliability coefficient of .80 or

larger indicates an index is well-constructed and relatively precise (Traub, 1994). This data

analysis indicated several necessary changes to the instrument before final distribution.

The 10-item issue involvement index measuring reporting on food and natural resource

issues had an alpha reliability coefficient of .89. One item had a corrected item-total correlation









of .37 and was removed from the index. The final version 9-item scale had a reliability alpha of

.89 (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2. The PIIA Scale Used to Measure Issue Involvement
I feel that reporting on food and natural resource issues is...
Important* 1 2 3 4 5 Unimportant
Boring 1 2 3 4 5 Interesting
Relevant* 1 2 3 4 5 Irrelevant
Exciting* 1 2 3 4 5 Unexciting
Means Nothing to MAe 1 2 3 4 5 Means A Lot To Me
Appealing* 1 2 3 4 5 Unappealing
Fascinating* 1 2 3 4 5 Mundane
Worthless 1 2 3 4 5 Valuable
Involving* 1 2 3 4 5 Uninvolving
Not Needed 1 2 3 4 5 Needed
Note: *Item is reverse coded. Strikethrough indicates item was removed in final instrument.

To measure pre-existing attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, two separate indices

were piloted. The 6-item index had an alpha reliability of .97 so all items were kept in the final

version. The 8-item index had an alpha reliability of .79. One item had a corrected item-total

correlation of .37 and was removed. As show in Table 3-3, the final version used a 7-item index

with an alpha reliability coefficient of .80.

Table 3-3. The Scale Used to Measure Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology
Biot ch foods ar e being forced on U.S. consumers.*
Both large and small farmers reap economic benefits from agricultural biotechnology.
Agricultural biotechnology lacks adequate testing.*
Agricultural biotechnology is natural. The process is just faster and more precise than traditional
plant breeding.
Biotech foods are in development that will improve human health.
Agricultural biotechnology will help to feed the world's rapidly expanding population.
Biotech crops improve water quality, requiring fewer chemicals than traditional crops.
Biotech foods pose unforeseen health risks.*
Note: *Item is reverse coded. Strikethrough indicates item was removed in final instrument.
Items measured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

Attitude about the message topic, peanut allergen research, was measured using the same

6-item semantic differential index as preexisting attitudes toward biotechnology. This index had









an alpha reliability of .95 so all items were retained for the final version. Argument quality was

measured with a 10-item index that had an alpha reliability of .88. Seven of the items were

drawn from Lundy (2004) while the remaining three were added from Schmierbach's (2005)

study of newsworthiness. All of the items were retained in the final version. Intent to publish the

information contained in the message was measured using a 3-item index with an alpha

reliability coefficient of .94. All items had to be retained for the final version to be loaded as an

index. The final index utilized in the instrument was need for cognition, which was measured

using 18-items. The full index had an alpha reliability of .88, which was improved to .91 by

dropping one item (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4. The Scale Used to Measure Need for Cognition
1. I would prefer complex to simple problems.
2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.*
3. Thinking is not my idea of fun.*
4. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to
challenge my thinking abilities.*
5- I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely change I will have to think in
depth about something.*
6. I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours.
7. I only think as hard as I have to.*
8. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.*
9. I like tasks that require little though once I've learned them.*
10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me.
11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
12. Learning new ways to think doesn't excite me very much.*
13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.
14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
15. I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat
important buy does not require much thought.
16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental
effort. *
17. It's enough for me that something gets the job done; I don't care how or why it works.*
18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.
Note: *Item is reverse coded. Strikethrough indicates item was removed in final instrument.
Items measured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.









Instrument Content


The survey was the same for all subjects except for a randomly assigned link to three

different versions of the message stimuli (Appendix D), which were presented as Adobe

Acrobat Portable Document Files. The instrument (Appendix C) was developed as a series of

pages to minimize scrolling and was comprised of the following elements:

* Page 1 included the informed consent procedure and online instructions for enabling
JavaScript and cookies, which are necessary to access the online survey in SurveyMonkey.
This information was provided to overcome any technical difficulties respondents may
have encountered.

* Page 2 included three demographic questions asking participants if they were members of
AAEA or NASW, their current position title, and what type of news organization they
work for. These questions were included at the beginning because they were deemed
crucial for data analysis.

* Page 3 included the 9-item Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising Scale to
measure issue involvement to the statement: "I feel that reporting on food and natural
resource issues is."

* Page 4 included the first of two indices to measure attitudes toward agricultural
biotechnology. The instructions asked respondents to indicate their attitude to the
statement "I feel agricultural biotechnology is" on a series of six bipolar adjective
statements.

* Page 5 included the second index to measure attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology.
This index asked respondents to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with seven
belief statements.

* Page 6 included a link to the randomly assigned message stimuli and instructions for the
subjects to read the message carefully at least twice. The message appeared in a separate
window as an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document File.

* Page 7 included six comment boxes that allowed respondents to provide their thoughts
after reading the message. Questions then asked respondents how important the message
was to them personally (measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = not at all important
and 5 = very important) and how motivated they were to read the message (measured on a
5-point Likert scale with 1 = not at all motivated and 5 = very motivated). Another
question asked respondents to identify the dominant frame or theme in the message as
health, economics, scientific progress, or don't know. The final question on this page
asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement (on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 =
strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) to the statement: "I believe this press release is
newsworthy."









* Page 8 included an attitude index to measure attitudes toward the message topic of peanut
allergen research. The instructions asked respondents to indicate their attitude to the
statement "I feel peanut allergen research is" on a series of six bipolar adjective statements.

* Page 9 included the attitudes toward argument quality index comprised of 10 bipolar
adjective statements to measure newsworthiness.

* Page 10 included a three-item index to measure respondents' intent to publish the
information contained in the message stimuli. Subjects were asked to indicate 1) how
likely they were to utilize the information in the message, 2) if they saw this story on the
AP wire service, how likely they would be to publish, and 3) how likely they would be to
seek out a source to write or publish a story based on information in the message. These
questions were measured using a 5-item Likert scale with 1 = highly unlikely and 5 =
highly likely. This index also included a "Not Applicable" response option. The final
question on this page asked subjects what their perceived method for receiving a press
release was.

* Page 11 included the 17-item need for cognition scale, which was measured using a 5-
point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

* Page 12 was the final page of the survey and included additional demographic questions:
year born, gender, highest level of education, years working in the communications field,
and publication's circulation. Respondents were also able to provide additional comments
about the survey.

Procedure

To conduct the study, subjects were sent an e-mail with a link to a randomly assigned

message treatment. The message treatment was embedded in a news release about agricultural

biotechnology in the area of peanut allergen research. The experimental manipulation was based

on how the news release is framed scientific progress, economics, or health as the conditional

control. A manipulation check within the instrument determined respondents were able to

identify a dominant message frame. Following the framed message, respondents completed a

thought-listing measure (Brock, 1967; Greenwald, 1968) in which they recorded any thoughts

the message elicited. These thoughts were then coded as favorable, unfavorable or neutral toward

the message (Cacioppo, Harkins, & Petty, 1981).









Administration of the survey followed Dillman's (2007) Tailored Design Method with

adjustment for an online questionnaire instead of the traditional mail questionnaire. A pre-notice

letter was mailed to the sample a few days before they were sent online directions for the survey

(see Appendix A). This helped improve perceptions of importance and make the respondents

aware of the upcoming e-mail. The letter also included the URL address for the online survey

and the subjects' e-mail address where the survey would be sent. This provided respondents an

opportunity to access the survey immediately as well as to inform the researcher of any mistake

in the provided e-mail address. The actual instrument was then delivered to the sample through

an e-mail link to the questionnaire with a randomly assigned treatment or control message frame

(see Appendix B-2). This e-mail again emphasized why the respondent's feedback was important

and provided incentive to participate in the study. The informed consent process was provided on

the first page of the survey instrument. Two weeks after the initial pre-notice letter was mailed, a

reminder e-mail with a link to the questionnaire was distributed (see Appendix B-l). A final

reminder e-mail was sent 10 days after the first reminder to encourage participation (Dillman,

2007).

Data Analyses

Data analysis for this study was completed using SPSS 16.0 for WindowsTM PC.

Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used as an internal-consistency measure of reliability. This

measure is used with Likert type questions when a score can take on a range of values (Ary et al.,

2002). Three-way and two-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to address the

research hypotheses. Black (1999) states that this design can be more comprehensive in its

examination of the main factors and possible interactions. This statistical procedure is more

economical than other one-way designs and features the same amount of power. This type of









data analysis enhances external validity by making it possible to generalize to realistic settings

(Black, 1999).

Additional analysis of the hypotheses utilized multiple linear regression to further explore

the relationship between each dependent variable and the independent variables. The coefficient

of multiple determination (R2) was used to explain the difference in each dependent variable

attributed to the independent variables. Finally, factor analysis procedures were utilized in post

hoc analysis to examine groups of questions and their suitability to develop several indexes

(Black, 1999).









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Overview

Utilizing the ELM and framing theory, the purpose of this study was to determine the

effect of message framing on: 1) communicators' attitudes toward the argument quality, and, 2)

likelihood to publish information regarding a specific science application. In this research, the

message was about the application of agricultural biotechnology to develop an allergen-free

peanut. The information was delivered via an online press release format to members of the

American Agricultural Editors Association (AAEA) and the National Association of Science

Writers (NASW). Guided by the ELM and research hypotheses, the key three independent

variables were preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, issue involvement, and

message frame. The two dependent variables of interest were attitudes toward argument quality

and likelihood to publish the information within the press release message.

This chapter provides an analysis of the data beginning with sample demographics, then

moves to analysis of the variables of interest, which include issue involvement with reporting

food and natural resource issues, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and

attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish. Next, the chapter continues with a

discussion of scale reliabilities utilized to develop the indexes that measure the independent and

dependent variables. This is followed by an overview of manipulation checks, then tests of the

hypotheses are provided. The chapter concludes with a series of post hoc analyses.

Descriptive Analysis

Using online survey development and administration software, the 77-item questionnaire

was administered to the accessible sample of 237 members of AAEA and 1,167 members of

NASW who fit the sampling frame for a total sample size of 1,404. After removing the invalid e-









mail addresses, the final accessible sample size was 1,240 and 308 questionnaires were

completed for a 24.8% response rate. The response rate for AAEA was 35.0% (n = 75) and

NASW had a 21.0% (n = 215) response rate.

Potential Error

Dillman (2007) describes four types of error that can occur when conducting surveys:

sample, coverage, measurement, and nonresponse. Sampling error is created when a proportion,

and not all, of the population is sampled. To address this possibility, all members of the

population who met the guidelines of the sampling frame were included in the study. The next

type of error that can occur is coverage error, which is possible when the list used to draw the

sample does not include all members of the population. The current study does have a limitation

due to coverage error because the sample included only members of the organizations who had

e-mail addresses listed in the membership directories. Those members who did not have e-mail

addresses were not included in the accessible sample and may have differences from those in the

study.

Measurement error, the third type of survey error, occurs when the questionnaire is poorly

constructed or questions are difficult for the sample to answer. To address this potential error, a

panel of experts was used to establish face validity and the instrument was pilot tested to develop

construct validity. The final type of error is nonresponse error, which happens when a significant

portion of the sample does not respond to the survey and may be different than those who do

respond (Dillman, 2007). The current study had a final response rate of 24.8% and falls within

the range of response rates reported in previous studies that have surveyed journalists or

communicators using online instruments (Arant & Anderson, 2001; Cassidy, 2005; Chung, Kim,

Trammell, Porter, 2007). To account for potential nonresponse bias, early responders were

compared to late responders on key demographic characteristics including organization









membership, current position title, type of news organization for which they work, gender, age,

education, years working in the communications field, and their publication's circulation.

Early responders (n = 250) were defined as those who completed the survey prior to the

first reminder e-mail. Late responders (n = 58) were those who completed the survey after the

first or second follow-up e-mail. In a study with NASW members, Yun and Trumbo (2000)

found that 80% of responses to an e-mailed survey were collected within three days of sending

the initial e-mail demonstrating a similar skew toward early responses.

Chi-square statistics compared the early and late responders on a number of demographic

characteristics (Table 4-1) and an independent samples t-test compared the groups on age (Table

4-2) to determine if the proportion of responders in the early and late categories were

significantly different. No significant difference was found between early and late responders on

gender, education, years in communication profession, position, several news organization

categories, publication circulation, and age. Results indicated a significant difference between

the responder groups in terms of membership (p value = .05) and those who work in a

communication department (p value = .03). As anticipated, the difference between the

membership categories may be attributed to how salient the research topic was to individuals.

These two groups were chosen to ensure some variation in issue involvement and AAEA

members may have found the topic of peanut allergen research to be more closely related to their

interests.

The other significant difference between the early and late responder groups was those

who worked in communication departments with many more replying earlier than later. This

difference may be because responders could identify themselves in more than one category of









news organization. These differences in responder groups do introduce a limitation to the study


and a potential nonresponse bias.

Table 4-1. Characteristics of Early and Late Survey Respondents


Membership


American
Agricultural Editors'
Association
National Association
of Science Writers


Early
Respondents
N %

66 28.1


Late
Respondents
N %


9 16.4 3.19


71.9 46 83.6


105 44.3
132 55.7


41.8
58.2


.11 .43


Education


Years in
Communication
Profession


Position Title


Some college to
bachelor's degree
Graduate or
professional degree

Less than 3 years
3-5 years
6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years
More than 20 years


Freelance
Writer for single
publication
Editor for single
publication
Public relations
practitioner
President or owner
Other


97 40.6 22 38.6

142 59.4 35 61.4


2.9
11.7


30 12.6


.08 .45


2.12


10 17.5


30 12.6 7 12.3

25 10.5 8 14.0

119 49.8 24 43.9


136 55.1
25 10.1

45 18.2

7 2.8


66.7
10.5


6.57


8 14.0

3 5.3


1.2
12.6


X2 p
value


Gender


Male
Female











Table 4-1. Continued


Early
Respondents


News
Organization





News
Organization


Publication
Circulation


Daily newspaper
Weekly newspaper
Weekly magazine
Monthly magazine


Online journalism
Broadcast journalism
Communication
department
Public relations


Less than 19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000-74,999
More than 75,000
Work for more than
one publication
Other


N
29
20
22
123


104
16
31


%
11.6
8.0
8.8
49.2


41.6
6.4
12.4


Late
Respondents
N %
5 8.6
2 3.4
7 12.1
29 50.0


29.3
23.8
3.4


12 4.8 3 5.2 .01 .56


7.6
6.8
5.9
17.4
55.5


16 6.8


4 7.1
1 1.8
2 3.6
3 23.2
12 57.1

4 6.8


Table 4-2. Independent Samples T-Test to Compare Age of Early and Late Survey
Respondents


Early
Responders
Mean SD
Age 49.63 13.40


Late
Responders
Mean SD
51.28 11.87


df p value
281 .41


Additional comparison of the early and late responders utilized independent samples t-tests

to compare the two responder groups' scores on the independent variables of issue involvement


p
value


.43
1.47
.59
.01


2.98
.37
3.94


3.28









and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. As shown in Table 4-3, no significant

differences were indicated.

Table 4-3. Independent Samples T-Test for Significant Differences Between Early and Late
Respondents
Early Respondents Late Respondents
N Mean SD N Mean SD p
t df
value
Issue Involvement 235 4.24 .56 54 4.22 .52 .34 287 .74

Preexisting Attitudes 243 3.98 .84 55 3.85 .84 1.05 296 .29
toward Agricultural
Biotechnology

Demographics

Demographic characteristics collected in the survey included: gender, age, education, years

working in the communications field, organization membership (AAEA or NASW), type of

news organization, current position title, and publication circulation (Table 4-4). Several

demographic questions have missing responses because they were included at the end of the

instrument and some respondents did not complete the survey in its entirety. Descriptive analysis

indicated 164 female respondents (53.2%) and 128 male respondents (41.6%). Respondents'

ages ranged from 22 to 85 years old with a mean age of 49.9 years.

The majority of respondents had a graduate or professional degree (57.5%, n = 177) and

37.7% (n = 116) had at least a four-year bachelor's degree. Three (1.0%) responded that they had

at least some college. Nearly half of the respondents (46.8%, n = 144) had worked as a

professional in the communications field for more than 20 years. The remaining respondents

exhibited a range of years of experience from less than three years (2.9%, n = 9), three to five

years (10.7%, n = 33), six to 10 years (13.0%, n = 40), 11 to 15 years (12.0%, n = 37), and 16 to

20 years (10.7%, n = 33).









Seventy-five respondents were members of AAEA (24.4%) and 215 respondents (69.8%)

were members of NASW. The remaining respondents (5.8%, n = 18) indicated they were not

members of either organization, introducing some potential for coverage error. At the time the

study was conducted, the most current membership directories were utilized to develop the

sample. However, these respondents may have chosen to leave the organizations since the

directories were made available.

Respondents worked for a variety of news organizations and could choose more than one

response due to the possibility of freelance writers working with a number of clients. The

greatest number of respondents worked for a monthly magazine (49.4%, n = 152). The next

highest category was online publication (39.3%, n = 121) followed by a daily newspaper (11.0%,

n = 34), communication division/department (10.7%, n = 33), weekly magazine (9.4%, n = 29),

weekly newspaper (7.1%, n = 22), broadcast (6.8%, n = 21), and public relations (4.9%, n = 15).

In addition, 95 respondents (30.8%) provided "other" responses including freelance, quarterly

magazines, non-profit organizations, and book publishers.

Respondents worked in a variety of positions, but the majority (58.4%, n = 180) described

themselves as freelance writers who work for more than one client. Other positions represented

in the sample included: editor for single publication (17.2%, n = 53), writer for single publication

(10.1%, n = 31), public relations practitioner (3.2%, n = 10), or president or owner (1.3%, n = 4).

Positions in the "other" category were identified as broadcast journalist (1.9%, n = 6), editor for

several publications (1.3%, n = 4), working in a communication division as a writer or editor

(1.0%, n = 3), multimedia developer (.6%, n = 2), and the remaining 11 respondents' positions

(3.6%) were those who perform a variety of tasks that could not be labeled with one position title

or had unique titles that could not be categorized.









The final demographic characteristic collected was circulation of publication. Due to the

large percentage of respondents who were freelance writers, the majority of respondents (52.9%,

n = 163) could not provide a circulation number. The remaining respondents worked for

publications with more than 75,000 (17.5%, n = 54), followed by publications with less than

19,999 circulation (7.5%, n = 23), circulation of 20,000-49,999 (5.5%, n = 17), and circulation of

50,000-74,999 (5.2%, n = 16). Respondents in the "other" category worked for online

publications (1.3%, n = 4) or broadcast radio or television (1.0%, n = 3). Five respondents

(1.6%) said they did not know or could not provide this information. The remaining respondents

(2.3%, n = 7) said the question was not applicable or provided numbers that could not be

identified as online, viewership, or circulation.

Table 4-4. Characteristics of Survey Respondents
N %
Membership American Agricultural Editors' Association 75 24.4
National Association of Science Writers. 215 69.8
Neither 18 5.8


Gender Male 128 41.6
Female 164 53.2


Education Some college to bachelor's degree 119 38.6

Graduate or professional degree 177 57.5


Years in Less than 3 years 9 2.9
Communication
Communication 3-5 years 33 10.7
Profession
6-10 years 40 13.0
11-15 years 37 12.0
16-20 years 33 10.7
More than 20 years 144 46.8










Table 4-4. Continued


N %


Position Title







Position Title










News
Organization


Publication
Circulation


Freelance
Writer for single publication
Editor for single publication
Public relations practitioner


President or owner
Broadcast journalist
Multimedia
Communication division writer or editor
Editor for several publications
Other


Daily newspaper
Weekly newspaper
Weekly magazine
Monthly magazine
Online journalism
Broadcast journalism
Communication department
Public relations
Other


Less than 19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000-74,999
More than 75,000
Work for more than one publication
Online


Broadcast
Don't Know
Other


58.4
10.1
17.2
3.2


1.3
1.9
.6
1.0
1.3
3.6


11.0
7.1
9.4
49.4
39.3
6.8
10.7
4.9
30.8


7.5
5.5
5.2
17.5
52.9
1.3
1.0
1.6
2.3









In addition to demographic characteristics, respondents were asked to provide their

preferred method for receiving press releases. The majority of respondents prefer online

methods, specifically e-mail (71.8%, n = 221), websites (13.3%, n = 41), and RSS feeds (1.9%, n

= 6). Only 5.5% (n = 17) prefer receiving press releases via mail and no respondents indicated

fax as a preferred method. In addition, seven (2.3%) respondents said they do not want to receive

press releases.

Issue Involvement

Issue involvement was measured using Zaichkowsky's (1994) Personal Involvement

Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) scale (cited in Bearden & Netemeyer, 1999). The 10-item PIIA

scale was adjusted to 9-items after pilot testing revealed improvement of the reliability alpha by

removing one item. Using a 5-point semantic differential scale, respondents indicated their

response to each item. In order to test the research hypotheses, a mean split was conducted to

establish two groups (high and low) based on average issue involvement scores. The mean for

this scale was 4.24 resulting in 141 low issue involvement respondents (M = 3.78, SD = .42) and

148 high issue involvement respondents (M = 4.67, SD = .22). An independent samples t-test

indicated a significant difference between the two groups' issue involvement scores (t = -22.84, p

= .00).

Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology

To determine preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology respondents indicated

their response to "I feel agricultural biotechnology is..." using six bipolar adjectives

(foolish/wise, unacceptable/acceptable, unfavorable/favorable, wrong/right, bad/good,

negative/positive) on a 5-point scale. Responses were then summed and averaged to develop the

attitude scale. Respondents were classified as more positive or less positive in their average

attitude responses using a mean split of 3.96, resulting in 115 less positive attitude respondents









(37.3%) and 183 more positive attitude respondents (59.4%). An independent samples t-test

indicated a significant difference between the two groups' attitude scores (t = -25.65, p = .00).

The mean response for the less positive group was 3.08 (SD = .52) while the mean response for

the more positive group was 4.51 (SD = .43). Further exploration of the data indicated no

significant difference in attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology between high and low issue

involvement respondents (t = -1.53, p value = .13).

Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements

Following the six-item scale to determine preexisting attitudes toward agricultural

biotechnology, respondents were asked a series of seven belief statements regarding agricultural

biotechnology. Using a 5-point Likert scale, respondents indicated their agreement to each

statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Subjects gave the belief statement,

"Agricultural biotechnology will help to feed the world's rapidly expanding population," the

highest overall mean of 3.82 (SD = .96). The lowest mean was 2.85 (SD = 1.11) for the belief

statement, "Agricultural biotechnology is natural. The process is just faster and more precise

than traditional plant breeding." Table 4-5 displays the means for each statement organized by

high and low issue involvement. Independent samples t-tests to compare the responses for high

and low issue involvement respondents found no significant differences on any of the belief

statements.

Attitudes Toward Message Topic

After reading the randomly assigned message treatment, respondents were asked a series of

questions to determine their attitude regarding the message topic about peanut allergen research.

Respondents were asked to indicate their response to "I feel peanut allergen research is..." using

six bipolar adjectives on a 5-point Likert scale. The response categories were the same as those

used to determine preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Responses were









summed and averaged to develop the attitude scale. The mean score was 4.36 (SD = .70)

indicating more positive attitudes overall toward the message topic.

Table 4-5. Agreement with Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements
High Issue Low Issue
Involvement Involvement
N Mean SD N Mean SD


Both large and small farmers reap
economic benefits from agricultural
biotechnology.

Agricultural biotechnology lacks
adequate testing.*

Agricultural biotechnology is natural.
The process is just faster and more
precise than traditional plant breeding.

Biotech foods are in development that
will improve human health.

Agricultural biotechnology will help to
feed the world's rapidly expanding
population.

Biotech crops improve water quality,
requiring fewer chemicals than traditional
crops.

Biotech foods pose unforeseen health
risks.*

Scores based on Likert scale with 1 = stroi
reverse coded.


148 3.28 1.13



147 2.98 1.10



148 2.86 1.13



148 3.72 .91



148 3.81 1.07



148 3.44 .96


147 2.91

ngly disagree and


141 3.40


141 2.96 1.01



141 2.86 1.12


141 3.71



140 3.89



140 3.48


.97 141

5 = strongly agree.


2.99

*Item was


Likelihood to Publish

Respondents were asked a series of three questions to measure the likelihood the

information within the message would be published. The items used a 5-point Likert scale with 1

being highly unlikely and 5 being highly likely with an option to respond "not applicable." Table

4-6 displays the descriptive statistics for the individual statements. The scores for these questions









were then summed and averaged to create the likelihood to publish index. Overall, the mean

score for this index was 2.48 (SD = 1.26) indicating a low intent to publish the information

contained in the message.

Table 4-6. Descriptive Statistics for Likelihood to Publish
N Number of
N a b Mean SD
not applicable


How likely would you be to 274 29 2.32
utilize the information in the
press release to write or
publish a story?

If you saw this story on the 244 59 2.51
AP wire service, how likely
would you be to publish the
information?
How likely would you be to 270 33 2.63
seek out a source to write or
publish a story based on the
information in the press
release?
Scores based on Likert scale with 1 = highly unlikely and 5 = highly likely.


1.37


1.36




1.40


Need for Cognition

For the purposes of the current study, need for cognition (NFC) was evaluated as an

attribute variable. The original 18-item scale was adjusted to 17 items following pilot testing,

which revealed an improvement in Cronbach's alpha with the deletion of one item. Respondents

indicated their agreement to the 17 items on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 indicated strongly

disagree and 5 indicated strongly agree. Due to the length of this index and its placement at the

end of the instrument, it was not completed by all respondents (273 subjects completed the

index). Average NFC scores ranged from 1.82 to 5.00 with a mean score of 3.95. For the purpose

of describing respondents, a mean split was used to categorize respondents as high or low in

need for cognition, which resulted in 146 (47.4%) low need for cognition respondents who









scored below the mean and 127 (41.8%) high need for cognition respondents who scored at or

above the mean. An independent samples t-test indicated a significant difference between the

two groups (t = -20.38, p = .00).

The ELM Scales

Within the framework of the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), several scales were utilized

to determine the underlying constructs of issue involvement, attitudes toward argument quality,

and need for cognition. The current study used issue involvement and attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology as independent variables while attitudes toward argument quality was

a dependent variable. Need for cognition was an attribute variable that was not included in the

hypothesis testing process.

Issue Involvement Scale

In the current study, issue involvement was measured using Zaichkowsky's (1994)

Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) scale (cited in Bearden & Netemeyer,

1999). Following pilot testing, the 10-item PIIA scale was adjusted to nine items to improve the

reliability alpha. Using a 5-point semantic differential scale, respondents indicated their response

to each of the nine items. The scale had a range of standard deviations from .52 to .96

demonstrating some variance in the data for this scale. The discrimination index for the items

included in the issue involvement scale (Table 4-7) showed the corrected item-total correlation

ranged from .44 to .73. The corrected item-total correlation measures the correlation between

each item and the overall summated index score. The alpha reliability coefficient for the entire

index was a = .87 and would not be improved by removing any item. Therefore, the grand mean

for the issue involvement scale was 4.24 (SD = .55).










Table 4-7. Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) Scale Inter-item
Consistency Statistics


Mean

Important/Unimportant* 4.76

Boring/Interesting 4.26

Relevant/Irrelevant* 4.70

Exciting/Unexciting* 3.61

Appealing/Unappealing* 3.92

Fascinating/Mundane* 3.70

Worthless/Valuable 4.64

Involving/Uninvolving 3.82

Not needed/Needed 4.74

Scores based on semantic differential scale with
was reverse coded. Valid N = 289.


SD

.54

.90

.70

.92

.88

.96

.57

.93

.52

1 = imp


Corrected Item- Alpha if Ite
Total Correlation Deleted

.48

.66

.44

.73

.73

.72

.56

.69

.52

ortant and 5 = unimportant. *Item


Attitudes Toward Argument Quality

Attitudes toward argument quality were measured in this study using a researcher-

developed index that was a combination of two scales. After reading the randomly assigned

message, respondents indicated their attitude regarding issue-relevant arguments within the

message on a series of 10 bipolar adjectives measured using a 5-point semantic differential scale.

Seven items were adapted from a 10-item index that Lundy (2004) utilized to measure argument

quality attributes and the remaining three items were drawn from Schmierbach's (2005) index of

newsworthiness. The standard deviations for the scale ranged from .79 to 1.18 and the lowest

corrected item-total correlation was .56 as shown in Table 4-8. The alpha reliability coefficient

for the overall index was a = .92 and could not be improved by deleting a single item. The grand

mean for the argument quality index was 3.43 (SD = .79).


m


.87

.85

.87

.85

.85

.85

.86

.85

.87









Table 4-8. Perceived Argument Quality Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics
Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Mean SD
Total Correlation Deleted
Insignificant/Significant 3.29 1.18 .72 .90
Irrelevant/Relevant 3.54 1.10 .69 .91
Untimely/Timely 3.31 1.15 .60 .91
Not Believable/Believable 3.96 .95 .68 .91
Low Quality/High Quality 3.12 1.17 .76 .90
Not Convincing/Convincing 3.25 1.11 .77 .90
Not Credible/Credible 3.74 .97 .70 .91
Unreasonable/Reasonable 3.85 .91 .72 .91
Inconclusive/Conclusive 2.69 1.15 .70 .91
Inaccurate/Accurate 3.52 .79 .56 .91
Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1 = insignificant and 5 = significant. Valid
N= 282.


Need for Cognition Scale

The Need for Cognition Scale consisted of 17 Likert-type questions where 1 was strongly

disagree and 5 was strongly agree. The data for this scale demonstrated a satisfactory amount of

variance with standard deviation ranging from .73 to 1.12. The discrimination index for the NFC

scale (Table 4-9) showed the lowest corrected item-total correlation was .31. The reliability

alpha coefficient for the overall NFC index was a = .86 and would not have been improved with

the removal of any single item. The grand mean for the overall index was 3.95 (SD = .51).

Table 4-9. Need for Cognition Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics
Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Mean SD
Total Correlation Deleted
NFC.1 3.55 .92 .41 .86
NFC.2* 4.46 .74 .58 .85
NFC.3* 4.27 .87 .46 .86










Table 4-9. Continued.


Mean

NFC.4 4.47
NFC.5 3.40

NFC.6* 3.93

NFC.7* 3.64

NFC.8* 3.88
NFC.9 4.08

NFC.10 4.26

NFC.11* 4.35
NFC.12 3.44

NFC.13 3.92

NFC.14 3.93

NFC.15* 3.74
NFC.16* 4.10

NFC.17 3.70

Scores based on Likert scale with 1 = strongly
reverse coded. Valid N = 273.


Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
SD
Total Correlation Deleted

.73 .51 .86
1.12 .31 .86

.98 .52 .85

.99 .38 .86

.94 .48 .86
.86 .59 .85

.81 .62 .85

.74 .62 .85
.93 .46 .86
.92 .55 .85

.98 .54 .85

1.00 .47 .86
.92 .44 .86

.91 .37 .86

disagree and 5 = strongly agree. *Item was


Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology

To measure preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, respondents provided

their response to six items on a 1 to 5 semantic differential scale. Standard deviations for items in

this index ranged from .89 to .95. The lowest corrected item-total correlation (Table 4-10) for the

items in this index was .85 indicating strong correlation between each item and the overall index

score. The alpha reliability coefficient was a = .96 justifying its use in the study. The grand mean

for the overall scale was 3.96 (SD = .84).










Table 4-10. Preexisting Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology Scale Inter-item
Consistency Statistics


Mean

Foolish/Wise 3.99
Unacceptable/Acceptable 4.09
Unfavorable/Favorable 3.93
Wrong/Right 3.93
Bad/Good 3.93
Negative/Positive 3.86
Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1


Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
SD
Total Correlation Deleted
.90 .87 .96
.89 .85 .96
.94 .90 .96
.89 .90 .96
.90 .92 .95
.95 .88 .96

= foolish and 5 = wise. Valid N = 298.


Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements

In addition to the six-item scale to assess preexisting attitudes toward agricultural

biotechnology, respondents provided their responses to a series of seven belief statements. These

items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being

strongly agree. Standard deviations for items in this scale ranged from .89 to 1.11. Table 4-11

shows the discrimination index with the lowest corrected item-total correlation at .58. The alpha

reliability coefficient is a = .85 indicating an acceptable level of reliability. The grand mean for

the complete index was 3.30 (SD = .72).

Table 4-11. Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements Scale Inter-item Consistency
Statistics


Corrected Item-
Mean SDCorre
Total Correlation


Alpha if Item
Deleted


Both large and small farmers reap
economic benefits from agricultural
biotechnology.
Agricultural biotechnology lacks
adequate testing.*


3.34


2.95


1.06


1.04









Table 4-11. Continued


Corrected Item-
Mean SDCorre
Total Correlation


Alpha if Item
Deleted


Agricultural biotechnology is
natural. The process is just faster
and more precise than traditional
plant breeding.
Biotech foods are in development
that will improve human health.
Agricultural biotechnology will
help to feed the world's rapidly
expanding population.
Biotech crops improve water
quality, requiring fewer chemicals
than traditional crops.
Biotech foods pose unforeseen
health risks.*

Scores based on Likert type scale with
was reverse coded. Valid N = 301.


2.86 1.11


3.71


3.82



3.44


2.95 .93 .60

1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. *Item


Attitudes Toward Message Topic

To measure attitudes toward the message topic of peanut allergen research, respondents

provided their response to the same six items used to establish preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology. The six items were measured using a 1 to 5 semantic differential

scale. Standard deviations for items in this attitude index ranged from .89 to .95. The

discrimination index found the lowest corrected item-total correlation (Table 4-12) for the items

in this index was .78. The alpha reliability coefficient was a = .95 indicating its acceptability as

an index in the current study. The grand mean for the overall scale was 4.36 (SD = .70).









Table 4-12. Attitudes toward Message Topic Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics
Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Mean SD
Total Correlation Deleted
Foolish/Wise 4.29 .79 .81 .95
Unacceptable/Acceptable 4.53 .72 .78 .95
Unfavorable/Favorable 4.34 .81 .86 .94
Wrong/Right 4.32 .80 .86 .94
Bad/Good 4.34 .78 .91 .94
Negative/Positive 4.35 .77 .89 .94
Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1 = foolish and 5 = wise. Valid N = 299.


Likelihood to Publish

This scale included three items to measure how likely the respondent was to use the

information contained in the message to write or publish a story. Standard deviations for the

scale ranged from 1.36 to 1.41. The lowest corrected item-total correlation shown in the

discrimination index (Table 4-13) was .75.


Table 4-13. Likelihood to Publish Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics
Corrected Item-
Mean SDCorre
Total Correlation


Alpha if Item
Deleted


How likely would you be to utilize
the information in the press release
to write or publish a story?
If you saw this story on the AP wire
service, how likely would you be to
publish the information?
How likely would you be to seek
out a source to write or publish a
story based on the information in
the press release
Scores based on Likert type scale with
239.


2.33



2.51


1.39


1.36


2.59 1.41


1 = highly unlikely and 5 = highly likely. Valid N









The alpha reliability coefficient for the likelihood to publish index was a = .90, which is an

acceptable level to use this index in the study. Although the alpha could be improved by

removing one item, it is necessary to retain all three items in order to construct an index. The

grand mean for the overall scale was 2.48 (SD = 1.26).

Manipulation Checks

To evaluate the message frame stimuli used as an independent variable, a series of

manipulation checks were conducted. The three message frames (scientific progress, health, and

economics) were developed using the same basic information regarding research of an allergen-

free peanut. Each individual message was then enhanced with key words and phrases to exhibit

the characteristics of the assigned frame. The messages were reviewed by a panel of experts then

submitted to two rounds of message stimuli testing. During the second round of message testing,

the mean attitudes toward argument quality score (based on the 10-item index utilized in the

study) was used to compare the three frames. A one-way ANOVA found no significant

difference between the attitudes toward argument quality of the three message frames (F2,33

.43, p = .66) indicating that the respondents found them to be the same in argument quality

regardless of the frame.

In the current study, respondents were randomly assigned to receive one of the three

message frames. As a second manipulation check, respondents were then asked to select one of

the frame categories (scientific progress, health, or economics) they thought was the most

appropriate classification for the dominant theme or frame for the message. The economics and

health frames seemed to be easily identifiable, but respondents who received the scientific

progress frame classified it as either the intended frame (scientific progress) or the health frame

(Table 4-14). This confusion between the scientific progress and health frames is a limitation of

the study. Overall, 63% (n = 194) correctly identified their assigned message stimuli frame.










Table 4-14. Classification of Message Frame by Assigned Frame

Identified Frame
E. Scientific Don't
Assigned Frame N Health Economics n
Progress Know
Health 91 66 3 19 3
Economics 103 19 70 8 6
Scientific Progress 114 53 0 58 3
Total 308 138 73 85 12


A one-way ANOVA found a significant difference between the attitudes toward argument

quality of the three message frames (F2,281 = 7.46, p = .00). Inpost hoc analysis, the Bonferroni

procedure was used to explore this difference and found a significant difference in perceived

argument quality between the health message frame and economics message frame (p = .00) and

the economics and scientific progress frames (p = .01). However, no significant difference was

found between the health and scientific progress message frames (p = 1.00). In the current study,

argument quality was not intentionally manipulated apriori and was explored as a dependent

variable and proxy for measuring newsworthiness.

To further evaluate the manipulation influence on the message frames, three additional

univariate ANOVA tests were conducted (Table 4-15). Subjects were asked two questions to

assess how important the message was to them personally and how motivated they were to read

the message. To determine importance, subjects were asked "How important was the press

release message to you personally?" on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being not important at all

and 5 being very important. A one-way ANOVA to compare the mean responses for subjects

receiving the different message frames was not significant (F2, 305 = .84, p = .43).

To determine motivation, subjects were asked "How motivated were you to read the press

release?" on a 5-point Likert scale. Comparison of the mean response for each message frame









using a one-way ANOVA found there was a significant difference (F2,306= 5.10, p = .01).

Subjects who received the health message frame indicated more personal motivation (M = 3.06,

SD = .95) than those who received the economics (M = 2.72, SD = 1.11) or scientific progress

(M = 3.13, SD = .93) message frames.

Subjects were also asked to assess the newsworthiness of the press release message using a

5-point Likert scale where 1 was strongly disagree and 5 was strongly agree. Responses to the

statement: "I believe this press release is newsworthy" were significantly different between the

three message frames (F2,306 = 11.54, p = .00). The mean response for health (M = 3.53, SD =

.98) and scientific progress (M = 3.49, SD = 1.13) indicated these message frames were more

newsworthy than the economics frame (M = 2.87, SD = 1.14).

Table 4-15. ANOVA for Subjects' Perceptions of Message Frames
Health Economics Scientific Progress
N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD
Importance 90 2.34 1.11 102 2.18 1.01 114 2.34 1.10
Motivation 90 3.06 .95 103 2.72 1.11 114 3.13 .93
Newsworthiness 91 3.53 .98 103 2.87 1.14 113 3.49 1.13

F p value
Importance .84 .43
Motivation 5.10 .01
Newsworthiness 11.54 .00


Additional Bonferroni comparisons were conducted to extend the manipulation check of

the message frames. The comparison showed no significant difference in "motivation" or

"importance" between the three frames, but did show a significant difference in

newsworthinesss" between the health and economics message frames (p = .00) and economics

and scientific progress message frames (p = .00). The comparison did not show a significant









difference between the health and scientific progress message frames in regard to

newsworthinesss."

Tests of Hypotheses

Hypothesis testing focused on three independent variables (message frame, issue

involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology) and two dependent

variables (attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish).

HI: Attitudes toward argument quality of a positively valenced message will differ
significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural
biotechnology, and message frame.

To address H1, a three-way factorial ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction of

the independent variables on attitudes toward argument quality. As illustrated in Table 4-16, the

interaction of message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural

biotechnology was not significant (F2,253 = 2.76, p = .07) on attitudes toward argument quality.

However, the three-way factorial ANOVA did indicate main effects for message frame (F1,253

5.65, p = .00), issue involvement (F1,253= 3.88, p = .05), and preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology (Fi,253 = 22.42, p = .00).

Table 4-16. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Attitudes toward Agricultural
Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality
Source df F p value
Message Frame 2 5.65 .00
Issue Involvement 1 3.88 .05
Preexisting Attitudes 1 22.42 .00
Message Frame Issue Involvement Preexisting Attitudes 2 2.76 .07


Post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni procedure examined the significant difference in

message frame and found a significant difference between the health and economics message

frames (p = .00) and economics and scientific progress message frames (p = .02). The









comparison did not show a significant difference between the health and scientific progress

message frames (p = 1.00). An overall means table provides a summary of attitudes toward

argument quality, split by high/low issue involvement, more positive/less positive preexisting

attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the assigned message frame (Table 4-17).

Table 4-17. Means for Attitudes Toward Argument Quality Split by High/Low Issue
Involvement, More Positive/ Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural
Biotechnology, and Message Frame
Message Frame High Issue Involvement Low Issue Involvement
More Positive Less Positive More Positive Less Positive
Attitudes Attitudes Attitudes Attitudes
Health 3.97 3.15 3.74 3.14
(26) (13) (23) (19)
Economics 3.46 3.03 3.23 2.93
(27) (15) (27) (20)
Scientific Progress 3.57 3.69 3.67 3.03
(39) (14) (22) (20)
Total 3.65 3.28 3.53 3.03
(92) (42) (72) (59)
Note: Frequencies are in parentheses.

H2: Attitudes toward likelihood to publish information presented in a positively valenced
message will differ significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude
toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame.

To address H2, a three-way factorial ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction of

the independent variables on attitudes toward likelihood to publish. The three-way factorial

ANOVA for likelihood to publish found no significant interaction or main effects (Table 4-18);

therefore, H2 is not supported. Table 4-19 provides the means table for likelihood to publish split

by the two levels for issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural

biotechnology and the three message frames.









Table 4-18. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Attitudes Toward Agricultural
Biotechnology on Likelihood to Publish


F p value
2.40 .09


Message Frame
Issue Involvement
Preexisting Attitudes
Message Frame Issue Involvement Preexisting Attitudes


2.76
.049


Table 4-19. Means for Likelihood to Publish Split by High/Low Issue Involvement, More
Positive/ Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, and Message
Frame


Message Frame


Health


Economics


Scientific Progress


Total


High Issue Involvement
More Positive Less Positive
Attitudes Attitudes


2.76
(25)
2.63
(23)
2.70
(37)
2.70
(85)


2.14
(12)
2.18
(15)
2.60
(10)
2.28
(37)


Low Issue Involvement


More Positive
Attitudes
2.95
(20)


1.97
(22)
2.41
(18)
2.43
(60)


Less Positive
Attitudes
2.52
(17)


1.83
(14)
2.36
(12)
2.26
(43)


Note: Frequencies are in parentheses.


H3: Subjects who are high in issue involvement and are presented with the scientific
progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those who
are low in issue involvement and receive either the economics or health frames.

It was hypothesized that subjects who were presented with the scientific progress frame

who were high in issue involvement (n = 53) would have more favorable attitudes toward

argument quality than those who were low in issue involvement and received either the

economics (n = 47) or health (n = 42) message frames. A two-way factorial ANOVA partially

supported this hypothesis (Table 4-20). The interaction of message frame and issue involvement


Source









was not significant (F2,262= .01, p value = .99), but the main effects were significant for message

frame (F1,262= 5.50, p value= .01) and issue involvement (F1,262= 4.70, p value= .03). Although

the interaction of message frame and issue involvement was not significant, visual inspection of

the means table indicated that the mean for attitudes toward argument quality was highest for

subjects exposed to the health frame with high issue involvement (M = 3.69, SD = .84), followed

by the hypothesized group subjects exposed to the scientific progress frame with high issue

involvement (M = 3.56, SD = .83).

Table 4-20. ANOVA for Message Frame and Issue Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality
Source df F p value
Message Frame 2 5.50 .01
Issue Involvement 1 4.70 .03
Message Frame Issue Involvement 2 .01 .99


H4: Subjects who have more positive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology and are
presented with the scientific progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward
argument quality than those who have less positive attitudes toward agricultural
biotechnology and receive either the economics or health frames.

It was expected that subjects exposed to the scientific progress frame who had more

positive preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology (n = 61) would have more

favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those with less positive attitudes and presented

with the economics (n = 35) or health (n = 32) message frames. A two-way factorial ANOVA

(Table 4-21) provides partial support for this hypothesis. The interaction between message frame

and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology was not significant (F2,271 = 2.04, p value = .13).

However, the ANOVA did indicate significant main effects for message frame (F1,271 = 6.59, p

value = .00) and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology (F1,271 = 28.52, p value = .00).









Table 4-21. ANOVA for Message Frame and Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on
Perceived Argument Quality
Source df F p value
Message Frame 2 6.59 .00
Preexisting Attitudes 1 28.52 .00
Message Frame Preexisting Attitudes 2 2.04 .13


Post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni procedure examined the significant difference in

message frame and found a significant difference between the health and economics message

frames (p = .00) and economics and scientific progress message frames (p = .01), but did not find

a significant difference between the health and scientific progress message frames (p = 1.00).

Visual inspection of the means table indicated that the mean for attitudes toward argument

quality was highest for subjects exposed to the health frame with more positive preexisting

attitudes (M = 3.89, SD = .70), followed by the hypothesized group subjects exposed to the

scientific progress frame with more positive preexisting attitudes (M = 3.63, SD = .81).

H5: For those who receive the scientific progress frame, subjects who are high in issue
involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than subjects who
are low in issue involvement.

It was expected that for subjects who were presented with the scientific progress frame,

those who were high in issue involvement (n = 53) would have more favorable attitudes toward

argument quality than those low in issue involvement (n = 42). An independent samples t-test

(Table 4-22) found no significant difference between the two groups (t = -1.23, p value = .22),

providing no support for this hypothesis. The mean attitudes toward argument quality score for

those low in issue involvement was 3.37 (SD = .69) compared to the mean score of 3.56 (SD =

.83) for those high in issue involvement.









Table 4-22. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between High/Low
Issue Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality for Subjects Who Received
Scientific Progress Message Frame

N Mean SD t df p value
Low Issue Involvement 42 3.37 .69 -1.23 95 .22
High Issue Involvement 55 3.56 .83

H6: For those who receive the health frame, subjects who are low in issue involvement
will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than subjects who are high in
issue involvement.

It was hypothesized that for subjects who were presented with the health frame, those who

were low in issue involvement (n = 42) would have more favorable attitudes toward argument

quality than those high in issue involvement (n = 39). An independent samples t-test (Table 4-

23) found no significant difference between the two groups and indicated no support for this

hypothesis. In fact, the mean for those high in issue involvement (M = 3.70, SD = .84) was

greater than those low in issue involvement (M = 3.47, SD = .70).

Table 4-23. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between High/Low
Issue Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality for Subjects Who Received
Health Message Frame
N Mean SD t df p value
Low Issue Involvement 42 3.47 .70 -1.29 79 .20
High Issue Involvement 39 3.70 .84

H7: A combination of issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural
biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in
attitudes toward argument quality.

To test H7, multiple linear regression was conducted with issue involvement, preexisting

attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, message frame serving as predictors of attitudes

toward argument quality. Table 4-24 displays the results of this analysis and provides support for

the hypothesis. The model is significant (F3,264 = 15.46, p value = .00) and explained 14.1%

(adjusted R2) of the variance in perceived argument quality. Of the significant predictors, the









beta weights for preexisting attitudes (p = .33) and issue involvement ( =. 18) indicate a

positive relationship between each of these variables and attitudes toward argument quality.

Table 4-24. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Perceived
Argument Quality
Argument Quality Adjusted R2

Explanatory Variable B SE B p v .141
value
Message Frame -.04 .06 -.04 .45
Preexisting Attitudes .31 .05 .33 .00
Issue Involvement .27 .08 .18 .00

H8: A combination of issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural
biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in
likelihood to publish the information.

Similar to the previous hypothesis, H8 expects that the combination of three independent

variables will explain the greatest variance in likelihood to publish. Table 4-25 displays the

results of this analysis and provides support for the hypothesis. The model is significant (F3,224

3.57, p value = .02), but only explains 3.3% (adjusted R2) of the variance in likelihood to

publish. Preexisting attitudes was a significant predictor of attitudes toward argument quality and

the positive beta weight (p = .18) indicates a positive relationship.

Table 4-25. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Likelihood to
Publish.
Argument Quality Adjusted R2

Explanatory Variable B SE B B v .033
value
Message Frame -.07 .10 -.04 .50
Preexisting Attitudes .28 .10 .18 .01
Issue Involvement .23 .15 .10 .12









Post Hoc Analyses

The data collected in this study allowed for additional data analysis using independent

samples t-tests, ANOVA, and regression. These analyses provided additional insight into the

data and possible implications beyond those hypothesized apriori.

Message Frame Identification

In reference to the lack of clarity between the scientific progress and health message

frames, a three-way AVOVA was conducted using the message frames as subjects identified

them instead of the randomly assigned message condition. The independent variables of issue

involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology were also included to

explore the interaction of subject-identified message frames on attitudes toward argument

quality. Subjects had four options to identify the frame: health, economics, scientific progress, or

unknown. Table 4-26 displays the results of this ANOVA which found a significant three-way

interaction between the message frame identified by subjects, issue involvement, and attitudes

toward agricultural biotechnology (F3,264= 3.24, p value = .01) on attitudes toward argument

quality. The main effects of message frame (F3,264 = 8.57, p value = .00) and attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology (F1,264 = 11.20, p value = .00) were also significant, but the issue

involvement main effect was not significant (F1,264 = 2.55, p value = .11).

Table 4-26. ANOVA for Subject-Identified Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Preexisting
Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality
Source df F p value
Subject-Identified Message Frame 3 8.57 .00
Preexisting Attitudes 1 11.20 .00
Issue Involvement 1 2.55 .11
Message Frame Issue Involvement Attitudes 3 3.24 .01









Attitudes and Message Frame

As outlined in hypotheses 5 and 6, the influence of high or low issue involvement did not

demonstrate a significant difference in attitudes toward message quality for the health and

scientific progress frames. However, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology did

have an influence on message quality between those who were more positive or less positive in

their attitudes for two of the three messages (Table 4-27). Independent samples t-tests showed

that for subjects who received the health message frame, there was a significant difference

between those who were more positive or less positive in their preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology (t = -4.96, p value = .00). This significant difference was also found

for those who received the economics frame (t = -2.46, p value = .02), but there was not a

significant difference between the two groups for those who received the scientific progress

message (t = -1.98, p value = .05).

Table 4-27. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between More
Positive/Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived
Argument Quality Spilt by Message Frame
Message Frame N Mean SD t df p value
Health Less Positive 33 3.14 .65 -4.96 85 .00
More Positive 54 3.89 .70

Economics Less Positive 37 2.94 .75 -2.46 90 .02
More Positive 55 3.35 .78

Scientific Progress Less Positive 35 3.32 .69 -1.98 96 .05
More Positive 63 3.63 .83


In addition to preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, subjects also

provided their attitudes toward the message topic of peanut allergen research. An independent

samples t-test (Table 4-28) to compare less positive and more positive subjects in terms of









preexisting attitudes found a significant difference on attitudes toward the message topic (p =

.00).

Table 4-28. Independent Samples T-Test for Significant Differences Between Preexisting
Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology Groups and Attitudes Toward
Message Topic
N Mean SD t df p value
Less Positive 112 3.98 .75 -8.29 292 .00
More Positive 182 4.60 .53

Need for Cognition

Need for cognition scores were collected in the instrument, but were not included in the

hypothesis tests. Subjects were split into high and low need for cognition based on a mean split

(M = 3.95, SD = .51) resulting in 146 (47.4%) low need for cognition subjects and 127 (41.2%)

high need for cognition subjects. Independent samples t-test to compare low and high need for

cognition subjects found no significant difference on attitudes toward argument quality (p = .15).

Post hoc analysis using multiple linear regression included need for cognition score with the

independent variables of issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural

biotechnology, and message frame to predict perceived argument quality score. This regression

model (Table 4-29) was significant (F4,245 = 11.59, p value = .00) and explained 14.7% of the

variance in the perceived argument quality score.

Table 4-29. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Perceived
Argument Quality, Including Need for Cognition
Argument Quality Adjusted R2

Explanatory Variable B SE B B a.147
value
Message Frame -.04 .06 -.04 .49
Attitudes .28 .06 .30 .00
Issue Involvement .26 .09 .17 .00
Need for Cognition -.25 .09 -.16 .01









Need for cognition was also included in a 4-way factorial ANOVA to examine the

interaction of message frame, issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural

biotechnology, and need for cognition on attitudes toward argument quality. As Table 4-30

shows, the 4-way interaction was not significant (F2,246 = 1.75, p= .18), but the ANOVA did find

significant main effects for the message frame (F2,246 = 6.57, p = .00) and preexisting attitudes

toward agricultural biotechnology (F1,246 = 3.09, p = .08). A Bonferroni procedure to explore the

significant difference between message frames indicated a significant difference between the

health and economics frames (p = .00) and scientific progress and economics frames (p = .01),

but the health and scientific progress frames were not significantly different (p = 1.00).

Table 4-30. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, Preexisting Attitudes Toward
Agricultural Biotechnology, and Need for Cognition on Perceived Argument Quality
Source df Fp
value
Message Frame 2 6.57 .00
Preexisting Attitudes 1 24.49 .00
Issue Involvement 1 3.09 .08
Need for Cognition 1 .32 .57
Message Frame Issue Involvement Attitudes Need for Cognition 2 1.75 .18


Differences Between Organization Membership

Post hoc analyses were conducted to explore what differences existed between members of

AAEA and NASW. As mentioned previously, 75 respondents were members of AAEA (24.4%)

and 215 (69.8%) were members of NASW, while the remaining 18 (5.8%) respondents said they

were not members of either organization. Means for average issue involvement score were

compared using an independent samples t-test to determine if there were any differences

according to organization membership. Table 4-31 demonstrates there were significant

differences in means for issue involvement based on membership in AAEA or NASW.









Respondents who were members of AAEA had higher average issue involvement scores than

members of NASW. This was originally hypothesized because the issue involvement question

dealt with reporting on food and natural resource issues, which best describes the topics

members of AAEA would report on most often. Although the mean issue involvement scores are

statistically significantly different for the two groups, the mean scores for AAEA (M = 4.39) and

NASW (M = 4.20) are on the higher end of the scale indicating an overall interest in food and

natural resource topics for both groups. This result demonstrates agricultural topics have the

potential to be covered by different types of reporters, but issue involvement does vary and may

be an influence when persuading communicators as to the newsworthiness of agricultural issues.

Table 4-31. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between
Organization Membership and Issue Involvement
N Mean SD t df p value
AAEA 73 4.39 .51 2.54 275 .01
NASW 204 4.20 .56
Note: AAEA = American Agricultural Editors' Association and NASW = National
Association of Science Writers.


Preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology between members of the

professional communication organizations were also significantly different as shown in Table 4-

32. AAEA members indicated more positive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology (M =

4.39, SD = .71) than NASW members (M = 3.80, SD = .82). Again, both means were above the

midpoint on the 1 to 5 scale indicating more positive preexisting attitudes toward agricultural

biotechnology overall.









Table 4-32. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization
Membership and Preexisting Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology
N Mean SD t df p value
AAEA 74 4.39 .71 5.472 282 .00
NASW 210 3.80 .82
Note: AAEA = American Agricultural Editors' Association and NASW = National
Association of Science Writers.


Further data analysis examined what frames were randomly assigned to members of each

organization. Table 4-33 shows the proportion of subjects who received each message frame

divided by their membership organization. Comparison of the percentage of subjects for each

frame indicated similar distribution across frames and between groups.

Table 4-33. Percentage of Assigned Frame Split within Membership Organization
Assigned Frame
Membership Organization Health Economics Scientific Progress
AAEA 25.3 37.3 37.3
(19) (28) (28)
NASW 30.7 33.0 36.3
(66) (71) (78)
Total 29.3 34.1 36.6
(85) (99) (106)
Note: Frequencies are in parentheses. Missing N=18.


This data was further explored to discover whether or not members of the two

organizations were able to identify the frame to which they were assigned. Table 4-34 shows the

proportion of subjects who identified each frame divided by the membership organization. For

AAEA members, 68.4% (n = 13) correctly identified the health frame, 50% (n = 14) correctly

identified the economics frame, and 57.1% (n = 16) correctly identified the scientific progress

frame. For NASW members, 75.8% (n = 50) correctly identified the health frame, 73.2% (n =

52) correctly identified the economics frame, and 53.8% (n = 42) correctly identified the









scientific progress frame. Overall, NASW members were better able to correctly classify their

assigned frame. It appeared that AAEA members who received the economics frame were

confused on how to classify it. Only half of the subjects correctly identified the frame, while the

remaining half were divided between health (32.1%, n = 9) and scientific progress (14.3%, n =

4) frames. The scientific progress frame was also difficult for members of both organizations to

classify. For those who received scientific progress as their assigned message frame, 42.9% (n =

12) of AAEA members and 43.6% (n = 34) of NASW members classified it as the health frame.

This confusion may be attributed to the fact that the topic of peanut allergen research can be

viewed as a health concern and subjects chose the health frame accordingly.

Table 4-34. Classification of Message Frame within Membership Organization
Percent of Identified Frame
Assigned Frame Health Economics Scientific Don't Know
Progress
AAEA Health 68.4 .0 26.3 5.3
(13) (0) (5) (1)
Economics 32.1 50.0 14.3 3.6
(9) (14) (4) (1)
Scientific Progress 42.9 .0 57.1 .0
(12) (0) (16) (0)

NASW Health 75.8 3.0 18.2 3.0
(50) (2) (12) (2)
Economics 14.1 73.2 5.6 7.0
(10) (52) (4) (5)
Scientific Progress 43.6 .0 53.8 2.6
(34) (0) (42) (2)

Note: Frequencies are in parentheses. Missing N=18.


Beyond the independent variables, the two membership groups were also compared on the

dependent variables of attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish. Table 4-35









displays the results of an independent samples t-test that indicated a significant difference

between the groups in their attitudes toward argument quality. AAEA members were more

favorable in their attitudes toward the argument quality of the messages (M = 3.85, SD = .73)

than NASW members (M = 3.25, SD = .73).

Table 4-35. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between
Organization Membership and Attitudes Toward Argument Quality
N Mean SD t df p value
AAEA 72 3.85 .73 5.72 266 .00
NASW 196 3.25 .76
Note: AAEA = American Agricultural Editors' Association and NASW = National
Association of Science Writers.


Upon further examination, a significant difference was found between each group's mean

scores for attitudes toward argument quality for each frame (Table 4-36). AAEA members

indicated significantly more favorable attitudes toward argument quality for each of the message

frames than NASW members. For both groups, the health frame received the most favorable

attitudes toward argument quality with the AAEA mean score of 4.15 (SD = .63) and the NASW

mean score of 3.41 (SD=.75).

Table 4-36. Independent Samples T-tests for Significant Differences Between Organization
Membership and Attitudes Toward Argument Quality of Message Frames
AAEA NASW
Message Frame N Mean SD N Mean SD t df p
value
Health 18 4.15 .63 63 3.41 .75 3.83 79 .00
Economics 26 3.55 .83 65 3.03 .73 2.97 89 .00
Scientific Progress 28 3.93 .61 68 3.33 .77 3.72 94 .00


Finally, the two membership groups' scores on the likelihood to publish index were

compared. An independent samples t-test found a significant difference between the groups on









this dependent variable (Table 4-37) with AAEA members providing a more favorable mean

score (M = 3.11, SD = 1.30) than NASW members (M = 2.23, SD = 1.16).


Table 4-37. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between
Organization Membership and Likelihood to Publish
N Mean SD t df p value
AAEA 62 3.11 1.30 4.89 224 .00

NASW 164 2.23 1.16
Note: AAEA = American Agricultural Editors' Association and NASW = National
Association of Science Writers.

Table 4-38 shows the mean likelihood to publish score for each message frame split by

membership group. Again, there is a significant difference between the two groups' scores for

likelihood to publish for each message frame with health receiving the most favorable mean

score for both AAEA members (M = 3.26, SD = 1.40) and NASW members (M = 2.42, SD =

1.21). It is also interesting to note that AAEA members' lowest mean score was for the

economics frame (M = 2.75, SD = 1.34), which was still greater than any mean score provided

by NASW members regardless of the message frame.


Table 4-38. Independent Samples T-tests for Significant Differences Between Organization
Membership and Likelihood to Publish for Each Message Frame
AAEA NASW
Message Frame N Mean SD N Mean SD t df p
value
Health 18 3.26 1.40 53 2.42 1.21 2.43 69 .02
Economics 21 2.75 1.34 56 2.01 1.02 2.60 75 .01
Scientific Progress 23 3.32 1.15 55 2.28 1.22 3.47 75 .00



Index Development

Additional post hoc analysis further explored the construction of the issue involvement and

attitudes toward argument quality indexes. The issue involvement scale was based on nine items,









which had an alpha reliability coefficient of a = .87. Through factor analysis, principal

component analysis found that the items loaded to form two components (Table 4-39).


Table 4-39. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Issue Involvement
Items Component 1


Component 2


Important/Unimportant* .59 .38
Boring/Interesting .75 -.05
Relevant/Irrelevant* .55 .415
Exciting/Unexciting* .79 -.38
Appealing/Unappealing* .79 -.32
Fascinating/Mundane* .79 -.36
Worthless/Valuable .67 .46
Involving/Uninvolving .77 -.32
Not needed/Needed .64 .58
Eigenvalue 4.52 1.33
Percent of Variance Explained 50.18 14.80
Cronbach's Alpha .87
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. *Item was reverse coded.

Zaichkowsky (1994) also found two subscales during the development of the 10-item

Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) that was used to measure issue

involvement in the current study. The items of interesting, appealing, fascinating, exciting, and

involving were found to be based more on emotions and could be loaded to form an "affective"

issue involvement scale. The items of important, relevant, valuable, means a lot to me, and

needed appeared to be more rational in nature and could be loaded together to form a "cognitive"

issue involvement scale (Zaichkowsky, 1994). During the pilot testing process, the means a lot to

me item was removed to improve alpha reliability. Follow-up principal component analysis used

these individual items to form the cognitive and affective issue involvement scales, which then

loaded as unidimensional constructs.









The cognitive issue involvement index (Table 4-40) had an alpha reliability coefficient of a

=.74 and explained 57.31% of the items' variance. The scale had a range of standard deviations

from .51 to .72. The discrimination index for the cognitive issue involvement scale (Table 4-41)

showed the corrected item-total correlation ranged from .47 to .63. The grand mean for the

cognitive issue involvement scale was 3.55 (SD = .34).

Table 4-40. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Cognitive Issue Involvement
Items Component 1
Important/Unimportant* .70
Relevant/Irrelevant* .70
Worthless/Valuable .79
Not needed/Needed .839


Eigenvalue 2.29
Percent of Variance Explained 57.31
Cronbach's Alpha .74
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. *Item was reverse coded.



Table 4-41. Cognitive Issue Involvement Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics
Corrected Item-
Mean SD Total Correlation


Alpha if
Item
Deleted


Important/Unimportant* 4.76
Relevant/Irrelevant* 4.69

Worthless/Valuable 4.62

Not needed/Needed 4.75

Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1
was reverse coded. Valid N=296.


.53 .47
.72 .49

.60 .58

.51 .63

important and 5 = unimportant. *Item


The affective issue involvement index (Table 4-42) had an alpha reliability coefficient of a

=.89 and explained 69.18% of the items' variance. Standard deviations for this index ranged

from .88 to .96, and the discrimination index (Table 4-43) showed the corrected item-total


.71
.72
.65

.63









correlation ranged from .62 to .77. The grand mean for the affective issue involvement scale was

3.21 (SD =.64).

Table 4-42. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Affective Issue Involvement
Items Component 1
Boring/Interesting .74
Exciting/Unexciting* .87
Appealing/Unappealing* .85
Fascinating/Mundane* .86
Involving/Uninvolving .83
Eigenvalue 3.46
Percent of Variance Explained 69.18
Cronbach's Alpha .89
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. *Item was reverse coded.


Table 4-43. Affective Issue Involvement Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics
Corrected Item-
Mean SD Total Correlation


Boring/Interesting 4.27
Exciting/Unexciting* 3.62
Appealing/Unappealing* 3.92
Fascinating/Mundane* 3.71
Involving/Uninvolving 3.83
Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1
reverse coded. Valid N = 293.


Alpha
Item
Delete


.90 .62
.92 .74
.88 .75
.96 .77
.93 .72
boring and 5 = interesting. *Item was


if

:d
.89
.85
.86
.85
.86


Factor analysis was also utilized to further investigate the attitudes toward argument

quality index duringpost hoc analysis. The index used in the current study was developed using

seven items adapted from a 10-item index that Lundy (2004) utilized to measure argument

quality attributes and the three items drawn from Schmierbach's (2005) index of

newsworthiness. In the current study, the 10-item index had an alpha reliability coefficient of a =









.92. Principal component analysis found these used individual items loaded as two distinct

constructs (Table 4-44).

Table 4-44. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Perceived Argument Quality
Items Component 1 Component 2
Insignificant/Significant .76 .49
Irrelevant/Relevant .74 .47
Untimely/Timely .66 .50
Not Believable/Believable .76 -.33
Low Quality/High Quality .81 .08
Not Convincing/Convincing .83 -.20
Not Credible/Credible .78 -.45
Unreasonable/Reasonable .79 -.31
Inconclusive/Conclusive .76 .16
Inaccurate/Accurate .64 -.35
Eigenvalue 5.72 1.31
Percent of Variance Explained 57.18 13.11
Cronbach's Alpha .92
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.


The two subscales that were included to develop the attitudes toward argument quality

index were then divided back into the 3-item and 7-item scales. These subscales then loaded as

unidimensional constructs. The 3-item newsworthiness index of significant, relevant, and timely

(Table 4-45) had an alpha reliability coefficient of a= .87 and explained 79.23% of the items'

variance. This index had standard deviations ranging from 1.09 to 1.17. The discrimination index

(Table 4-46) showed the corrected item-total correlation ranged from .66 to .80. The grand mean

for the affective issue involvement scale was 3.01 (SD = .90).









Table 4-45. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Newsworthiness Index
Items Component 1
Insignificant/Significant .92
Irrelevant/Relevant .92
STntimpl u/Timplh .83


Eigenvalue
Percent of Variance Explained 7C
Cronbach's Alpha
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.


2.38
).23
.87


Table 4-46. Newsworthiness Scale Inter-item Consi


Mean


Insignificant/Significant 3.28
Irrelevant/Relevant 3.53
Untimely/Timely 3.33

Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1 =
= 300.


stency Statistics
Corrected Item- Alpha if
SD Total Correlation Item
Deleted
1.17 .79 .77
1.09 .80 .77
1.15 .66 .89

insignificant and 5 = significant. Valid N


The 7-item argument quality subscale (Table 4-47) had an alpha reliability coefficient of a

=.90 and explained 63.71% of the items' variance. Standard deviations for this index ranged

from .80 to 1.17, and the discrimination index (Table 4-48) showed the corrected item-total

correlation ranged from .64 to .82 The grand mean for the affective issue involvement scale was

2.76 (SD = .65).

Table 4-47. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Seven-Item Argument Quality Index
Items Component 1
Not Believable/Believable .80
Low Quality/High Quality .79
Not Convincing/Convincing .87
Not Credible/Credible .86
Unreasonable/Reasonable .83









Table 4-47. Continued
Items
Inconclusive/Conclusive
Inaccurate/Accurate
Eigenvalue 4.46
Percent of Variance Explained 63.71
Cronbach's Alpha .90
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.


Component 1
.72
.69


Table 4-48. Seven-Item Argument Quality Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics
Corrected Item-
Mean SD Total Correlation


Not Believable/Believable 3.96

Low Quality/High Quality 3.13

Not Convincing/Convincing 3.25

Not Credible/Credible 3.74
Unreasonable/Reasonable 3.86
Inconclusive/Conclusive 2.69
Inaccurate/Accurate 3.52

Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1
Valid N= 284.


Al

Dc


.95 .71
1.17 .72

1.11 .82

.97 .78
.91 .75
1.15 .64
.80 .59

not believable and 5 = believable.


pha if
[tem
elected

.89
.89

.87

.88
.88

.90
.90









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Overview

Research suggests that the American public has a limited understanding of science and

specifically its application in agricultural pursuits. The media are the public's primary source of

current information regarding science information, but provide limited coverage of agricultural

topics. Those within the agricultural industry charged with communicating about new and

possibly controversial agricultural issues such as agricultural biotechnology can utilize message

frames to influence public opinion through media coverage. Traditionally, agricultural issues are

framed as positive versus negative or risk versus benefit. However, little empirical research has

been conducted to examine how the use of positively valenced message frames could affect

communicators' opinions toward the message and likelihood to publish the information.

This study utilized the ELM framework to examine preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology, issue involvement, and message frames on attitudes toward argument

quality and likelihood to publish information within the message. Three positively valenced

message frames (health, economics, and scientific progress) were constructed to communicate

the development of an allergen-free peanut through the use of agricultural biotechnology.

Accessible samples of AAEA and NASW members were randomly assigned to receive one of

the messages, which featured a distinct message frame.

Chapter 4 provided data analyses and results, which are based on 308 subjects for an

overall response rate of 24.8%. Seventy-five (24.4%) were AAEA members and 215 (69.8%)

were NASW members. The remaining 18 subjects (5.8%) did not identify themselves as

members of either organization. Subjects were 53.2% (n = 164) female and 41.6% (n = 128)

male with a mean age of 49.9 years old. Subjects had either a graduate or professional degree









(57.5%, n = 177) or at least a four-year bachelor's degree (37.7%, n = 116). Most subjects

identified themselves as freelance writers (58.4%, n = 180). This chapter presents the key

findings, implications, limitations, recommendations for theory and practice, and conclusions.

Key Findings

Descriptive analysis of the data found a mean issue involvement score, to reporting on

food and natural resource topics, of 4.24 (where 5.0 is the upper limit) to the issue of reporting

food and natural resource topics indicating that, overall, subjects were highly involved with the

research area. As anticipated, members of AAEA and NASW did have significantly different

issue involvement scores, but the mean for both groups was on the upper end of the scale (AAEA

M = 4.39, NASW M = 4.20). Subjects also had more positive preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology overall with a mean score of 3.96 on a 1-5 scale.

A total of eight major hypotheses were tested in this study. Hypothesis 1 stated: Attitudes

toward argument quality of a positively valenced message will differ significantly as a function

of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame.

Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Findings indicated that the three-way interaction of

message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology

was not significant. However, the main effect for each of these variables was significant. Those

with more favorable preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology had higher mean

scores on attitudes toward argument quality. Similarly, those who were high in issue

involvement had higher mean scores on attitudes toward argument quality. The frame alone also

had a significant influence on attitudes toward argument quality. Although the hypothesis was

not fully supported, visual inspection of the means table suggested that subjects who received the

health frame and were high in issue involvement with more positive preexisting attitudes

provided the highest mean score for attitudes toward argument quality. Conversely, subjects who









received the economics frame and were low in issue involvement with less positive preexisting

attitudes indicated the lowest mean score for attitudes toward argument quality.

Hypothesis 2 was similar to Hypothesis 1, but examined the second dependent variable:

Attitudes toward likelihood to publish information presented in a positively valenced message

will differ significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward

agricultural biotechnology, and message frame. Hypothesis 2 was not supported. The interaction

of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame

did not have a significant three-way interaction. Also, no main effects were found for any of the

independent variables.

Hypothesis 3 compared subjects in each of the message treatment conditions: Subjects who

are high in issue involvement and are presented i/th the scientific progress frame will have

more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those who are low in issue involvement

and receive either the economics or health frames. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported.

Findings indicated that a two-way interaction of message frame and issue involvement was not

significant, but the main effects for each of these variables was significant. Those who were high

in issue involvement had higher scores on attitudes toward argument quality. The message frame

alone also influenced attitudes toward argument quality. Visual inspection of the means table

indicated that the mean attitudes toward argument quality score was highest for subjects exposed

to the health message frame who were high in issue involvement. The hypothesized group of

subjects exposed to the scientific progress message frame with high issue involvement had the

next highest attitudes toward argument quality score.

Hypothesis 4 also compared recipients of the three message frame conditions and

postulated that: Subjects who have more positive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology and









are presented i ih the scientific progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward

argument quality than those who have less positive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology

and receive either the economics or health frames. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.

Although the two-way interaction was not significant between message frame and preexisting

attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, the main effects were significant for each variable

on attitudes toward argument quality. Those who had more positive preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology had higher scores on attitudes toward argument quality. The message

frame alone also influenced attitudes toward argument quality. Visual inspection of the means

table, found that for subjects who had more positive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology,

the mean score for attitudes toward argument quality score was highest for subjects exposed to

the health message followed by the hypothesized group of subjects exposed to the scientific

progress message frame.

Hypothesis 5 focused only on subjects who received the scientific progress frame and

stated: For those who receive the scientific progress frame, subjects who are high in issue

involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than subjects who are

low in issue involvement. Hypothesis 5 was not supported because an independent samples t-test

found no significant difference between high and low issue involvement groups for those

exposed to the scientific progress frame.

Hypothesis 6, which focused only on the subjects exposed to the health frame, stated: For

those who receive the health frame, subjects who are low in issue involvement will have more

favorable attitudes toward argument quality than subjects who are high in issue involvement.

Hypothesis 6 was not supported. For subjects who received the health frame, an independent

samples t-test found no significant difference between high and low issue involvement groups.









Hypothesis 7 examined the various independent variables' ability to predict attitudes

toward argument quality and postulated that: A combination of issue involvement, preexisting

attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the

greatest variance in attitudes toward argument quality. Hypothesis 7 was supported. The

multiple linear regression model with message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting

attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology was significant and explained 14.1% of the variance

in attitudes toward argument quality. The beta weight for preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology was .33, which means that for each unit increase in preexisting

attitudes, the score on attitudes toward argument quality increased by .33 (t = 5.68, p = .00). In

addition, the beta weight for issue involvement was .18 meaning that with each unit increase in

issue involvement score, attitudes toward argument quality increased by .18 (t = 3.21, p = .00).

Hypothesis 8 examined the various independent variables' ability to predict attitudes

toward the second dependent variable of likelihood to publish and stated: A combination of issue

involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the scientific progress

frame will explain the greatest variance in likelihood to publish the information. Hypothesis 8

was supported. Although the multiple linear regression model with message frame, issue

involvement, and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology was significant, it only

explained 3.3% of the variance in attitudes toward likelihood to publish. In this model,

preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology was a significant predictor of attitudes

toward argument quality. The positive beta weight of. 18 (t = 2.70, p = .01) means that with each

unit increase in preexisting attitudes, the score on attitudes toward argument quality increases by

.18.









Implications

The results of this study provide several significant theoretical and practical implications.

Prior studies have researched framing messages within the ELM framework by comparing

positive and negative frames and found that positive frames were more effective in persuading

individuals with low issue involvement than the use of negative frames (Maheswaran & Meyers-

Levy, 1990; Donovan & Jalleh, 2000). The current study explored the use of three positively

valenced message frames and found that issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology influenced attitudes toward argument quality, but had little impact on

likelihood to publish. These findings further the empirical work to examine framing and the

ELM, and contribute to the agricultural communications discipline by illustrating how

agricultural communicators can effectively utilize frames to improve media coverage and public

awareness of agricultural issues.

In previous ELM studies, argument quality was not a commonly researched construct

(Areni & Lutz, 1988). However, argument quality is an important part of the persuasive

communication process because it can influence thoughts and which route to persuasion is

utilized (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). The current study treated attitudes toward argument quality as

a dependent variable because it was necessary to gain a better understanding of how

communicators identify argument quality, which can then be applied to produce more effective

persuasive messages. Based on the results of this study, the frames did differ in terms of the

subjects' attitudes of argument quality. Certain frames (health and scientific progress) were

viewed as higher in perceived argument quality, which indicated that the frame can promote

attitudes toward argument quality because some frames are more salient for certain

communicators. This implies that in order to improve media coverage of certain topics,









practitioners should pay attention when tailoring the news messages to develop those that are

most "attractive" for the intended audience.

Within the ELM, issue involvement is a measure of how much importance message

recipients give to a persuasive message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). When issue involvement is

high, people are more likely to dedicate cognitive effort to develop opinions of the issue and

evaluate the issue-relevant arguments (Petty Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). In the present study,

the mean issue involvement score indicated a skew toward higher issue involvement and no

difference was found between those categorized as low or high issue involvement on their

attitudes toward argument quality. In cases such as this, when issue involvement is already at a

high level, it is important to utilize messages that contain issue-relevant arguments to support

evaluation of the persuasive communication.

Results of this study suggest that while frames do make a difference in terms of attitudes

toward argument quality, they are not solely responsible for the likelihood information will be

published. The mean for the dependent variable of likelihood to publish might have been lower

than expected because whether or not something is published is often not a straightforward

decision. This may be attributed to where the topic of agricultural biotechnology currently is

within the issue-attention cycle. Other agricultural issues are taking precedence during this

election year such as the farm bill, food safety, and alternative fuels. The mean may also be low

because many other factors influence a message's news value including human interest,

prominence of the issue, number of people affected, controversy or conflict, uniqueness,

proximity, timeliness, and locality (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). The message frame alone may

have some impact on drawing journalists' attention (Dunwoody, 1992), but the results of the









current study found that the frame is not solely predictive of whether or not something may be

presented in the media.

In the data analysis process, the inability to find significant three-way interactions between

message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology

illustrated the difficulty in developing frames that are salient for the intended message recipient.

Although the message frames developed apriori were deemed identifiable and salient during the

message development and testing process with a panel of experts and individuals who are

responsible for developing messages as a part of their professional careers, subjects did not

always associate the intended frame with the one they received. However, post hoc analysis for

the three-way ANOVA with the subject-identified frame was significant, which indicates that

how message recipients interpret the frame was more important than how the frame was intended

to appear. This implies that communicators who develop messages with specific frames may

have difficulty in tailoring them appropriately in order to reach their audience and be perceived

by that audience as the intended frame.

In furtherpost hoc analysis, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology made a

difference in attitudes toward of argument quality for those who received the health and

economics message frames, but not for recipients of the scientific progress frame. This implies

that preexisting attitudes toward a topic can have an impact on how certain frames are judged for

argument quality. Also, examination of the less positive/more positive groups for preexisting

attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology found a significant difference in their attitudes

toward the message topic of peanut allergen research. Subjects who had more positive

preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology indicated significantly more favorable

attitudes toward the message topic than subjects who had less positive preexisting attitudes. This









further illustrates the important role message recipients' attitudes have on the evaluation of

persuasive messages.

Need for cognition was examined during post hoc analysis and was found to be a

significant predictor of attitudes toward argument quality when included in a regression model

with issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and message

frame. However, the issue involvement and preexisting attitude variables were stronger

predictors of attitudes toward argument quality and further justify identifying these audience

member characteristics as they influence how persuasive messages are evaluated.

Members of the two communication organizations (AAEA and NASW) differed

significantly in their issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology,

attitudes toward argument quality, and likelihood to publish. Members of the organizations are

all communicators, but these findings imply that they do vary in key characteristics that may

influence how they interpret positively framed messages. It may be more difficult to persuade

general science writers, who may have less favorable opinions about agricultural biotechnology,

to publish information that is presented with the use of positive frames. In fact, post hoc analysis

to explore the message frames' influence on attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to

publish for members of each organization found significant differences between the two groups.

Members of AAEA consistently indicated more favorable attitudes toward argument quality and

likelihood to publish for each message frame. Although the topic of peanut allergen research

extends beyond production agriculture and incorporates agricultural science, NASW members

were still less favorable in their evaluations of the framed messages when compared to AAEA

members. Overall, the health frame received the most favorable scores on attitudes toward

argument quality and likelihood to publish, which implies that this message frame may be the









most effective way to communicate about new agricultural technologies, including

biotechnology.

The factor analysis procedure indicated that the issue involvement index contained two

subscales affective issue involvement and cognitive issue involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1994).

These subscales indicate that perceptions of issue involvement are based on both rational and

emotional evaluation. The attitudes toward argument quality index was also examined using

factor analysis, which identified two subscales defined as the newsworthiness index and the

seven-item argument quality index. This finding implies that the index requires additional

refinement to identify what items best describe how media professionals form attitudes toward

argument quality.

Limitations

The exploratory nature of this study provides the opportunity for future research in the

areas of framing within the ELM, persuasive communication development, and agricultural

communication, but several limitations do exist. The first limitation is that results are limited to

members of the two organizations (AAEA and NASW) that comprised the accessible sample.

Members of these organizations may differ from other communicators due to selection bias that

encouraged them to join the organization. These subjects were also all rather high in issue

involvement, which could be attributed to the self-selection nature of the survey where only

those who were somewhat interested in or involved with the topic of peanut allergen research

mentioned in the pre-notice letter and e-mail announcement would feel compelled to complete

the study.

Although this sample was more appropriate than using a surrogate population, the sample

was difficult and time-consuming to access. The response rate of 24.8% was similar to other

studies of journalists and communicators through the use of online surveys, but it still presents a









potential for nonresponse error. Chapter 4 addressed this potential for error through the

comparison of early and late responders, which were similar for the key independent variables

and most of the demographic characteristics. Chi-square tests did find a significant difference for

the membership (AAEA or NASW) and the news organization category of "communication

department." The difference in membership was anticipated because AAEA members were

expected to have higher levels of issue involvement with reporting food and natural resource

topics. The difference in "communication department" respondents may be attributed to the

option to select more than one news organization (to accommodate freelance writers). Some

respondents may have not identified with this category while others may have selected this with

another response option. This does indicate potential response error that should be addressed in

future research.

Another limitation of the study was the subjects' identification of the scientific progress

frame as the health frame. The identification of the message frame as health may be justified

because the topic of peanut allergies can be classified as a health issue. Prior studies examining

the use of frames in persuasive communication have focused on positive versus negative frames

(Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990; Donovan & Jalleh, 2000). However, negative frames are

not always available for the persuasion topic and other frames may be better suited to

communicate the intended message. In this current study, the distinction between the health and

scientific progress frames was not evident to subjects although the manipulation check

conducted during message stimuli testing found the frames to be distinguishable. This limitation

illustrated the difficulty in developing message frames apriori and encourages the future study

of how communicators identify and define intentionally developed message frames.









This study used a one-time only exposure to the message frame. Strong attitudes are

resistant to change and require repeated exposure to persuasive messages to influence change

through the persuasion process (Perloff, 2003). The effect of the frames in this study were

measured based on a single exposure, whereas repeated exposure over an extended amount of

time would potentially discover a more significant influence of message frame on attitudes.

The research instrument was designed to be as concise as possible, but it still required

approximately 20 minutes to complete. Efforts were made to decrease the length of the

questionnaire by removing repetitive questions and index items that would improve alpha

reliability coefficients. The online questionnaire also included a progress bar so respondents

knew their progress through the instrument. Despite these efforts, several respondents failed to

answer every question or complete the final pages with the need for cognition index and

additional demographic questions. Several respondents commented that the survey was too long

or they did not have time to complete it. These obstacles were anticipated so important

demographic questions were included at the beginning of the instrument and efforts were made

to decrease the number of questions before respondents received their assigned message frames.

Future surveys of this audience should place important questions at the beginning and explain

why longer indexes are included in the instrument.

Finally, the use of an online survey could be viewed as a limitation due to potential self-

selection for those who are more comfortable completing an online survey. However, journalists

and communicators are increasingly utilizing the Internet and e-mail to do their jobs ("No One's

Yelling 'Copy' Anymore," 2001; Trumbo et al., 2001; Duke, 2002) indicating a familiarity with

this technology. Dillman (2007) noted that online or Web surveys are the latest development in

survey research and are becoming more frequently utilized. Conducting this study online allowed









subjects to receive the message frame as they often would from an online news room or e-mailed

press release.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Theory and Future Research

Results from this study suggest several areas of future research. From a theoretical

perspective, additional research to connect framing to the ELM should be conducted to examine

the development of persuasive communication messages. The results of this study found that the

apriori defined message frames did not have a significant interaction with issue involvement

and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology on attitudes toward argument quality

or likelihood to publish. However, when the subject-identified frames were considered, they did

have a significant interaction. This result should be further examined to discover how researchers

develop and embed message frames in persuasive communication messages and how the

intended audience interprets these frames.

In the current study, subjects had difficulty distinguishing between the health and scientific

progress message frames. Further research should explore if the difference is indeed negligible

or if it is only the case for the message topic utilized in the study. This research could also

expose subjects to all message frame stimuli so they can evaluate the appropriateness of each

frame to meet their preferred style of communication. Additional research should utilize the

tested message frames (health, economics, and scientific progress) with other agricultural topics

to explore their effect on attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish. In

particular, the effectiveness of the health message frame in producing more positive attitudes

toward argument quality should be further examined by applying it to other agricultural topics.

This future research direction could also explore what other types of positively valenced frames









can be used with agricultural science issues such as biofuels and food safety, which have been

covered in the media recently.

When forming attitudes toward argument quality, subjects relied more on preexisting

attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology than issue involvement. The influence of attitudes

should be examined through further investigation to explore how these attitudes affect persuasive

communication in other areas of agriculture. Also, issue involvement for subjects was rather high

in this study so additional research is needed to examine issue involvement when it is low to

explore what persuasive techniques and message frames are most effective.

Future research should analyze the qualitative data collected in the current study through

the thought-listing technique to examine the elaboration component of the ELM. This study did

not examine which route to persuasion was utilized, but further research could examine what

impact message frames have on encouraging the central or peripheral route to persuasion. This

data analysis would also explore the methodological feature of using online surveys to collect

open-ended responses. Subjects' responses to these items where typing was necessary should be

compared to traditional thought-listing procedures that requires handwriting on a paper

instrument.

Additionally, more research is needed to further test and refine the argument quality index

with respect to how media representatives develop perceptions of message quality. This area of

research should examine how news writers construct argument quality and test it as a dependent

factor. Factor analysis with the data in this study indicated two subscales for the argument

quality index, which need to be further tested with larger samples. Furthermore, the issue

involvement index was found to contain two subscales through factor analysis procedures. These









subscales should be used to perform exploratory analysis of the data to determine what, if any,

significant influence each has on other variables in the study.

Recommendations for future research also include examining how agricultural

communicators develop persuasive messages and what frames are most effective for various

topics. This study examined one area of agricultural science, agricultural biotechnology, while

many other topics are available for examination. Further investigation of the process agricultural

communicators utilize to develop persuasive messages would highlight effective methods and

improve the discipline.

Recommendations for Practitioners

In this study, issue involvement and preexisting attitudes had an important influence on the

persuasion process. An individual's issue involvement can impact the ability of a persuasive

message to develop supportive or contrary thoughts in regard to a message topic. Also, the

attitudes one has prior to receiving a persuasive message affect how the message arguments are

interpreted. To produce the most effective persuasive communication messages, practitioners

need to understand these characteristics about their audience members. It may be difficult to

change the issue involvement or preexisting attitudes, but the persuasive messages can be

adjusted over time to be more effective.

This study found that how communicators develop message frames is not always

consistent with how message recipients interpret these frames. For practitioners, this means that

more attention should be paid to the development of message frames that are consistent with the

messages' intentions. When charged with communicating scientific information to the media,

communicators need to tailor the messages so they are viewed as higher in argument quality that

will encourage journalists to pay attention to the information.









As mentioned in Chapter 1, the STEP program at the University of Florida is an example

of an effort to improve the dissemination of scientific results to a broader audience. The use of

online technology to do so is an effective method to reach journalists and other interested

audience members. As the results of this study found, respondents indicated e-mail was their

preferred method to receive press releases, followed by websites. With this preference in mind,

practitioners need to make an effort to develop e-mail lists of contacts for press releases and

incorporate the information within the text of the e-mail, not as an attachment. Additionally,

emphasis should be placed on how the message is framed within the press release to encourage

recipients to read it and utilize the information in subsequent communication.

Based on the results of this study, when developing communication messages, agricultural

communicators need to examine how they frame agricultural topics and explore the use of the

health frame. Most consumers are well removed from the agrarian lifestyle and view agriculture

as only a source of food. This heuristic should be nurtured by addressing the health angle of

agricultural topics. The media attention given to natural and organic foods today has made health

more salient for consumers and driven their desire to know more about what they eat.

It may also be necessary for agricultural communicators to utilize more than one message

frame for a particular topic depending on the intended receiver. Issue involvement and

preexisting attitudes are individual difference variables and communicators will be more

effective in having their messages used if they are able to tailor them, through the use of frames,

to effectively reach segmented audiences. The opportunity to positively frame agricultural

science topics, especially those that are controversial, in a way that encourages their adoption

would do much to improve the public's awareness and understanding of agricultural issues.









Conclusions

This study examined the interaction of issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward

agricultural biotechnology, and message frames on attitudes toward argument quality and

likelihood to publish. How persuasive messages are framed influences attitudes toward argument

quality, which is related to the amount of cognitive processing undertaken and the route to

persuasion utilized with the ELM. While issue involvement and preexisting attitudes are harder

to change, agricultural communicators can place emphasis on the development of effective

message frames that promote agricultural issues, including those that are more controversial

agricultural science topics such as agricultural biotechnology.

The results of this study indicate potential for agricultural communicators to utilize

persuasive communication to influence attitudes toward argument quality. While the likelihood

to publish information remains a complex decision-making process, communicators can be

proactive in making their messages more attractive to those who make the decision to include

information in the media by paying attention to how messages are framed.

When tailoring persuasive communication messages, practitioners still need to be

cognizant of their audience's individual differences and use this information to develop effective

messages and communication strategies. There will never be "one right way" to present scientific

information and constant attention is needed to produce messages that are most effective.









APPENDIX A
PRE-NOTICE LETTER















U F UNIVERSITY of 305RolfsHall
W O RI BPox 110540
Gainesville,, F. 32611-0540
IFAS Telephone: (352) 392-0502
IFAS t~Fax: (352) 392-9585
Department of Agricultural Education and Communication



Name
I 1 le 'i._ ai zai li.1 oi
Address
City, State Zip


April 30, 2008

Dear [insert first and last name]:

As a communicator, you have the responsibility to choose topics that are important and relevant for your
audience. Currently, the topic I L.- i 1, ',.- on science-related issues is of particular importance as our
society is :1. .... 11 .i _i 1i ,,r on advances in science and technology. In an effort to better understand how
findings related to the development of an allergen-free peanut should be communicated, it is imperative to
gain more knowledge of your opinions and perceptions of communication efforts.

To help gather this valuable information, you have been randomly selected to participate in a brief online
survey. In a few days, you will receive an e-mail from me with a link to an online survey. The e-mail will be
sent to [insert address here]. (Please check your junk mail or Spam filter if you do not receive this e-mail in
the next few days.)

If you would like to access this survey now, you can enter the following Web address:
LINK

The results of this survey will be used to enhance communication efforts in areas related to science. Your
response is crucial to the success of this study and will make a significant impact in better understanding
communicators' opinions and preferences regarding information about scientific advances. The results will
be kept confidential and reported in summary form only. If you have questions, please feel free to contact
me at the phone number or e-mail address listed below.

Thank you in advance for your participation and contribution to this study.

-I., ,. I i




Courtney Meyers
Ph.D. Candidate
(352) 392-4680
cameyers@ufl.edu







Figure A-1. Pre-notice letter









APPENDIX B
E-MAIL CONTACTS


Message testing e-mail
Hello member of the ACE Writing SIG,

My name is Courtney Meyers and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida. For my
dissertation, I am conducting a research project to gain a better understanding of how
communicators perceive information regarding research being done on the development of a
hypoallergenic peanut.

In preparation for my study, I have developed an online press release about this research project.
As a professional communicator, your input is greatly appreciated in evaluating this message to
ensure it is an effective presentation of the information.

You were randomly selected from the ACE Writing SIG to receive a short survey. Please click
the link to be connected to a web-based questionnaire that contains the press release and a series
of questions regarding its content. This survey will take no more than 10 minutes to complete
and I would greatly appreciate your feedback by next Friday, March 21.

LINK

Thank you in advance for your feedback in the development of this communication material.

Sincerely,
Courtney Meyers









Survey contact e-mail
Subject: Brief Survey from University of Florida

Hello. My name is Courtney Meyers, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida
currently researching communicators' opinions and perceptions of how findings about the
development on an allergen-free peanut should be disseminated. Hopefully, you received a letter
in the mail informing you of this study.

You have been randomly selected to participate in a brief online survey. The results of this
survey will be used to enhance communication efforts related to peanut allergen research. Your
response is crucial to the success of this study and will make a significant impact in better
understanding communicators' opinions and preferences regarding information about scientific
advances.

I realize your time is incredibly valuable so this survey has been designed to be as concise as
possible and should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Your responses will remain
confidential and all results will be presented in summary format. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 352-392-4680 or cameyers@ufl.edu.

To fill out the survey, please click on the link below:

LINK

Thank you for your feedback. It is much appreciated and will contribute significantly to this
research project and the future improvement of communication efforts.

Sincerely,
Courtney Meyers









Text for follow-up e-mail
Subject: Reminder: Brief Survey from University of Florida
Date

Last week a link to a web-based questionnaire was sent to you seeking your opinions and
perceptions of how findings about the development on an allergen-free peanut should be
disseminated.

If you have already completed the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. If you have
not, please do so at your earliest convenience. I am especially grateful for your help because it is
only by asking people like you to share your experiences that we can enhance communication
efforts in related areas.

In case you have misplaced the original e-mail, a link to the survey is provided below.

LINK

Thank you again for your participation.

Sincerely,
Courtney Meyers









APPENDIX C
INSTRUMENT




















Dear Participant: We (Dr. Tracy Irani and Courtney Meyers, both of the Agricultural Education & Communication Department at the
University of Florida) are conducting research through a Web-based questionnaire to gather communicators' opinions and perceptions
of how findings about the development on an allergen-free peanut should be disseminated. The purpose of this study is to gain a
better understanding of how similar topics should be communicated, This survey will take less than 20 minutes to complete, Your
identity will remain confidential to the extent provided by law. Your participation is completely voluntary; you have the right to
withdraw consent at any time without consequence. There are no known risks associated with this study and there is no compensation
or other direct benefit to you for participation.

If you have any questions about this research, please contact the study supervisor, Dr, Tracy Irani at irani@ufl.edu or 352-392-0502
ext. 225. For questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the UFIRB at 352-392-0433, IRS #200B-U-
0296.

By selecting the "Next" button you agree that you have read this statement and are aware of your rights,



If you have trouble accessing the survey...
In order to fully access the survey, you may need to enable JavaScript and cookies on your computer. If you have trouble moving
past the next page, please return to this page and click on the link below to find instructions on how to enable JavaScript and
cookies. We apologize for any inconvenience. We sincerely appreciate your input for this study.

Enable JavaScript and Cookies















1. Are you a member of the following organizations?
Yes No
American Agricultural O Q
Editors' Association
National Association of O O
Science Writers
2. Which of the following best describes your current position?
O Freelance
O Work for single publication as a writer
O Work for single publication as an editor
O Public relations practitioner or account executive
O President
O Owner

O Other (please indicate here if you work for a radio or television station)


3. What type of news organization do you work for? (mark all that apply)
O Daily newspaper
O Weekly newspaper
D Weekly magazine
| Monthly magazine
D Online journalism
D Broadcast journalism (TV/Radio)
D Communication division/department
D Public relations agency
Other (please specify)















Mark one number for each line below that best describes how you feel about the phrase: "I feel that reporting on
food and natural resource issues Is..." Each line has a different set of adjectives to gather your opinions about the
phrase.

Numbers "1" and "5" Indicate strong feelings, numbers "2" and "4" Indicate weaker feelings; and box "3" Indicates
that you are undecided.

I feel that reporting on food and natural resource issues is...

1.
Important Undecided Unimportant
1 2 3 4 5
0 O 0 0 0
2.
Boring Undecided Interesting
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
3.
Relevant Undecided Irrelevant
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
4.
Exciting Undecided Unexciting
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
5.
Appealing Undecided Unappealing
1 2 3 4 S
0 0 0 0 0

6.
Fascinating Undecided Mundane
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
7.
Worthless Undecided Valuable
1 2 3 4 S
0 0 0 0 0
8.
Involving Undecided Uninvolving
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
9.
Not Heeded Undecided Needed
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0















Indicate your attitude about the phrase: "I feel agricultural biotechnology Is..." Each line has a different set of
adjectives to gather your opinions about the phrase.

Numbers "1" and "5" Indicate strong feelings, numbers "2" and "4" Indicate weaker feelings; and box "3" Indicates
that you are undecided.

I feel agricultural biotechnology is...

1.
Foolish Undecided Wise
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
2.
Una ceptable Undecided Acceptable
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
3.
Unfavorable Undecided Favorable
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
4.
Wrong Undecided Right
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
5.
Bad Undecided Good
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
6.
Negative Undecided Positive
1 2 3 4 S
0 0 0 0 0













. .


1. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement.
Neither Agree nor
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Disagree
a. Both large and small O O O O
farmers reap economic
benefits from agricultural
biotechnology.
b. Agricultural 0 0 0
biotechnology lacks
adequate testing,
c. Agricultural 0 0 0
biotechnology is natural.
The process is just faster
and more precise than
traditional plant breeding,
d. Biotech foods are in O O O
development that will
improve human health
e. Agricultural 0 0 0 0
biotechnology will help to
feed the world's rapidly
expanding population.
f. Biotech crops improve O O O O
water quality, requiring
fewer chemicals than
traditional crops.
g, Biotech foods pose O O O O
unforeseen health risks.


Strongly Agree

0


0

0



0

0


0


0
O


















O
















Please take the next few minutes to read a brief press release,

Click on the link below and the press release will open in a separate window, Please read It carefully. When you are
finished, please re-read the press release then select the "Next" button on this screen to continue.

Press Release

















Now we have a few questions to ask you about the message you just read.

1. We are interested in the thoughts and feelings that went through your mind as
you read the press release. Please type your thoughts and feelings in the six blank
boxes below. Please list only one thought or feeling in a box, but you do not need to
fill in all the boxes. Just list whatever thoughts you had after reading the press
release.
Thought 1
Thought 2
Thought 3
Thought 4
Thought 5
Thought 6

2. Indicate your response to the following question.
Moderately
Not Important At All Very Important
1 2 Important 4
3
How important was the O O O O
press release message to
you personally?

3. Indicate your response to the following question.
not at all motivated somewhat motivated very motivated
1 2 3 4 5
How motivated were you O O O C 0
to read the press
release?

4. In your opinion, how would you classify the dominant theme/frame of the press
release? This theme/frame can be defined as a recurring or implicit idea that is
dominant in the message.

O Health

O Economics
O Scientific progress

SDon't know

5. Please indicate your response to the statement below.
Neither Agree nor
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
I believe this press 0 0 0 0 0
release is newsworthy.















Indicate your attitude about the phrase: "I feel peanut allergen research Is..." Each line has a different set of
adjectives to gather your opinions about the phrase.

Numbers "1" and "5" Indicate strong feelings, numbers "2" and "4" Indicate weaker feelings; and box "3" Indicates
that you are undecided.

I feel peanut allergen research is...

1.
Foolish Undecided Wise
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
2.
Una ceptable Undecided Acceptable
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
3.
Unfavorable Undecided Favorable
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
4.
Wrong Undecided Right
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
5.
Bad Undecided Good
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
6.
Negative Undecided Positive
1 2 3 4 S
0 0 0 0 0















Mark one number on each line below that best describes how you feel about the press release message you just
read. Each line has a different set of adjectives to gather your opinions about the press release.

Numbers "1" and "5" Indicate strong feelings, numbers "2" and "4" Indicate weaker feelings; and "3" Indicates that
you are undecided.
The press release message I just read was...

1.
Insignificant Undecided Significant
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
2.
Irrelevant Undecided Relevant
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
3.
Untimely Undecided Timely
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
4.
Not Believable Undecided Believable
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
5.
Low Quality Undecided High Quality
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
6.
Not Convincing Undecided Convincing
1 2 3 4 S
0 0 0 0 0
7.
Not Credible Undecided Credible
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
8.
Unreasonable Undecided Reasonable
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0
9.
Inconclusive Undecided Conclusive
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 0 0




















Inaccu rate


Undecided


Accurate
















1. Mark one number below that best describes how you feel about each of the
following questions. Number "1" indicates highly unlikely and "5" indicates highly
likely. Number "3" is unsure or undecided. Number "6" indicates not applicable.
Highly Unlikely Undecided Highly Likely Not Applicable
1 2 3 4 5 6
a. How likely would you be O O A
to utilize the information
in the press release to
write or publish a story?
b. If you saw this story on O O O O O O
the AP wire service, how
likely would you be to
publish the information?
c, How likely would you be O O O O O O
to seek out a source to
write or publish a story
based on the information
in the press release?

2. Which of these is your most preferred method for receiving press releases?

O Fax
OMail
O Email (as an attachment direct to you)
O Web site (as a downloaded file)
O RSS Feed
Other (please specify)
k













Nee f C ito


1. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement below.
Neither Agree nor
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Disagree
a. I would prefer complex O O O O
to simple problems.
b. Thinking is not my O O O O
idea of fun.
c, I would rather do O O O O
something that requires
little thought than
something that is sure to
challenge my thinking
abilities.
d. I try to anticipate and 0 O O 0
avoid situations where
there is likely chance I will
have to think in depth
about something
e. I find satisfaction in O O O O
deliberating hard and for
long hours.
f. I only think as hard as O O O O
I have to.
p. I prefer to think about O O O
small, daily projects to
long-term ones.
h. I like tasks that 0 O O 0
require little thought once
I've learned them.
i. The idea of relying on O O O 0
thought to make my way
to the top appeals to me.
j. I really enjoy a task O O O O
that involves coming up
with new solutions to
problems.
k Learning new ways to O O O O
think doesn't excite me
very much.
1. I prefer my life to be O O O O
filled with puzzles that I
must solve.
m. The notion of thinking 0 O 0 O
abstractly is appealing to
me.
n. I would prefer a task O O O O
that is intellectual,
difficult, and important to
one that is somewhat
important but does not
require much thought.
o. I feel relief rather than O O O O
satisfaction after
completing a task that
required a lot of mental
effort.
p. It is enough for me fO O O O
that something gets the
job done; I don't care
how or why it works.
q. I usually end up O O O O
di[ih.armnnn ahout issues_


Strongly Agree

0
0
0




0



0

0

0

0

0

0


0

0

0

0




0



0


0

















ever when they do not
affect me personally.












1. What year were you born? Please type the entire year (YYYY).
[-I
2. What is your gender?
O male
O Female
3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
O Less than High School
O High School Graduate orGED
O Some College
0 Two-year Associate's Degree
O Four-year Bachelor's Degree
O Graduate or Professional Degree
4. How many years have you worked as a professional in the communications field?
O less than 3 years
0 3-5 years
O 6-10 years
0 11-15 years
Q 16-20 years
O more than 20 years
5. What is your publication's circulation?
Q under 4,999
0 5,000-9,999
0 10,000-19,999
0 20,000-34,999
0 35,000-49,999
0 50,000-74,999
Q more than 75,000
0 don't work for single publication
O don't work for print publication (please provide viewership or listenership number)
I














6. Any additional comments about this survey (optional).


Thank you for completing the survey!









APPENDIX D
MESSAGE VERSIONS



















FOR InMMEDI ATE RELEASE NEWS RELEASE

Con tac i5t 1 W'r iter, 13 521 55-00l00


Recent study explores possibility of allergen-free peanuts

Gainesi ille Fla MNar ir pend-. etra time reading rood package label examininging gredient li't' and asking
re'tau rint what t. pe ot oil the\ ure to tr% their road 5She i, not doing this ji'-t Mr c ri.'-rit; -Ale takes these
steps to sa~ e her lile.

NMiar r. pr-en t- the 1.5 milli n people in the United Stai.t. h... -Lunrter Irom ptianut allergrie Pelanut Iallerprtes
aro t ,i. rn -q cor'mmon c.i .' iit-, 1 lihi -thrt' lti'rii aill_'rt.i reatl.ilI n1 ani'd uiri nt r a1 pt-r'ent It ta.'[l or na.ir-
fatal allergic reaction-_ each %ear.

Re-t-ar:ch in The journal o. Allergy. and Clini,:al Inirnunflk.og. reported that the pie\.alen:e of peanut allergies
in the United Statks doIublled i'ronm 0I 9' t. 2(112 ,and lthl amroun t or people di.bgno [.dJ \- ith pe.tarnut allk'rgic..
contil "U 'c to Irliar'e-.'

To .-l'I. [leio'.e people wholl < a il .d pea, jrs r i[tI lo heaillli co.Ieri i L.-i r'.et-ilil, 1q Fluiidtla c-ienli 'f i-_
In% e-tigatlng the po'-bllbili o. a h, poallergtnic peanut. Maria Gallu, asOic'iate proires-i-o in the department it
agronumnl', l-I researching \ halt char.acteri'-r.ti:- Il petnut-, caui]e pei-ple to be alllergic and ho\. i t create a peanut
that 11 edible eS\n lur thu-,e i\ ith peani t allergie-

ilirouli tleh e\alimatnion o c-ulTicared pea nut'. Q.all. ti-'id ou 'i i.of tie p'iea gn.t't tlidndiating the pre.eni.e
ort in allergen protein i, a.-. altered Peai-iiu l proteins actr ai tl i insrgators ocr an allergic re ation wi tiin liumnirs.
t% which cin range ir'..m minor di,--ionmOrt -.ich as a. -ikin r.1.h tuo a more -*eritmi- reVaction _-ih a'- d iriaLilIt
breathing and death.

In her ;tuds, Gall epxposed bloiid trnm peanut-allergic patient-, ti the altered peanut protein. and tiound that
the blood did not re..pond in the r\ p;,.il a.a,

In other \ ,.nrd. tie ptilent'' annibodie' did not recognize nne ot the prnrtein So in theory tli\ .ire noi a-
allergic to rth protein GCi'lo aid.

Nc. treatment te,,I.t, or peanut allergies .ind most people do not .outgrron th'e all..rzi; 0 er time The only' .ia
to .i oid an allergic reaction is tn aLoid products that nma\ contain peanuts- The limit at barred r ode include
peanut' and peanut butter and other roid t'hioe that nmightr contain eael cnuts such .1c cakes pie' breiaktfa-t
cereal-. ian to ds, *.ilad dre,,ing-. barbeque sauiCe. ice cream ind choi olire bar's.

















Figure D-1. Health Message

















FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


NEWS RELEASE


Contact: Staff Writer, (352) 'T'~-0000


Work on allergen-free peanuts may lead to substantial economic
growth for $800 million peanut industry

Gainesville, Fla. In economics, supply and demand is a basic principle that addresses the interaction
between what is available and what consumers want. A University of Florida sdentist is conducting research
that may increase the consumer demand for peanuts through the de\ elopment tt l al lergen-free nuts.

KMI ut under Lrling i? thai de- pile the increase in allergies, the sale of peanuts has remained ivlili~ ehl
stable," said Maria Gallo, associate professor in the delprtninent of agronomy. "So, the expectation is that a
safer peanut will most likely boost sales."

Gallo is researching what characteristics of peanuts cause people to be allergic and how to create a peanut
that is edible for those with peIarit allcrgics. With nearly 2 percentt of the J.S. population suffering from
peanut allergies, this research could lead to a hi p%,illeigenii. pe.inul that i\oul be safe for a larger number
of consumers.

In the United States, the average person consumes more than 6 pounds of peanuts and peanut products
each year. However, approximately 1.5 million people avoid peanuts entirely due to life-threatening peanut
allerIgiL- 'Ihe availability of hypoallergenic peanuts may lead to increased demand and should promote
-ign hi. min growth in the peanut commodity market, Gallo said.

Peanut production in the Uinited States contributes more than $800 million to the economy each year.

With the ulppnrt I.f peanut commodity groups and indlul rv repre.enlatili e' Gallo is looking to classical
plant breeding and genetic engineering as ways to alter the peanut's genetic structure in order to make it
ht p,.i.llergen n .

Although the development of an allergen-free peanut may be five to 20 years away, Gallo said consumers
and the peanut industry should benefit from the production of a h~ 'i I lerteni, peani t.


Figure D-2. Economics Message


1 1, f I f ) j
UfGENETICS UFFL 0 R IDA


















FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS RELEASE

Contact: Staff Writer, (352) 555-0000


Scientific breakthrough may lead to allergen-free peanuts

Gainesville, Fla. Using the latest applications in biott hnlo a scientist at the University of Florida is
paving a new path to explore the possibility of allergen-free peanuts.

Maria Gallo, associate professor in the department of agronomy, is researching what characteristics of peanuts
cause people to Ibe .llr gik and how to create a peanut that is edible for those even with peanut allergies. This
research provides progress in an area of peanut research that, up to this point, had remained unknown, G.Cll
said.

One of the first to explore this research area, Gallo is looking to classical plant breed ing Inrd genetic
engineering techniques to alter the peanut's genetic structure in order to make it h\ p%',alleleni.. These new
peanuts would be genetically modified to contain genes that code for proteins that do not cause a llergl.
reactions.

"What we wanted to do was to investigate from the plant side of the equation," Gallo said. In the first step
of this research process, the examination of cultivated peanut, Gallo found an alteration in one of the peanut
genes that signifies the presence of an allergen.

"In a limited study, using blood from peanut allergic patients that was exposed to the proteins, they did not
respond the same way," Gallo said. "In other words, the patient's antibodies did not recognize one of the
proteins. So in theory, they are not as l lleti i h this protein."

This discovery provides the opportunity for future investigation of the allergy ..Lh.irateri-ti. of peanuts, which
is due to the proteins within peanut genes. These proteins can cause a range of allergic reactions from minor
discomfort such as a skin rash to more serious reactions such as diffi,:'.ll breathing and death.

Nearly 2 percent of the U.S. population suffers from peanut allergies, but exactly why and how people become
allergic i- -till under scientific inv~rtigiation

If what Callo has found holds true in future studies, this research provides a step forward in the search for
a viable alternative for those who have peanut allergies. In fact, hypoallergenic peanuts may be available to
consumers in the next five to 20 years.

Gallo said the next step requires additional research to ensure that alteration ,of the genec does not change
other peanut characteristics and that these peanuts are safe for all people to eat.














Figure D-3. Scientific Progress Message









LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson, A., & Marhadour, A. (2007). Slick PR? The media politics of the Prestige oil spill.
Science Communication, 29(9), 96-115.

Andrews, L. B., Fullarton, J. E., Holtzman, N. A., & Motulsky, A.G. (1994). Assessing genetic
risks: Implicationsfor health and social policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.

Arant, M.D., & Anderson, J.Q. (2001). Newspaper online editors support traditional standards.
Newspaper Research Journal, 22(4), 57-69.

Areni, C. S., & Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the Elaboration Likelihood
Model. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 197-203.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Ashlock, M. A., Cartmell, D. D., Kelemen, D. B. (2006). The cow that stole Christmas: Framing
the first U.S. mad cow crisis. Journal of Applied Communication, 90(2), 29-46.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.

Barnett, B. (2005). Feminists shaping news: A framing analysis of news releases from the
National Organization for Women. Journal of Public Relations, 17(4), 341-362.

Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Urbana: University
of Illiniois Press.

Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS
research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-
95.

Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales (21d ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Beltramini, R. F. (1982). Advertising perceived believability scale. In D. R. Corrigan & F. B.
Kraft & R. H. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the S.uinhi, eI'wi In Marketing Association (pp.
1-3). Wichita, KS: Southwestern Marketing Association.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to
research design, measurement and statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Boone, K., Meisenbach, T., & Tucker, M. (2000). Agricultural communications: Changes and
challenges. Ames: Iowa State University Press.









Borchelt, R. E. (2001). Communicating the future: Report of the Research Roadmap Panel for
Public Communication of Science and Technology in the Twenty-First Century. Science
Communication, 23(2), 194-211.

Brock, T. C. (1967). Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of
counterargument production. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 3, 269-309.

Buchanan, G. (2007, May 10). Statement before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture.
Retrieved September 30, 2007, from
http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h70510a/Buchanan.doc.

Burgoon, M., Cohen, M., Miller, M. D., & Montgomery, C. L. (1978) An empirical test of a
model of resistance to persuasion. Health Communications Research, 5(1), 27-39.

Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes and cognitive
responses and their relationship to behavior. In R. Petty, T. Ostrum, & T. Brock (Eds.),
Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition.
Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307.

Cassidy, W.P. (2005). Variations on a theme: The professional role conceptions of print and
online newspaper journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 264-
280.

Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information
processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh
(Eds.), Unintended thought: Limits of awareness, intention, and control (pp. 212-252).
New York: Guilford.

Chaiken, S., Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E. T. Higgins & A.
W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 702-742).
New York: Guilford Press.

Christensen, L. B. (2001). Experimental methodology (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Chung, D.S., Kim, E., Trammell, K.D., & Porter, L.V. (2007). Uses and perceptions ofblogs: A
report on professional journalists and journalism educators. Journalism & Mass
Communication Educator, 62(3), 305-322

Clayman, S. E., & Reisner, A. (1998). Gatekeeping in action: Editorial conferences and
assessments of newsworthiness. American Sociological Review, 63(2), 178-199.









Crawley, C. E. (2007). Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community
newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science
Communication, 28(3), 314-346.

Diamond, J. (1997, May). Kinship with the stars. Discover, 18, 44-49.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Donovan, R. J., & Jalleh, G. (2000). Positive versus negative framing of a hypothetical infant
immunization: The influence of involvement. Health Education & Behavior, 27(1), 82-
95.

Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In Friedman, S.M.,
Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C.L. (Eds). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new
and controversial science (pp. 59-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Duke, S. (2002). Wired science: Use of World Wide Web and e-mail in science public relations.
Public Relations Review, 28, 311-324.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Einsiedel, E. F. (1992). Framing science and technology in the Canadian press. Public
Understanding of Science, 1, 89-101.

Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of
the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51-58.

Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude
accessibility. In A.R. Poratkanis, S.J. Breckler, & A.G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude
Structure and Function (pp. 153-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2002, January 14). Public
awareness campaign to show economic value of agriculture, Florida's second-largest
industry. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from
http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/press/2002/01142002.html

Frick, M. J., Birkenholz, R. J., & Machtmes, K. (1995). Rural and urban adult knowledge and
perceptions of agriculture. Journal ofAgricultural Education, 36(2), 44-53.









Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C. L. (1986). Scientists and journalists: Reporting
science as news. New York: Free Press.

Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C. L. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media
coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frodeman, R., & Holbrook, J. B. (2007, Spring). Science's social effects. Issues in Science and
Technology, 28-30.

Funkhouser, G. R. (1973). The issues of the sixties: An exploratory study in the dynamics of
public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 62-75.

Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of
genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science, 285(5426), 384-387.

Gaunt, P. (1992). Making the newsmakers: International handbook on journalism training.
Westport. Greenwood Press.

Gitlin,T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the
new left. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Free Press.

Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude
change. In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrum (Eds.), Psychological foundations of
attitudes (pp. 148-170). New York: Academic Press.

Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility.
Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.

Griffin, R. J., & Dunwoody, S. (1997). Community structure and science framing of news about
local environmental risks. Science Communication, 18(6), 362 384.

Hacker, R. G., & Harris, M. (1992). Adult learning of science for scientific literacy: Some
theoretical and methodological perspectives. Studies in the Education ofAdults, 24(2),
217-225.

Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205-242.

Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and
journalism ith/ eteni' America'sfuture. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.

Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition
moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal ofPersonality and
Social Psychology, 63(2), 308-319.









Holsinger, K. E. (2006). A new era for the public understanding of science. BioScience, 56(12),
955.

Hoban, T. J. (1998). Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology.
AgBioForum, 1(1), 3-7. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from
http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/vlnl/vlnla02-hoban.htm

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion:
Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hurt, R. D. (2002). American agriculture: A brief history. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University
Press.

Husselbee, L. P., & Elliot, L. (2002). Looking beyond hate: How national and regional
newspapers framed hate crimes in Jasper, Texas, and Laramie, Wyoming. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 833-852.

lyengar, S. & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago:
University of Chicago.

Kalaitzandonakes, N., Marks, L. A., & Vickner, S. S. (2004). Media coverage ofbiotech foods
and influence on consumer choice. American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 86(5),
1238-1246.

Kellogg Foundation, W. K. (n.d.) Farm and farm-related employment. Retrieved September 30,
2007, from
http://www.wkkf. org/default. aspx?tabid= 102&CID= 19& C atID= 19&ItemID= 190274&N
ID=20&LanguageID=0.

Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2002). The facet of biotech in the nineties: How the German press
framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 143-154.

LaFollette, M. C. (1990). Making science our own: Public images of science, 1910-1955.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lawrence, R. G. (2004). Framing obesity: The evolution of news discourse on a public health
issue. Harvard International Journal ofPress/Politics, 9(3), 56-75.

Lengell, S. (2008, May 6) Watchdogs see waste in farm-bill reform. The Washington Times, pp.
A4.

Leshner, A. I. (2007, January 12). Outreach training needed. Science, 315, 161.

Lichter, S. R., Amundson, D., & Lichter, L. S. (2005). The message from ruralAmerica: Media
coverage of ruralAmerica 2002 vs. 2004. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from
http://www.wkkf org/DesktopModules/WKF.00_DmaSupport/ViewDoc. aspx?fld=PDFFi
le&CID=297&ListID=28&ItemlD=44093&LanguagelD=0









Lundy, L. K. (2004). Globally speaking: The effect of internal message frames on attitudes and
cognitive processing focused on internationalizing agricultural extension n it/hi// the
elaboration likelihood model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Lundy, L. (2006). Effect of framing on cognitive processing in public relations. Public Relations
Review, 32, 295-301.

Lundy, L. K., & Irani, T. A. (2004). Framing biotechnology: A comparison of U.S. and British
national newspapers. Journal ofApplied Communication, 88(2), 37-49.

Lundy, L., Ruth, A., Telg, R., & Irani, T. (2006). It takes two: Public understanding of
agricultural science and agricultural scientists' understanding of the public. Journal of
Applied Communication, 90(1), 55-68.

Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue
involvement. Journal ofMarketing Research, 27, 361-367.

Marks, L. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L., & Zakharova, L. (2007). Mass media framing
of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 183-203.

Martin, A. (2008, May 30). Food report criticizes biofuel policies. The New York Times, pp. Cl.

Martin, A., & Severson, K. (2008, April 18). Sticker shock in the organic aisles. The New York
Times, pp. C1.

McCombs, M. E. (1997). New frontiers in agenda setting: Agendas of attributes and frames.
Mass Communication Review, 24, 32-52.

McCombs, M E. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies,
6, 543-557.

McCombs, M., Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Rey, F. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish
elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism andMass Communication
Quarterly, 74, 703-717.

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda setting function of the media. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.

Miller, J. D. (2000). The development of civic scientific literacy in the United States, in D.D.
Kumar and D. Chubin (Eds.), Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on
Research and Practice (pp. 21-47). New York: Plenum Press.

Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we
know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.

National Agricultural Library. (2002). Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation. Retrieved
October 9, 2007, from http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/collect/riley/memorial.htm.









National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (1997).
Improving public understanding and appreciation of agriculture. Retrieved October 9,
2007, from http://www.nal.usda.gov/assessment/comments/whitepaper.pdf

National Research Council. (2003). Frontiers in agricultural research: Food, health,
environment, and communities. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation. (2006a). Investing in America's future: Strategic plan FY 2006-
2011. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0648/NSF-06-
48.pdf

National Science Foundation. (2006b). Science & engineering indicators. Retrieved June 20,
2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdf/c07.pdf

Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology (2nd Ed.). New
York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Nelkin, D., & Lindee, S. (1995). The DNA mystique. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties
conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.

Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion.
Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040-1067.

Nisbet, M. C., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy
process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359-391.

Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V.
(2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public
perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608.

No one's yelling "copy" anymore; Journalists' use of the Internet at all-time high. (2001, June).
Public Relations Tactics, 8, 7.

Oliver, P. E., & Myers, D. J. (1999). How events enter the public sphere: Conflict, location, and
sponsorship in local newspaper coverage of public events. The American Journal of
Sociology, 105(1), 38-87.

Ostrom, T. M., Bond, Jr., C. F., Krosnick, J. A., & Sedikides, C. (1994). Attitude scales: How we
measure the unmeasurable. In S. Shavitt & T.C. Brock (Eds.) Persuasion: Psychological
insights and perspectives (pp. 15-42). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Perloff, R. M. (1993). The dynamics ofpersuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics ofpersuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st
century. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.









Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by
enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 37(10), 1915-1926.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral
routes to attitude change. New York: Springer Verlag.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary
approaches. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of
argument-based persuasion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847-
855.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Strathman, A. (2005). To think or not to think? Exploring two
routes to persuasion. In T.C. Brock & M.C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological
insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 81-116).

Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Cognitive responses inpersuasion. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables.
In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook ofsocialpsychology (pp.
323-390). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and
controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.) Dual-process ithew i'\, in social
psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2006, December). Awareness of genetically modified
food has declined over the past five years. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from
http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2006update/1.php

Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news
frames on reader's cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24(5), 481-501.

Priest, S. H. (1999). Popular beliefs, media, and biotechnology. In S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody,
& C.L. Rogers (Eds.) Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and
controversial science (pp. 95-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Priest, S. H. (2000). U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology, 18,
939-942.

Priest, S. H. (2001). A grain of ii ih The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham: MD.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Priest, S. H., & Eyck, T. T. (2003). News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society, 40(6), 29-
34.









Reisner, A., & Walter, G. (1994). Agricultural journalists' assessments of print coverage of
agricultural news. Rural Sociology, 59(3), 525-537.

Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: a social cognitive
account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47(3), 26-48.

Rogers, C. L. (1999). The importance of understanding audiences. In S.M. Friedman, S.
Dunwoody, & C.L. Rogers (Eds.) Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new
and controversial science (pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rosenwald, M. S. (2008, June 3). Fast food goes organic; high noon sale reflects growing
appetite for quick, healthy eateries. The Washington Post, pp. Dl.

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The
role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.

Ruth, A., Eubanks, E. E., & Telg, R. (2005). Framing the mad cow media coverage. Journal of
Applied Communication, 89(4), 39-54.

Ruth, A., Lundy, L., Telg, R., & Irani, T. (2005). Trying to relate: Media relations training needs
of agricultural scientists. Science Communication, 27(1), 127-145.

Ruth, A., Muegge, T. & Irani, T. (2005). Seeds planted for recovery: Framing of agriculture
during the 2004 Florida hurricanes. Paper presented at the annual Association for
Communication Excellence conference, San Antonio, TX.

Sands, D. R. (2008, May 15). Food trade caps faulted; top economist sees worsening. The
Washington Times, pp A 15.

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147-177.

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49,
103-119.

Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at
cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society 3 (2 & 3)
297-316.

Schmierbach, M. (2005). Method matters: The influence of methodology on journalists'
assessments of social science research. Science Communication, 26(3), 269-287.

Schmit, J. (2008, April 22). Outbreaks prompt scrutiny of food labeling; chicken entrees appear
already cooked, but aren't. USA Today, pp. B1.

Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership Program. (2007a). Home page. Retrieved
October 21, 2007, from http://step.ufl.edu/index.html









Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership Program. (2007b). UF Genetics. Retrieved
October 21, 2007, from http://www.ufgenetics.com/default.aspx

Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: a content analysis of
press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109.

Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (1992). Communication dhier ie' Origins, methods, and uses in
the mass media. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.

Shin, A. (2008, June 29). Tainted tomatoes may still be on the market; FDA to look at other
produce, too. The Washington Post, pp. Al.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Resse, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message. Theories of influences on mass
media content. New York: Longman.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Stephens, L. F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S.
newspapers. Science Communication, 27(2), 175-199.

Stiff, J. B. (1994). Persuasive communication. New York: Guilford Press.

Stone, G., Singletary, M., Richmond, V. P. (1999). Clarifying communication ithw, ie, A hands-
on approach. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Stringer, S., & Thomson, J. (1999, June). Defining agricultural issues: Daily newspaper editor's
perspectives. Paper presented at Agricultural Communicators in Education/National
Extension Technology Conference, Knoxville, TN.

Ten Eyck, T. A., & Williment, M. (2003). The national media and things genetic: Coverage in
the New York Times (1971-2001) and the Washington Post (1977-2001). Science
Communication, 25(12), 129-152.

Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
11, 289-338.

Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Scientific literacy: Issues and perspectives. Scientific Literacy
Papers: A Journal ofResearch in Science, Education and Research, 1, 1-14.

Traub, R. E. (1994). Reliability for the social sciences: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Trumbo, C. (1996). Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an
environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 269-283.

United States Department of Agriculture (2002). 2002 Census ofAgriculture. Retrieved
September 30, 2007, from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Pull_DataCensus.









United States Department of Agriculture (2007). Biotechnology FAQ. Retrieved December 12,
2007, from
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/ s.7_0 A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&navid=A
GRICULTURE&contentid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml

United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. (2005). Science in your
shopping cart. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/shopcart/shopcart.pdf

Tankard, J. W. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S.D. Reese,
O.H. Gandy, & A.E. Grant (Eds.) Framingpublic life (pp. 95-106). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tankard, J., Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S. (1991). Media frames:
Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented to the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.

Thorson, E., Christ, W. G., & Caywood, C. (1991). Effects of issue-image strategies, attack and
support appeals, music, and visual content in political commercials. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35, 465-486.

Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science
communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310-322.

Trumbo, C. W., Sprecker, K. J., Dumlao, R. J., Yun, G. W., and Duke, S. (2001). Use of e-mail
and the Web by science writers. Science Communication, 22(4), 347-378.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.

Weaver, D. H. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of
Communication, 57, 142-147.

Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science
Communication, 23(2), 164-193).

Weisman, J., & Morgan, D. (2008, May 22). House overrides veto of farm bill; glitch may force
repeat of the process. The Washington Times, pp. Al.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction (7th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Wood, M. L. M. (2006). Expertise and prior attitude: Exploring new moderators in the context
of inoculation research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin,
Madison.

Woodall, I. (2007, July). A unanimous decision: Survey shows online newsrooms are required
for media interaction. Public Relations Tactics, 14(7), 9-11.









Yun,G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-
mail, & Web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved June
20, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issuel/yun.html

Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S., & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the
supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts' advice to
readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 37-58.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 341-352.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, revision, and
application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59-70.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born Courtney Alyssa Wimmer, in 1980, in Fort Scott, Kansas. She grew

up in Fulton, a small town in southeastern Kansas. Her family includes her parents, Gary and

Sheila Wimmer; a twin sister, Gaea; a brother, Zach; and a younger sister, Sheridan. Her interest

in agricultural communications was nurtured through involvement in FFA at Jayhawk-Linn High

School in Mound City, Kansas, where she graduated in 1999.

In August 1999, Courtney began her college career at Kansas State University majoring in

agricultural communications and journalism. While at K-State, Courtney worked for the

International Grains Program and was active in Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow. She

graduated summa cum laude in May 2003.

In August 2003, Courtney continued her education at the University of Arkansas in

Fayetteville. While earning her master's degree in agricultural and extension education, she spent

a summer working for the Scottish Agricultural College in Edinburgh, Scotland. Courtney was

selected as the Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Master's Scholar when

she graduated in 2005.

After completing her master's degree, Courtney married Daniel Meyers in June 2005, and

moved to Gainesville, Florida, to pursue her doctoral degree in agricultural communications.

Courtney received the University of Florida Alumni Academic Fellowship to support her

doctoral education in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. During her

degree program, Courtney taught or assisted classes in technical writing, Web and print design,

and communication campaign development. She conducted research in Web and print material

evaluation, scholarship of teaching and learning, media coverage of agricultural issues, and

public awareness of agricultural topics.









Courtney and her husband welcomed their first child, Isabel Ashley, in 2008. In August,

Courtney will begin her faculty career at Texas Tech University as an assistant professor in the

Department of Agricultural Education and Communications, teaching agricultural

communications.





PAGE 1

THE AGRICULTURE ANGLE: EFFECT OF FRAMING AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY MESSAGES ON ATTITUDE S AND INTENT TO PUBLISH WITHIN THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL By COURTNEY ALYSSA MEYERS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Courtney Alyssa Meyers 2

PAGE 3

To my husband, Daniel Meyers 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of people have cont ributed to my success in graduate school and the completion of my doctoral degree. I want to first thank my committee members whose individual and collective input made my disserta tion research more rigorous and the entire process a worthwhile endeavor. I thank Dr. Maria Gallo who provided a valuable biologi cal scientists perspective and the content necessary for the message stimuli. I thank Dr. Debbie Treise whose expertise in science communication greatly bene fited the conceptual and theoretical framework for the study. I thank Dr. Anna Ball who always asked thoughtful questions and challenged me to more closely evaluate the organization of my arguments. I thank Dr. Ricky Telg for his close editing and attention to detail, which improved my writing a nd the overall quality of my dissertation. Finally, I thank my committee chair, Dr. Tracy Irani, fo r her support and encouragement, revision of numerous drafts, and continual advice to improve my ability as a researcher and future faculty member. I have benefited from working in an extraordinary academic department that values graduate students and provides numerous opportuniti es for their success. I thank Jodi DeGraw who always had an answer to every question a nd was eager to help me through any situation requiring paperwork. I thank the wonderful suppor t staff, Holly OFerre ll and Rachel Harris, who make the department run. I always enjoyed visiting with them both and I know they sincerely care about the students in the department. Finally, to Dr. Edward Osborne, I want to extend my sincere gratitude for both financial a nd personal support during my time in Florida. The advice and insight he provided in Faculty Ro les class was extremely beneficial in helping me obtain a faculty position and my preparation to become an assistant professor. I thank him for all he does to make the department a wonderful place to earn a graduate degree. 4

PAGE 5

Although three years in graduate school can seem like a never-ending sequence of writing papers and taking exams, it is the friends I have made that helped that time fly by and leave me with mixed feelings as I move on. I thank all my fellow graduate students, past and present, who made this experience so enjoyable. I especia lly thank Emily Rhoades for her guidance as my mentor in the department and Shannon Arnol d for her valuable advice and entertaining conversations. I look forward to many collaborative research projects to gether as friends and colleagues. I also want to tha nk many other fellow graduate students Wendy Warner, Elio Chiarelli, Brian Estevez, Katy Groseta, Ch risty Windham, Ann DeLay, Lauri Baker, Robert Strong, Marlene von Stein, Rochelle Strickland who made me laugh and relax despite any level of stress. I thank Katie (Chodil) Abrams who has been my classmate, teaching partner, research collaborator, and friend. I could always count on her to share my accomplishments or struggles. Finally, I thank Carrie Pedreiro and her husband, Michael Pedreiro, for their most treasured friendship. They are wonderful ro le models of a loving couple and dedicated parents. I thank two people whose early influence help ed me get this far. I thank Dr. Jefferson Miller, my masters adviser at the University of Arkansas, who encouraged me to consider working toward a Ph.D. when the thought had never crossed my mind. I also thank Mr. Bill Johnston, my high school FFA advisor, who exposed me to the diverse possibilities available in agriculture and helped channel my competitive spirit and drive for success. My respect for education and love of learni ng was encouraged from an early age by my parents, Gary and Sheila Wimmer. I thank them for establishing high standards and providing the support necessary to realize my educational goa ls. I also thank my grandmother, Dorothy Wimmer, who fostered an appreciation for agricu lture and demonstrated what a good work ethic truly is. I thank my dearest friend since concep tion, my twin sister, Gaea Wimmer, who I could 5

PAGE 6

always count on to listen to my problems and share in my victories. Twins truly do share a special bond and I am extremely gratef ul to have her as my sister. The result of this effort and my doctoral edu cation is shared with one very special person in my life, my husband Daniel Meyers. I could have never completed this degree without his constant encouragement and understanding. I than k him for taking care of chores and other responsibilities so I could concen trate on schoolwork or attend rese arch conferences. He and our sweet dog Dash have been a source of great joy during any obstacles I faced. As we start the greatest adventure in our lives as parents to Isab el, I know he will continue to be my best friend and love of my life. 6

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................10LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................13LIST OF DEFINITIONS ...............................................................................................................14ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............15CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ..18Science and the Public ........................................................................................................ ....20Science and Media ............................................................................................................. .....22Application: Scientific Thinking and E ducational Partnership (STEP) Program and Agricultural Biotechnology .................................................................................................27Elaboration Likelihood Model ................................................................................................30Framing ....................................................................................................................... ............31Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. .....332 RELEVANT LITERATURE ..................................................................................................35Attitudes and Persuasion ...................................................................................................... ...35Elaboration Likelihood Model ................................................................................................38Issue Involvement and Personal Relevance ....................................................................39Argument Quality ............................................................................................................41Need for Cognition ..........................................................................................................44Framing ....................................................................................................................... ............44Framing Biotechnology ......................................................................................................... .48Framing and the Elaboration Likelihood Model ....................................................................50Agenda Setting and Priming ...................................................................................................5 2Public Relations and Framing .................................................................................................5 3Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........543 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ..............................................................................55Overview ...................................................................................................................... ...........55Research Questions and Hypotheses ......................................................................................56Research Design .....................................................................................................................57Subjects ...................................................................................................................... .............60Message Stimuli ......................................................................................................................61Message Stimuli Testing .........................................................................................................63 7

PAGE 8

Independent Variables ......................................................................................................... ...64Message Frame ................................................................................................................65Issue Involvement ............................................................................................................65Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology .................................................................66Dependent Variables ........................................................................................................... ....67Argument Quality ............................................................................................................67Likelihood to Publish ......................................................................................................68Attribute Variables ..................................................................................................................68Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... ........69Instrument Pilot Test .......................................................................................................69Instrument Content ..........................................................................................................72Procedure ..................................................................................................................... ...........73Data Analyses .........................................................................................................................744 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... ..........76Overview ...................................................................................................................... ...........76Descriptive Analysis .......................................................................................................... .....76Potential Error .................................................................................................................77Demographics .................................................................................................................. 81Issue Involvement ............................................................................................................85Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology .............................................85Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements ................................................................86Attitudes Toward Message Topic ....................................................................................86Likelihood to Publish ......................................................................................................87Need for Cognition ..........................................................................................................88The ELM Scales .....................................................................................................................89Issue Involvement Scale ..................................................................................................89Attitudes Toward Argument Quality ...............................................................................90Need for Cognition Scale ................................................................................................91Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology .............................................92Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements ................................................................93Attitudes Toward Message Topic ....................................................................................94Likelihood to Publish ......................................................................................................95Manipulation Checks ..............................................................................................................96Tests of Hypotheses ................................................................................................................99Post Hoc Analyses ................................................................................................................106Message Frame Identification .......................................................................................106Attitudes and Message Frame .......................................................................................107Need for Cognition ........................................................................................................108Differences Between Organization Membership ..........................................................109Index Development .......................................................................................................1145 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. .....121Overview ...................................................................................................................... .........121Key Findings .........................................................................................................................122 8

PAGE 9

Implications .................................................................................................................. ........126Limitations ................................................................................................................... .........130Recommendations ............................................................................................................... ..133Recommendations for Theory and Future Research .....................................................133Recommendations for Practitioners ..............................................................................135Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................137APPENDIX A PRE-NOTICE LETTER .......................................................................................................138B E-MAIL CONTACTS ..........................................................................................................140C INSTRUMENT .................................................................................................................. ...143D MESSAGE VERSIONS .......................................................................................................159LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................163BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................175 9

PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1. Characteristics of Early and Late Survey Respondents ..........................................................794-2. Independent Samples T-Test to Compare Age of Early a nd Late Survey Respondents ........804-3. Independent Samples T-Test for Significant Differences Between Early and Late Respondents ................................................................................................................... ....814-4. Characteristics of Survey Respondents ..................................................................................834-5. Agreement with Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements ............................................874-6. Descriptive Statistics for Likelihood to Publish .....................................................................884-7. Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) Scale In ter-item Consistency Statistics .................................................................................................................... .........904-8. Perceived Argument Quality Scale In ter-item Consistency Statistics ....................................914-9. Need for Cognition Scale Inte r-item Consistency Statistics ..................................................914-10. Preexisting Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics .................................................................................................................... .........934-11. Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics ......934-12. Attitudes toward Messa ge Topic Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics ...........................954-13. Likelihood to Publish Scale Inte r-item Consistency Statistics .............................................954-14. Classification of Message Frame by Assigned Frame ..........................................................974-15. ANOVA for Subjects Perceptions of Message Frames ......................................................984-16. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality ................................................................994-17. Means for Attitudes Toward Argument Quality Split by High/Low Issue Involvement, More Positive/ Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, and Message Frame ................................................................................................................1004-18. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Likelihood to Publish .........................................................................1014-19. Means for Likelihood to Publish Split by High/Low Issue Involvement, More Positive/ Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricu ltural Biotechnology, a nd Message Frame ........101 10

PAGE 11

4-20. ANOVA for Message Frame and Issue Invol vement on Perceived Argument Quality .....1024-21. ANOVA for Message Frame and Attitude s Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality ............................................................................................1034-22. Independent Samples T-test for Signi ficant Differences Between High/Low Issue Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality for Subjects Who Received Scientific Progress Message Frame .................................................................................................1044-23. Independent Samples T-test for Signi ficant Differences Between High/Low Issue Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality for Subjects Who Received Health Message Frame ................................................................................................................1044-24. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicti ng Perceived Argument Quality........................................................................................................................ ......1054-25. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Likelihood to Publish. .....1054-26. ANOVA for Subject-Identified Message Fr ame, Issue Involvement, and Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotec hnology on Perceived Argument Quality ............1064-27. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between More Positive/Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality Spilt by Message Frame ......................................................................................1074-28. Independent Samples T-Test for Significant Differences Between Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology Groups and Attitudes Toward Message Topic .................................................................................................................1084-29. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicti ng Perceived Argument Quality, Including Need for Cognition ............................................................................1084-30. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Invo lvement, Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, and Need for C ognition on Perceived Argument Quality ..1094-31. Independent Samples T-test for Signi ficant Differences Between Organization Membership and Issue Involvement ................................................................................1104-32. Independent Samples T-test for Signi ficant Differences Between Organization Membership and Preexisting Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology ...................1114-33. Percentage of Assigned Frame Sp lit within Membership Organization ............................1114-34. Classification of Message Frame within Membership Organization .................................1124-35. Independent Samples T-test for Signi ficant Differences Between Organization Membership and Attitudes Toward Argument Quality ...................................................113 11

PAGE 12

4-36. Independent Samples T-tests for Signi ficant Differences Between Organization Membership and Attitudes Toward Argu ment Quality of Message Frames ...................1134-37. Independent Samples T-test for Signi ficant Differences Between Organization Membership and Likelihood to Publish ...........................................................................1144-38. Independent Samples T-tests for Signi ficant Differences Between Organization Membership and Likelihood to Publish for Each Message Frame ..................................1144-39. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Issue Involvement ..................................................1154-40. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Cognitive Issue Involvement .................................1164-41. Cognitive Issue Involvement Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics ...............................1164-42. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Affective Issue Involvement ..................................1174-43. Affective Issue Involvement Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics ................................1174-44. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Perceived Argument Quality .................................1184-45. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Newsworthiness Index ...........................................1194-46. Newsworthiness Scale Interitem Consistency Statistics ...................................................1194-47. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Seven-Item Argument Quality Index .....................1194-48. Seven-Item Argument Quality Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics .............................120 12

PAGE 13

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1. The Elaboration Likeli hood Model of persuasion. .................................................................393-1. Operational framework for the current study. ........................................................................57 13

PAGE 14

LIST OF DEFINITIONS Agricultural Biotechnology Agricult ural biotechnology is a range of tools, including traditional breeding techniques, that a lter living organisms, or parts of organisms, to make or modify products; improve plants or animals; or develop microorganisms for specific agricu ltural uses (USDA, 2005, para. 1). Attitude A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 1). Elaboration Degree to which an individual cognitively processes issue-relevant arguments within a persuasive communication (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Framing To select some aspects of a per ceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a wa y as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, mo ral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described (Entman, 1993, p. 52). Issue Involvement The amount of importance recipients give to a persuasive message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). Need for Cognition An individuals tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984, p. 306). Newsworthiness An indication of an events li kelihood to be included in news coverage based on news values such as proxim ity, impact, timeliness, and conflict (Clayman & Reisner, 1998). Persuasion Any instance in which an activ e attempt is made to change a persons mind (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996, p. 4). Science Communication The communication of sc ientific topics, concepts, or research findings using journalistic practices through mass media, public relations, or informal education such as museums. Science Reporting The communication of science -related topics followi ng the conventions of journalist practice. Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP) Program A multi-dimensional university-based program th at assists University of Florida faculty in executing the societal broader impacts of their research, engages students in the sciences, and educates the publ ic at large rega rding scientific knowledge and cutting edge tec hnologies (STEP, 2007a, para. 1). 14

PAGE 15

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE AGRICULTURE ANGLE: EFFECT OF FRAMING AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY MESSAGES ON ATTITUDE S AND INTENT TO PUBLISH WITHIN THE ELABORATION LI KELIHOOD MODEL By Courtney Alyssa Meyers August 2008 Chair: Tracy Irani Major: Agricultural Edu cation and Communication Our purpose was to examine the effect persuasive communication has on influencing media coverage of agricultural science, specifically agricultural biotechnology. Agricultural issues are most commonly framed as positive versus negative or risk versus benefit. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model and framing theo ry, persuasive communication was achieved through the use of positively framed messages ( health, economics and scientific progress ) to discover what impact the message frame had on communicators attit udes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish the information. Today, the media serve as the primary source of scientific information, but do not frequently ad dress agricultural topics including those that involve controversial science and technology app lications. Public relatio ns practitioners in science, including agricultural sc ience, can utilize message fr ames to shape public opinion through media coverage. However, no empirical research has been conducted regarding the utilization of positive message frames in a persuasive communication model to discover communicators reactions to agricu ltural biotechnology news messages. We examined the situation of framing with in the ELM, a dual-route model of persuasion. A 2 (issue involvement: high and low) x 2 (preexisting attitude toward agricultural 15

PAGE 16

biotechnology: more positive and less positive) x 3 (message frames: scientific progress, economics, and health ) between-subjects factoria l quasi-experimental design was used to test the research hypotheses. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of three message frames. The experiment focused on determining whether an individuals issue involvement and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, when provided w ith a specific message frame, influenced resulting attitudes toward argument quality a nd likelihood to publish ag ricultural biotechnology news. Members of the American Agricultural Ed itors Association (AAEA) and the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) comprised the sample fo r the study. The final accessible sample included those with active e-mail addresses (n = 1,240) with a response rate of 24.8% (n = 308). Overall, results indicated that the interac tion of message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitude toward agricultural biot echnology was not significant on attitudes toward argument quality or likelihood to publish. However, the main effects were significant for the independent variables on attit udes toward argument quality, but not likelihood to publish. Those with more favorable preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology had higher mean scores on attitudes toward ag ricultural biotechnology. Similarly, those who were high in issue involvement had higher mean scores on attit udes toward agricultural biotechnology. The frame alone also had a significant influence on att itudes toward agricultur al biotechnology. Results indicated that the message frames do have some influence on attitudes toward argument quality with the health frame as the most influential frame on th e dependent variables regardless of issue involvement or preexisting attit ude. This study also introduced a potential new index to measure 16

PAGE 17

17 attitudes toward argument quality as perceived by those in the me dia. This index was comprised of items from newsworthiness and argument quality indexes. The theoretical contribution of this st udy provides additional support for connecting framing and the ELM. How persuasive messages are framed influences attitudes toward argument quality, which is related to the amount of cognitive processing undertaken and the route to persuasion used with the ELM.

PAGE 18

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The systematic acquisition of food, clothing, and shelter was the earliest form of collective human activity and gave birth to civilization. Industry, art, an d science are all products of a civilization founded on and supported by agricu lture. Thus, agriculture, directly or indirectly, touches all asp ects of human activity (Nati onal Agricultural Library, 2002). American agriculture has a celeb rated past with achievements in the distribution of public lands, founding of land-grant colleges, application of science, a nd federal policy support (Hurt, 2002). According to the most recent U.S. Census of Agriculture, the United States has more than two million farms occupying almost one billi on acres, and the annual market value for agricultural products exceeds $200 billion (United States Department of Agriculture, 2002). In 2000, the agriculture industry provided 25.8 million jobs, which is approximately 15.6% of the total U.S. employment. These jobs include fa rm production employment, agricultural services, forestry, fishing, equipment manufacturing, and agricultural processing (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, n.d.). Although agriculture has a significant impact on the U.S. economy and job market, the amount of people directly involve d in production agriculture has dropped to less than 1% of the U.S. population (Hurt, 2002). This has led to a U.S. public that has limited understanding as to what agriculture is, what agri culture does, or the future ch allenges facing the industry. The significance of changing this view of agriculture, whether it be a pe rceptual or a re alistic one, is critical to U.S. agricultures structure, f unction, and success in the coming years (National Agricultural Research, Extension, Educati on, and Economics Advisory Board [NAREEE], 1997, p. 7). Specific goals to improve the publics unders tanding and appreciation of agriculture include increasing scientific literacy among consumers and policy makers, improving confidence in the U.S. food production system, and esta blishing public understa nding and support of 18

PAGE 19

agricultural research and educati on (NAREEE, 1997). These goals are still in effect today as the publics agricultural lit eracy, knowledge or understanding of agricultural concepts (Frick, Birkenholz, & Machtmes, 1995), remains low. For ex ample, in 2002 less than 10% of the Florida public understood agricultures impact on the stat e economy or the importance of agriculture in general (Florida Departme nt of Agriculture and C onsumer Services, 2002). Historically, American agriculture has gone th rough a series of revolutions. The first was the integration of horse-power ed equipment; the second revolu tion involved increased use of mechanical power and chemical herbicides, pest icides, and fertilizers. The third revolution in American agriculture at the end of the 20th century was marked by the increased application of science (Hurt, 2002). Agriculture utilizes scientific advances in the life, environmental, and social sciences to advance and improve produc tion practices; to develop new products; to improve nutritional content; to provide environmen tal benefits; and to enhance biosecurity and food safety (National Research Council, 2003). Advances in sc ience and technology have helped American agriculture become successful thr ough improved production practices and consumer benefits, such as food with a longer shelf lif e, new flavors, more convenience, and better nutrition (USDA ARS, 2005). Continue d research in agriculture st rives to discover scientific answers to further advance the industry and m eet future needs (Buchanan, 2007). Science has served as a vitally important foundation for our agri cultural system and its ab ility to provide this nation and the world with its needs for food, fiber, and feed of our livestock (Buchanan, 2007, p. 1). As mentioned, the third revolution in Amer ican agriculture is characterized by the utilization of innovations in science, specifi cally in genomics and biotechnology (Hurt, 2002). A new word, biotechnology, reflected the merging of agricultur al sciences with engineering and 19

PAGE 20

the promise of improved production (Hurt, 2002, p. 383).The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines agricultural biotechnology as a range of tool s, including traditiona l breeding techniques, that alter living organisms, or parts of organisms, to make or modify products; improve plants or animals; or develop microorganisms for speci fic agricultural uses, (USDA, 2007, para. 1). Biotechnology also encompasses the tools of genetic engineering or genetic modification (USDA, 2007). As a subset of research in ge netics, biotechnology has intrigued both the media and public beginning in the 1970s (Nelkin & Lindee, 1995). Organiza tions such as the National Academy of Science (NAS) have encouraged the development of a gene tically literate public that understands basic biological research, understands elements of the personal and health implications of genetics, and pa rticipates effectivel y in public policy issues involving genetic information (Andrews, Fullarton, Holtzman, & Motulsky, 1994, p. 185). Science and the Public At a time when the challenges facing human ity are growing rapidly, and when meeting those challenges increasingly depends on scientific research, the need for public support and understanding of science has never been greater. (Holsinger, 2006, p. 955) An interest and appreciation for science is ingrained in American culture (Miller, 2000). Most American adults (90%) report being very or moderately interested in scientific and technological discoveries (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2006b). Ho wever, the attention given to science and technology has not promot ed public understanding of the basic concepts that make these innovations possible. Although the percentage of scientif ically literate U.S. adults has doubled in the past 20 years, it is lo w considering the democratic principle of citizen understanding and involvement in polic y decisions. By the end of the 20th century, only 17% of U.S. adults were classified as sc ientifically literate (Mil ler, 2000). Scientific literacy is related to the publics ability to understa nd scientific concepts, including those related to agricultural science endeavors. The appropriate level of understanding to be cons idered scientifically literate 20

PAGE 21

is the ability to read and compre hend the Tuesday sc ience section of The New York Times (Miller, 2000, p. 274). Hacker and Harris (1992) stated that an individuals formal education in science occurs early in life and cannot equip the individual for a sc ientifically litera te lifetime in an increasingly technological so ciety (p. 217). Although science is an emphasized subject in formal education, most Americans continue to struggle to comprehend th e foundational concepts of science necessary to interp ret current research findings (M iller, 2000). Consequently, the American public is largel y illiterate about scienc e (Gregory & Miller, 1998). Beyond politics, science has an influence on economic and social i ssues (Nelkin, 1995). Diamond (1997) posited that ever yone needs to understand scie nce to help make personal choices regarding health and safe ty, to guide policy-decisions, to be informed voters, and to support sciences impact on the economy, educati on system, and society. After the completion of formal education, the majority of people have little exposure to scie nce except through media reports. As Nelkin (1995) explained: For most people, the reality of science is wh at they read in the press. They understand science less through direct experience or past education than through the filter of journalistic language and imagery. The media ar e their only contact with what is going on in rapidly changing scientific a nd technical fields, as well as a major source of information about the implications of these changes for their lives. (p. 2) The science information presented in the me dia is different from what is taught in educational settings. In formal education, people learn textbook science th at is classified as uncontroversial or established. The media, however, report on frontier science that is often uncertain or preliminary (Bauer, 1994). Within agricultural science, an example of frontier science includes the applicati on of biotechnology fo r the recent and future development of functional foods that provide nutritional attributes (Nati onal Research Council, 2003). 21

PAGE 22

Beginning in the 1980s, interest in defining and discovering the public s understanding of science has initiated a vast number of resear ch endeavors (Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007). Defining public understanding of science is di fficult and often depends on the studys author or authors. In order to operati onally define the term, it is often broken into three distinct pieces: public, understanding, and scienc e. Public includes almost anyone who might receive information concerning scientific topics, but is most often used to describe a lay public of those not directly involved in sc ientific research. Understandi ng includes both knowledge and appreciation of scientific topi cs. Science is defined as scientific knowledge produced by those recognized as members of the scientific community (Thomas & Durant, 1987). Although defining the public understanding of science is difficult, many people agree that more emphasis on it would be beneficial (Gre gory & Miller, 1998). Thomas a nd Durant (1987) outlined nine benefits that should serve as motivation for improved public u nderstanding of science: (1) benefits to science; (2) benefits to nationa l economies; (3) benefits to national power and influence; (4) benefits to indi viduals; (5) benefits to democr atic government; (6) benefits to society as a whole; (7) intellectual benefits; (8 ) aesthetic benefits; and (9) moral benefits. The diversity of these benefits illustrate that although many people agree on the need for public understanding of science, the underlying motivations, outlooks, and purposes are varied and distinct. Science and Media The mass media serve as the primary source of current scientific information for American adults (Friedman, Dunwoody, & Roge rs, 1986; LaFollette, 1990; Ne lkin, 1995). Other sources of scientific information such as science cl asses, science museums, and interpersonal communication exist, but the mass media provide the public with the most access to sciencerelated information (Nisbet et al., 2002). The me dia are often the only so urce the public has to 22

PAGE 23

learn about scientific discoveries events, and controversies. If readers have limited experience or prior knowledge with a scientific topic, they rely on the media to provide an explanation as to what effect scientific findings have on their lives (Nelkin, 1995). Due to the large amount of scientific information available, the public relies on the media, to some degree, to keep them informed of recent advances in scientific pursu its (Zimmerman, Bisanz, Bisanz, Klein, & Klein, 2001). The most common channels for science inform ation are electronic. The National Science Foundation (2006b) reported televisi on is the most utilized source for science information (41%), followed by other media channels including news papers (14%), magazines (14%), and radio (2%). The Internet (18%) was th e second highest source of scie nce information, which may or may not include online media sources. Additional sources were friends and family (4%), books (5%), and other (2%) (NSF, 2006). Nisbet et al. (2002) concluded that sc ience-specific television programming can positively influence public und erstanding of science, but the amount of sensational and fictionalized ac counts of science (i.e. science fiction, fantasy, or paranormal mystery shows) overwhelm solely educational effo rts. Therefore, when education is the primary goal of public outreach of science, the preferre d media channel should be print, specifically newspapers and magazines (Nisbet et al., 2002). A number of internal and external factors in fluence what is covere d in the mass media. Within media organizations, the re sponsibility of reporting science lies with journalists, who face many challenges when covering scientific topics including news-gathering norms, editorial pressures, uncooperative scientis ts, and a diverse audience (Tre ise & Weigold, 2002). External factors include sources, interest groups, public relations campai gns, other media organizations, advertisers, and audiences (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). When reporting news events, including 23

PAGE 24

science, the media are actively deciding what stor ies to cover and this process, along with what interpretation the media provide, can influence th e publics agenda (Pries t, 2001). Science stories are more likely to be covered by the media if they meet certain newsworthy characteristics called news values. In reference to science stories, th ese news values include threshold or magnitude; meaningfulness, relevance, and consonance to th e audience; co-option a nd composition in terms of what has been published and available space or time; frequency, unexpectedness, and continuity of news items; competition of stories; unambiguity and negativity of information; reliability of facts and sources; and elitism and personalization (Gregory & Miller, 1998). The scientific process is often ambiguous, co mplex, and controversial, and these factors lead to ever-present scientific uncertainty, which is created thr ough a limited amount of scientific knowledge or a disagreement about what that knowledge means. Scientific stories that contain some amount of uncertainty are considered news worthy because of the in herent conflict and controversy. How journalists write about and desc ribe stories containing scientific uncertainty can affect how the audience interprets that information (Friedma n, Dunwoody, & Rogers, 1999). Hartz and Chappell (1997) contend that media in attention to complex scientific topics has encouraged a public that is unsuppor tive of science and technology. Rogers (1999) identified two ch aracteristics of science reporti ng that inhibit the audiences ability to understand the scientific topic: lack of information and lack of context. Audience members need basic information to understand th e content of a science story. Without this foundation, readers must make assumptions, which ma y or may not be correct. In regard to the context, audience members want to know how the la test information fits into the larger body of research, what came before, and what is next. The structure and framing of a science news story can also influence how well the audience is able to understand the issue being presented. When 24

PAGE 25

writing about science, journalists should ma ke the stories informative, useful, and understandable, which can be difficult when reporti ng on controversial or new scientific issues (Rogers, 1999). Journalists inab ility to adequately report on sc ience by explaining the context and process of research contri butes to the separa tion between science and public understanding (Nelkin, 1995). The ability of jour nalists to report on science has implications for the audience: Good reporting can enhance the publics ability to evaluate science policy issues and the individuals ability to make rational pe rsonal choices; poor reporting can mislead and disempower a public that is increasingly affected by science and technology and by decisions determined by techni cal expertise. (Nelkin, 1995, p. 2) Agricultural science covers a variety of disc iplines and involves a number of stakeholders including scientists, producers, conservationists, and consumer s (National Research Council, 2003). Lundy, Ruth, Telg, and Irani (2006) found that agricultural scientists did not believe the public understands either ag riculture or its parent sciences. Agricultural scientists also reported a lack of confidence in the publics ability to get necessary information through the news media to understand agriculture or science in general (Lundy et al., 2006). Despite its significant contri bution to Americas economic, cultural, and environmental progress, agriculture is often overlooked as a newsworthy topic by the mass media (Stringer & Thomson, 1999). Although no empirical literature could be found regarding dominant agriculture issues in news media, recent cove rage of agriculture in U.S. news media focused on topics such as food safety (Schmit, 2008; Shin, 2008), biofue ls and rising food prices (Martin, 2008; Sands, 2008), organic food (Rosenwald, 2008; Martin & Severson, 2008), and the U.S. farm bill (Lengell, 2008; Weisman & Morgan, 2008). Lichter, Amundson, and Lichter ( 2005) analyzed content from 10 news outlets (print and television) during a six-month period in 2004 to discover how rural life is portrayed. Although the overall number of articles containing rural increased 57% from 2002 to 2004, the amount 25

PAGE 26

of farm-related coverage decrease d 50%. Agriculture and rural life were rarely associated, with farming mentioned in only 3% of the media cove rage (Lichter et al., 2005). Agricultural news coverage may not always be classified as sc ience stories because agriculture, like health communication, involves the use of several news angles, including human interest or business. However, as previously mentione d, agricultural news coverage can include the use of a science news angle. Journalists who do not regularly report on agricultural news do not provide an accurate description of the industry (Reisn er & Walter, 1994). Print stories in general newspapers tend to be superficial and stereotyped. These media s ources do not provide in-depth or long-term coverage of agricultural science issues or events. Reisner and Walter (1994) found that general newspapers and farm magazines do not provide consistent or comp lete coverage of agricultural issues or events that would increase public understanding of issues facing farmers or farmer understanding of public concerns ab out agricultures environmental and social effects (p. 535). Biotechnology is one area of agricultural scie nce that has received a great deal of media coverage, and the media play an important role in shaping public per ceptions of this topic (Kalaitzandonakes, Marks, & Vickner, 2004). A recent International Food Information Council study found that although about 75% of consumers ha ve heard or read at least a little about food biotechnology, they remain unawa re of the prevalence of these types of foods currently in the market (IFIC, 2007). Only 23% of consumers said these products are currently available. Consumer approval for plant biotechnology is gr eater than that for animal biotechnology, although approval for animal cloning did incr ease from 19% in 2006 to 24% in 2007. Most consumers (54%) are unsure about the potenti al of food biotechnology, while one-third said biotech foods will provide some benefits to them and their families. These benefits include better 26

PAGE 27

tasting food, reducing saturated fat content, a nd increasing healthful fats (IFIC, 2007). The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2006) not ed that media coverage of agricultural biotechnology has an influence on the publics attention to the issue. After the StarLink corn recall in 2001, media coverage about agricultural biotechnol ogy was significant and public awareness was at its highest leve l. In 2001, 45% of American cons umers said they had heard a great deal (9%) or some (35%) about genetically modified f oods, which are developed using the tools of agricultura l biotechnology. As media coverage dedicated to genetically modified foods coverage decreased, so too did the publics awareness of the issue. In 2006, 41% of American consumers indicated either heari ng a great deal or some about the topic. The amount and tone of media coverage has an influence on consumer opinions regarding agricultural biotechnolo gy (Hoban, 1998). In European countries where media coverage has focused less on the benefits and more on the potentia l risks of this area of agricultural science, survey respondents are generally more nega tive in their opinions toward agricultural biotechnology (Hoban, 1998). Past research has indi cated that U.S. media are generally more positive in their coverage of agricultural bi otechnology (Gaskell, Bauer, Durant, & Allum, 1999), but the public perceptions of the quality of newspaper and television coverage of the topic are less supportive with only 44% of respondent s indicating the media were doing a good job for society (Priest, 2001, p. 940). Application: Scientific Thinking and E ducational Partnership (STEP) Program and Agricultural Biotechnology United States academic institutions significantly contribute to the scientific research and development conducted nationwide. In 2004, acade mia dedicated $42 billion to research and development efforts. The contribution is especial ly important in the ba sic sciences of which academia conducts more than half (NSF, 2006a). Academic institutions are also charged with the 27

PAGE 28

mission of providing the results of that research to the public. This is most often conducted through outreach and education programs that help scientists listen to concerns and proactively strive to provide the public with information regarding scientific i ssues (Leshner, 2007). To meet the research and development priori ties, academic institutions rely on both public and private funding agencies. In 2003, the government funded 60% of the research at academic institutions, and 96% of these funds are from six federal agen cies. Beginning in 2001, the NSF, one of the leading funders of academic researc h, requires grant applicants to demonstrate how they will incorporate broader societal impacts in to their research proposal. According to the NSF (2006a), broader impacts include aspects of teach ing and learning, integration of research and education, technology transfer, societal bene fits, technological innovation, infrastructure development, and opportunities to include a di versity of participants, particularly from underrepresented groups in science (p. 17). Scientists often struggle to develop and include outreach strategies in their grant proposals that can meet the broader impacts criterion of the merit review system (Frodeman & Holbrook, 2007). One reason for this hesitancy may be that scientists are traditionally not trained in how to communicate to or educate the public. Although scien tists may want to discuss their work with the public, they are pressured to dedicate their time and energy to conducting more research, securing grants, and publishing in scholarly jour nals. Leshner (2007) said more should be done to encourage public engagement and outreach training for scientists: If science is going to fully serve its societ al mission in the future, we need to both encourage and equip the next generation of scientists to effectively engage with the broader society in which we work and live (p. 161). To help address this issue and provide support to scientists when s eeking grants with the requirement of broader societal impacts, seve ral researchers at the University of Florida (Gainesville, FL) developed the Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP) 28

PAGE 29

Program. STEP works with researchers to write gran ts and develop strategies to provide research findings to the broader public. In 2007, STEP launched ufgenetics. com, an interactive website that highlights research of faculty associated with the University of Florid as Genetics Institute. The site includes information for the target audien ces of teachers and journalists. The teachers page has feature videos and lesson plans. The jo urnalists page includes feature videos, print news stories, and photographs in what can best be described as an online newsroom (STEP, 2007b). When journalists or reporters need to identify story ideas, conduct article research, or locate press releases, they ar e increasingly relying on the World Wide Web and e-mail (No Ones Yelling Copy Anymore, 2001). The Web has exposed journalists to more story ideas and has created job opportunities that are more directly involved with communication efforts, which represents a change in the news-making r oute of science journalism as well as in the dissemination of this content (Trumbo, Sprecker, Dumlao, Yun, & Duke, 2001, p. 361). Science public relations practit ioners are also utilizing the Web and e-mail to reach the media. Professionals in this car eer field are enthusiastic about the Web as a tool that helps persuade journalists to cove r their organizations (Duke, 2002, p. 321). Duke (2002) conducted a study of science public relations practitioners an d found almost all respon dents said e-mail is essential (66%) or sometimes us eful (29%) in media relations. Almost half (47%) of those surveyed routinely or always use e-mail to send press releases to journalists. A majority of practitioners (66%) reported that e-mail has helped increase media coverage of their organization to some degree, and 20% said it has greatly increased coverage (Duke, 2002). Having a Web presence also contributes to increased media coverage. Two-th irds (76%) of respondents said they post press releases on the Web, and 66% said it is easier to receive media coverage with the 29

PAGE 30

use of the Web. Public relations practitioners in science communication utilize the Web for a number of purposes beyond media relations, in cluding tracking issues, crisis communication, rumor control, and educati on and outreach (Duke, 2002). Online newsrooms are a critical element organiza tions need in order to interact with the media (Woodall, 2007). In the 2007 Online Newsroom Survey, all journalists surveyed said it was important for an organization to have an online newsroom, and 98% of the respondents prefer to receive e-mail alerts generated through these newsrooms. Interest in specific online newsroom features, such as photographs, audio, a nd video, increased when compared to previous years (Woodall, 2007). Additional res earch is needed to discover journalists perceptions of the information provided by an organization through an online newsroom format (specifically online news releases) that may persuade them to util ize that information in communication efforts. Elaboration Likelihood Model Within the context of the current study, th e Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) provides a framework to examine the individual variable s (need for cognition and issue involvement) and situational variables (argument quality and messa ge frame) that may influence the persuasion process through either the central or peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The central route to persuasion is based on careful attention to the issue-relevant arguments within a message, and attitudes are formed based on evaluation of these arguments. The peripheral route to persuasion is based less on consideration of the arguments and more on the pe ripheral cues such as source credibility and graphic elem ents (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). An individuals motivation and ability influen ce the elaboration likelihood, or the degree to which a person cognitively assesses issue-rele vant messages within persuasive communication. Individuals who are highly motivated and have the ability to cognitively process the issuerelevant messages utilize the central route to persuasion. When individu als lack either the 30

PAGE 31

motivation and/or ability to evaluate the issue-relevant arguments, they are persuaded via the peripheral route (Pe tty & Cacioppo, 1996). The ELM contains several constructs that influence which rout e to persuasion an individual is more likely to ut ilize. One construct is issue involvement, which addresses the amount of importance recipients give to the issu e-relevant arguments in a persuasive message. Individuals who are more involved will be more likely to be persuaded through the central route than those who are less involved in the issue (P etty & Cacioppo, 1979). Anot her construct is the need for cognition, which is a personality trait that influences how much an individual evaluates a persuasive message (Petty, Cacioppo, & Strath man, 2005). The higher an individuals need for cognition, the more likely they will pay attention to the issue-relevant messages and utilize the central route to persuasion (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Argument quality is another construct that may influence the resulting attitude of a persuasive message. If an individual is motivated and able to use the central route to persuasion, arguments that are seen as strong and compelli ng will result in more favorable thoughts than those that are interpreted as weak. In contrast, when the peripheral route is utilized, an individual is more likely to depend on pr eexisting thoughts to form an a ttitude than issue-relevant arguments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). With any given message topic, research is necessary to explore what elements of a persuasive messa ge could influence argument quality and the resulting persuasion process. Through the use of communication theories such as framing, messages could then be developed to purpos ively draw upon those message elements. Framing Framing is a communication strategy used to organize and make sense of information (Goffman, 1974). Framing occurs in a variet y of communication contexts, including media representations of information (Scheufele, 1999). Entman (1993) explained that framing helps 31

PAGE 32

organize information by drawing attention to important elements, emphasizing key pieces of information, and ignoring superfl uous details. In the media, fr ames can appear through the inclusion or exclusion of key words and the selection of sources (Entman, 1993). In regard to science information, individuals do not actively think about scien tific matters or know how to interpret scientific information; therefore, the media can influe nce public opinion of science and technology by legitimizing an issue or framing it in a way that will influence resulting public opinion (Priest & Eyck, 2003). Examination of ne ws frames, and any co rresponding event that encourages them, offers an opportunity to ex plore the medias influence on public opinion (Marks et al., 2007). Several studies have examined media coverage of agricultural biotechnology to discover prominent frames. Upon review of the literature, two frames in particular seemed to appear frequently in studies that incl uded media coverage in a variety of leading newspapers in the United States and abroad economic costs/ economic progress/economic and scientific progress/progress (Gaskell et al., 1999; Nisbet & Lewenstei n, 2002; Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003; Lundy & Irani, 2004). Crawley (2007) noted that media coverage of agricultural biotechnology has been prominently framed as scientific pr ogress and economic prosperity. Additionally, the frame of health or health benefits was noted in several fr aming analysis studies of media coverage regarding agricultu ral biotechnology (Gaskell et al. 1999; Kohring & Matthes, 2002; Marks, Kalaitzandonakes, Wilkins, & Zakharova, 2007). Framing has long been used to research how the media portray any number of issues. However, less research has been conducted on how public relations practitioners can utilize various frames to shape the discourse on a topic or issue. Lundy (2004) conducted an examination of positively framing internal co mmunication messages within the ELM. Results 32

PAGE 33

indicated that positive frames had some influence on attitudes toward internationalizing extension, but more research is necessary to expl ore the persuasive influe nce of frames within the ELM (Lundy, 2004). Public relations practitioners exist in both public and priv ate scientific institutions (including agricultural organizatio ns and institutions) to provide information to the media and encourage coverage of scientif ic endeavors (Nelkin, 1995). Public relations practitioners can utilize framing when writing news releases a nd can help influence how chosen topics are portrayed in the media (Knight, 1999). Journali sts should be considered as an audience for messages that contain frames because they are equa lly susceptible to the very frames that they use to describe events and i ssues (Scheufele, 1999, p. 117). Mo re research is needed to investigate if journalists frames of an event or issue are a result of how sources have framed the information, or if they rely on other news s ources framing of the i ssue (Scheufele, 1999). Problem Statement Agricultural science encompasse s a variety of scientific disc iplines that conduct research for a number of stakeholder groups. Although the public relies on agriculture for food, feed and fiber, public understanding of scie nce and its application in agricultural research pursuits is quite limited. The media serve as the primary source of modern scientific information, but do not give much attention to agricultural topics, includi ng those that involve c ontroversial science and technology applications. One such area of agricultur al science that has received media attention is agricultural biotechnology, due to the inherent uncertainty surrounding new applications of this science. Public relations practitioners in science, in cluding agricultural scien ce, can utilize message frames to shape public opinion through media coverage. However, no empirical research has been conducted regarding the utilization of positive message frames in a persuasive 33

PAGE 34

34 communication model to discover communicators reactions to agricultural biotechnology news messages. The purpose of this study was to exam ine what effect persuasive communication has on influencing media coverage of agricultural science, specifically agri cultural biotechnology. Persuasive communication was achieved thr ough the use of positively framed messages ( health, scientific progress, or economics ) to discover what impact the message frame had on communicators attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish the information. RQ1: When exposed to a specific positively valen ced news frame, to what extent do issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influence communicators attitudes toward ar gument quality of the message? RQ2: When exposed to a specific positively valen ced news frame, to what extent do issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influence communicators likelihood to publish the information?

PAGE 35

CHAPTER 2 RELEVANT LITERATURE The previous chapter established the need for the current study and the research purpose, which was to examine the effect persuasive communication (in the form of positively framed messages) about an application of agricultural biotechnology has on influencing media coverage of agricultural science, specifically agricultu ral biotechnology. This chapter provides an overview of research related to attitudes and th e persuasive communication process with specific emphasis on the ELM and its constructs involved in the current study. The literature review continues with an explanation of framing th eory, how framing is used in a variety of communication processes, and an overview of empirical studies that identified common frames utilized in media coverage of agricultural bi otechnology. The chapter conc ludes with an outline of agenda setting and priming theories and how fram ing theory can be utilized in public relations endeavors. Attitudes and Persuasion Eagly and Chaiken (1993) defined attitude as a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity w ith some degree of favor or disfavor (p. 1). Attitudes can be held toward what are termed attitude objects (Ostrom, Bond, Krosnick, & Sedikides, 1994). These attitude objects can be concrete (i.e. furniture, clothing) or abstract (i.e. socialism, capitalism) and include particular entities (i.e. personal belongings) or behaviors (i.e. voting) (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). When measuring attitudes, researchers are concerned with the evaluative property, which is the degree of positive or negative expression toward the attitude object. On the evaluative dimension, attitudes can range from strongly posit ive to neutral to str ongly negative (Ostrom et al., 1994). Because attitudes cannot be directly observed, researchers rely on observable 35

PAGE 36

evaluative responses to infer relevant attitudes. Three specific responses made when sharing attitudes are affective responses, cognitive re sponses, and conative responses. Affective responses are the emotional feelings connected to thinking or experiencing an attitude object. Cognitive responses are based on beliefs, inferences, knowledge, facts, and assumptions regarding the attitude object. Fi nally, conative responses are the behaviors or actions taken in response to the attitude ob ject (Ostrom et al., 1994). Attitudes are an essential construct in persuasion theories because attitudes are predictive of behavior (Stiff, 1994; Petty & Cacioppo, 199 6). Perloff (2003) defi ned persuasion as: a symbolic process in which communicators tr y to convince other people to change their attitudes or behavior regard ing an issue through the transmission of a message, in an atmosphere of free choice (p. 8). This definition states that the persuasion process has five criteria : 1) Symbols can be words, images, or nonverbal signs; 2) Persuasion is an intentional, deliberate process; 3) Persuasion is also an internal process to cha nge attitude or behavior ; 4) Transmission of a persuasive message can be verbal or non-verb al, interpersonal or vi a mass media; and 5) Individuals have free-choice re garding how to think or act in response to persuasive communication (Perloff, 2003). The Yale Attitude Change Approach (Hovl and, Janis, & Kelley, 1953) was among the earliest empirical studies on the effects of pers uasion communication. The researchers set out to investigate who says what to whom with what effect. The Hovland/Yale Model of Persuasion describes persuasion as a learning process where attitude change o ccurs after a series of steps: attention, comprehension, learning, acceptance, a nd retention (Hovland et al., 1953). Learning has long been recognized as a part of the pe rsuasion process with th e original research assumption that people attend to all the information they re ceive (Chaiken, Wood, & Eagly, 36

PAGE 37

1996). During the 1950s and early 1960s people were viewed as passive recipients of persuasive communication. This viewpoint changed in the 1960s when more emphasis was given to the active learning process found in cognitive models of persuasion. The learning process indicated that people were able to concentrate on the pers uasive message, speaker, or context and generate thoughts to support (proarguments) or challenge (c ounterarguments) the message (Perloff, 2003). The Cognitive Response Approach to Persuasi on states that a persons cognitive response to a message, more than the message itself, play s an important role in the persuasion process (Petty, Ostrom, & Brock, 1981). This approach places more emphasis on cognitive processing, but has two major limitations. First, the assumption that people always carefully think about messages is not always the case. Second, this appr oach does not provide ad equate explanation of the various ways messages can in fluence people (Perloff, 2003). The limitations in the cognitive process appro ach led to the development of two processbased models of persuasion: the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1986; Chaiken et al., 1996) and the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The HSM proposes that persuasion can occur through two processes called systematic a nd heuristic processing. Systematic processing is characterized by careful attention and examination of issue-relevant arguments. Heuristic processing relies on the use of cognitive shortcuts to assist in the evaluation of persuasion messages (Chaiken et al., 1986). Of the two process-base d models, the ELM has been used more extensively in empirical invest igations of the persuasion process because its framework provides a more comprehensive ex planation to understand communication effects (Perloff, 2003). The following section provides additional description of the ELM and its specific constructs of inte rest for the current study. 37

PAGE 38

Elaboration Likelihood Model The ELM states that the amount and type of thinking one does in regard to a persuasive message will influence the result of that persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Elaboration likelihood is determined by va riables that affect the motivation and ability to process a message. Motivational factors address an individuals desire to expend c ognitive effort to consider message arguments. Ability factors include those that address whether an individual possesses the knowledge, skills, or opportuni ty to consider the persuasive message (Petty et al., 2005). The ELM is comprised of two distinct routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. In the central ro ute, more attention is given to the information contained in a message. People focus on the message arguments and develop a new understanding or integrate the information with prior knowle dge. Attitudes formed via th is route are usually rational because people pay attention to the message, ma ke a cognitive effort to interpret the message, and evaluate it. This process may not be comp letely rational, however, due to preexisting opinions regarding the value of some message arguments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). The other route in the ELM, th e peripheral route, is based on less careful consideration of the message arguments. This route focuses less on the quality of the arguments and more on emphasizing peripheral cues. These cues are charact eristics or factors present in a message that do not require any cognitive effort on behalf of the issue or object. Peripheral cues work as cognitive shortcuts so people do not have to carefully consider message-relevant information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). An important assumption of the ELM is that people cannot pay atten tion to every message they encounter. Attention relies on how much motivation or ability one has to attend to a persuasive message. Typically, persuasion occurs when a person receives a message from 38

PAGE 39

another source in a specific setting. This communication message can contain information about an issue, person, or object (Petty et al., 2005). Figure 2-1. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion (Petty & Wegener, 1999). Issue Involvement and Personal Relevance Issue involvement influences th e amount of importance recipients give to a persuasive message. The more involved an individual is, th e more importance the individual will place on 39

PAGE 40

the issue-relevant arguments in a persuasive m essage. When involvement is low, an individual will f the e likely to produce adverse thoughts and decreased agree ents contribute to message ef fectiveness. In a situation of low personal releva to give it becomes worthwhile to expend the mental effort to form an opinion. When the messa g on e effort to developing knowledge and opini ons about the issue and, therefore, have the ocus less cognitive effort on the message and focus on peripheral cues such as source credibility (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). The strength of involvement influences the ab ility of a persuasive message to encourage thoughts either in support of or against the argu ment. When a person is highly involved with message content, counter-arguments ar ment. However, when the arguments are in agreement with a high ly involved individual, the corresponding thoughts will be positive and provide more support to the argument (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). Personal relevance to a persuasive message in fluences what message attributes contribute to its effectiveness. When the persuasive message contains an issue of high relevance, the logic of message argum nce, peripheral cues contribute to the me ssage effectiveness (Pe tty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). People are exposed to countless messages each day. It is impossible and impractical attention to every single message (Petty et al ., 2005). Therefore, when a message is personally relevant, ge is not as relevant, people will not be as motivated to expend the energy to form an opinion based on careful examination of the message arguments (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). In addition to motivation, the ability to process message arguments may vary dependin personal relevance. When a message is highly relevant, people have most likely dedicated cognitiv 40

PAGE 41

ability g the ity to hology of persuasion is: What makes an argument persuasive? (p. 31). 1981) said that the gene ral neglect of the information contained in a messa ge is e that assists in evaluation of the message s target, which could be an object, person, or issue oughts (in agreement with th e message). A weak message conta o to evaluate the arguments in a persua sive message. Any variab le that increases the likelihood that people will be motivat ed and able to engage in the difficult task of evaluatin message arguments increases the likelihood of th e central route to persuasion (Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman, 1981, p. 854). Alternatively, variables that decrease the motivation and/or abil evaluate message arguments will encourage pers uasion via the peripheral route (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). Argument Quality Petty and Cacioppo (1986) stated that one of the least researched and least understood questions in the psyc Fishbein and Ajzen ( geis probably the most serious problem in communication and persuasion research (p 359). Within the ELM, the construct addressing the characteristics of the persuasive messa argument quality. Argument quality deals with the attributes of any information contained in a messag (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). The argument quality construct is important because this feature of a persuasive message can influence the resulting thoughts and persuasion route utilized (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). However, this co nstruct has not received a great deal of attention in ELM studies (Areni & Lutz, 1988). Petty and Cacioppo (1981) defined argument quality empirically through the development of strong and weak arguments. A strong me ssage contains message arguments that upon evaluation lead to favorable th ins message arguments that elicit unfavorab le thoughts when recipi ents think about them. During the message development process specific ar guments are also checked for believability t 41

PAGE 42

develop plausible strong and weak arguments. Th e final step is to pre-test the messages for comprehensibility, complexity, and familiarity (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Argument quality is incorporated in the ELM because this construct has some influence on which route to persuasion is more likely to be utilized. The central route to persuasion is characterized by more cognitive effort than the peripheral route. Message elaboration via the centra s to ts. If tional a persuasive h in issue involv n the l route occurs when a message recipient ha s both the motivation and ability to attend to a persuasive message. In this route, a message reci pient pays attention to messages, attempt understand them, and evaluates them. The descrip tion of that persuasion is then determined primarily by the recipients subjective evalua tion of the messages argument quality. This process is not entirely objective because message recipients integrate these messages into their existing knowledge base and the resulting opinion of the message may differ among recipien the recipient evaluates the message as containing strong and effective arguments, then addi thought about the message will lead to more favo rable thoughts and lasting persuasion; however if the message arguments are perceived as weak, additional thought will lead to counterarguments and the possibility that the recipient will move in the opposite direction of the position advocated in the persuasive communication (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). In instances when a person is either unable or unmotivated to thi nk about message, the peripheral route to persuasion is utilized. As discu ssed previously, a recipients issue involvement and personal relevance influence persuasion. If a person is hig ement but does not understand the message arguments (or arguments are absent), elaboration cannot occur because a recipient must first attend and comprehend the message. Without attention and comprehension of the me ssage arguments, elaboration is not possible When this is the case, the recipient can still de velop thoughts regarding the issue based o 42

PAGE 43

subjective quality of the arguments and preexis ting attitudes (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). A mo positive preexisting attitude will lead to additional favorable thoughts and strengthening of th initial attitude while a more negative preexisti ng attitude will encourage unfavorable thoughts and a more negative attitude (Tesser, 1978). This indicates that when a person lacks either the motivation or ability to think about the message-re levant arguments, the resulting thoughts will be determined more by preexis ting attitudes than the argumen ts in the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). Although argument quality is often manipulat ed pre-exposure to develop a strong and weak message treatment, in the current study argument quality will be operationalized empirically evalua re e and ted using three distinct frames scientific progress, economics, and health (furth n f newsw ver been easy to define. There are no hard-and-fast rules about what constitutes the news, and over from what to ignore within the vast pool of occurrences that could, potentially, be news. (p. of peo (Shoer & Reese, 1991). Schmierbach (2005) utilized the news values of timeliness, signif er explained below). This study will utilize attitudes toward argument quality to provide a objective measure of newsworthiness, which is a subjective measur e of news quality. Events that make it into the news often do so because journalists see these events as newsworthy (Fishman, 1980; Tuchman, 1978). A diverse set of charac teristics influence newsworthiness (Oliver & Myers, 1999). As Meyers (1997) explaine d, the construct o orthiness is complex and multi-dimensional: Newsworthinessqualities jour nalists believe make an event worth reportinghas ne reporters and editors themselves are often vague about how th ey separate what to c 18) Fundamental news value criteria include human interest, prominence of the issue, number ple affected, controversy or conflict, uniqueness, proximity, timeliness, and locality make icance, and relevance of r eaders to develop a newsworthine ss index. Findings indicated that newsworthiness was a reflection of journalists individual percep tions and this variable is 43

PAGE 44

important when exploring the gatekeeping deci sion process regarding what information is eventually reported on or published. Need for Cognition Some people evaluate messages regardless of wh ether or not they need to, while othe will evaluate a message only when th rs ey absolutely must. This personality trait is called the need t al., 2005). Need for cognition influences the persistence and resistance of newly more persistent over time and more resistant to cha nge (Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992) at at would otherwise not be meaningful and communicifferent way th at gives it meaning (Goff ation noring communicating text, in such a way as to pr omote a particular problem definition, causal for cognition (Petty e formed or changed attitudes (Haugtve dt & Petty, 1992, p. 317). Need for cognition is a motivating factor that influences which persua sion route message recipients will use (Cacioppo, & Petty, 1982). Individuals who are high in need for cognition are more concerned with the quality of information than those who are lower in need for cognition (Petty et al., 2005) and develop opinions that are Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao (1984) developed an 18-item scale for need for cognition th measures the intrinsic motivation one posse sses to partake in cognitive effort. Framing Framing occurs every day as a function of indi viduals cognitive attempts to organize life experiences and help make sense of them. A fr ame is used to take a situation th ate it in a d man, 1974). Frames are structures found in culture to organize unde rstanding of social phenomena (Hertog & McLeod, 2001). In communica tion, framing helps organize inform by drawing attention to important elements, emphasizing key pieces of information, and ig superfluous details. Entman (1993) said: To frame is to select some aspects of a per ceived reality and make th em more salient in a 44

PAGE 45

interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or trea tment recommendation for the item described. (p. 52) Frames can appear in four distinct ph ases of the communication process: the comm communicators make deliberate or unintentional deci sions when deciding what to say. As Entm es. These rces, and t the ce (Entman, 1993). Hertog and McLeod (2001) outlin usion, and elaboration (Tanka rd, Hendrickson, Silberman, Bliss, & Ghanem, 1991, p. 11). Within media content, frames can be id entified in a number of focal points: (1) unicator, text, receiver, a nd culture. Relevant to th e creation of news frames, an (1993) explained, the text of a communication process can also contain fram frames are formed through inclusion or exclusio n of key words, phrases, images, sou sentences that reinforce a theme. How the receiver interprets frames may or may not reflec original intention of the comm unicator when the frame was esta blished. Finally, an individuals culture provides an inventory of common frames shared by people in a social grouping. The appearance and attention to frames at each of the phases of the communication process promotes a shared function to highlight information, develop arguments about a problem, and subsequently focus on causation, evaluati on, and/or solution. Framing involves selection and salience. Wh en a piece of information is emphasized, it increases the audience members perception of salience, which is how noticeable, meaningful, or memorable a piece of information is to the audien e five applications of frames: to determine what content is relevant to discussion of a concern; to define the roles of stakeholders, to outline relevant beliefs, actions, and values; to determine the language used to discuss the topic; and to outline the va lues and goals of the content area. In regard to frames in news coverage, a frame is a central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests wh at the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, excl 45

PAGE 46

headl tion harts, ists ly ames (p. 114). The frame building proce ss addresses how media frames are developed, and S hat s ore events, second-level agenda se tting is concerned with the salience of issue attrib ines and kickers, (2) subh eads, (3) photographs, (4) photo captions, (5) leads, (6) selec of sources or affiliations, (7) selection of quotes, (8) pull quotes, (9) logos, ( 10) statistics, c and graphs, and (11) concluding st atements or paragraphs of arti cles (Tankard, 2001). Journal rely on frames to filter large amounts of information, determine what is im portant, and efficient communicate that information to their audience s (Gitlin, 1980). The news frame organizes everyday reality and the news frame is part and parcel of everyday realit y[it] is an essential feature of news (Tuchman, 1978, p. 193). Thus, how the media chooses to select and present issues may impact how audience members inte rpret the event (Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997). Scheufele (1999) synthesized several approach es to framing research and developed a process model of framing. This model divides framing into four processes: frame building; frame setting; individual-level effects of framing; and a link between individual frames and media fr cheufele (1999) states that more research is needed to examine how journalists select frames or make changes to existing frames. Specifi cally, more work is needed to determine w individual characteristics, orga nizational factors, or external sources may influence how new content is framed. The frame setting process is similar to ag enda setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) or m specifically, second-level agenda setting (McC ombs, Llamas, Lopez-Escobar, & Rey, 1997). While agenda setting addresses the salience of issues through examination of the coverage and placement of news utes (McCombs et al., 1997 ). Second-level agenda setting refers to the tone of news coverage and attributes given to issues or individuals. The emphasis given to the specific 46

PAGE 47

attributes within news covera ge connects this theoretical work to framing theory. McCombs (1997) stated that framing is the selection of a restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda wh en a particular object is discussed (p. 37). Despite the similarities of fr aming and second-level agenda se tting, Scheufele (2000) affir that framing is a distinct theory because it deal s with the subtle changes in wording that may affect how the audience thinks about the topic, while agenda setting (including second-lev agenda setting) is based on the concept of atti tude accessibility. Fazio (1989) defined attitud accessibility along a continuum based on the strength of an association between an object in memory and an individuals evaluation of th at object. The media, through coverage or noncoverage, have the ability to influence both the issue and attribute salie nce of topics, thereby influencing attitude accessibility (Scheufele, 2000). The individual-level effect of the framing pro cess is concerned with behavioral, attitudi and cognitive variables that influence the outco me of framing. Media frames have been foun influence the amount of importa nce individuals assign to cove red issues (Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997). Empirical work has de scribed the effec med el e nal, d to ts of media fr aming on individual variables, but has not provided explanation as to why or how the variable s are connected. Iyengar (1991) explored how episodic and thematic frames imp act viewers attributions of responsibility for political issues, but it is unknow n what role audience framing play ed in the framing process. The link between individual and media frames relates to how journalists respond to the frames utilized to describe even ts and issues. This aspect of the framing process is concerned with the influence that existing frames such as those from sources, inte rest groups, and elites have on journalists use of frames (Scheufele, 1999). Throug h examination of crime news 47

PAGE 48

cover ns or d ponses varied to shown to be particularly relevant is in the area of scient red 6; h at time, it has expanded to inco rporate a broader definition of biological research using labor atory techniques (Bunders, Have rkort, & Hiemstra, 1996). Beyond age, Fishman (1980) found that journalists are susceptible to media frames in which a frame first utilized by a small number of ne ws media was soon adopted by other media. In print or broadcast news, frames provide the angle for a story. News frames can provide a theme or style that w ould appeal to the audience, and potentially influence opinio judgments of the news topic (Stone, Singletary, & Richmond, 1999). Price et al. (1997) state news frames can influence readers opinions and thoughts because readers cognitive res depending on how the news story was fra med. Framing also influenced how readers evaluated the presented messages by activating knowledge relevant to the frame. This finding indicates that frames can act as prompts for wh at knowledge audience members need to utilize evaluate the message (Price et al., 1997). News frames have been used and studied in a number of contexts such as politics (i.e. Rhee, 1997; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000), vi olence (i.e. Husselbee & Elliot, 2002), international news (i.e. Entman, 1991), and hea lth (i.e. Lawrence, 2004). One of the areas of research in which news frames have been ific issues (Einsiedel, 1992; Nelkin, 1995; Trumbo, 1996). Empirical studies have explo the frames present in news media covera ge of nanotechnology (i.e. Stephens, 2005), environmental risks (i.e. Griffin & Dunw oody, 1997; Anderson & Marhadour, 2007), genetics (i.e. Ten Eyck & Williment, 2003), and agriculture (i.e. Ashlock, Cartmell, & Kelemen, 200 Ruth, Eubanks, & Telg, 2005). Framing Biotechnology Biotechnology is an area of science that ha s received a great deal of attention from communication scholars. Prior to the 1970s, bi otechnology referred to applications in food processing and agriculture. Since t 48

PAGE 49

agricultural and food science, biotec to medical, industrial, and enviro d in osts and scientific progre ss. A recent study of frames utilized in the Wash ers ized t ited pect as Matthes (2002) discovered ear ly emphasis on the economic, health, and enviro hnology has been applied nmental uses. A number of studies have been conducted to examine what types of frames are utilize mass media coverage of this topic. Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) found an increase in agricultural biotechno logy coverage in The New York Times and Newsweek from 1970 to 1999. Despite a few cases of negative coverage, the overall tone wa s positive. Prominent frames included economic c ington Post, the Sunday Times, and the London Times found that medical biotechnology was portrayed more approvingly than agri cultural biotechnology. A lthough the research identified benefits of agricultural biotechnology including health, environmental, social, humanitarian, and economic, the media examined in their study utilized frames that emphas the risks associated with agricu ltural applications of biotechnology over the benefits (Marks e al., 2007). Gaskell et al. (1999) examined news coverage of agricultural biot echnology in the Un States and Europe and also found the dominant frames of progress and economic pros well as a dominant theme of health regarding a pplications of agricultural biotechnology. In an examination of how agricultural biotechnology wa s framed in German media from 1992 to 1999 Kohring and nmental advantages and disadvantages of biotechnology applications, which was defined as the Agri-Food: Pros & Cons frame. Lundy a nd Irani (2004) examined U.S. and British print media coverage of agricultural biotechnology, and identified several prominent frames: contamination of the food supply, human risk, envi ronmental risk, scientific progress, and world hunger. 49

PAGE 50

Priest and Ten Eyck (2003) analyzed news media coverage of biotechnology in the United States, Canada, and 14 European countries. Eight prominent frames were identified: prog economic, ethical, Pandoras box, runaway technology, nature/nurture, public accountability, and globaliza ress, tion. Several of these frames focused on pr esenting the benefits and risks of agricultural biotec % zing 1998). st effective in persuading individuals rsus positive frames (Mah me ment may jointly influence attitudes towa rd acceptance of an advocated behavior. Results indica hnology. The progress (or progressive) frame was the most identified frame in 11 of the countries and was at least in the top three in a ll countries. When this frame was utilized, only 8 of the articles mentioned the likelihood of a risk while 58% mentioned a potential benefit. The economic frame was the third most popular frame overall. When it was identified as the dominant frame in news coverage of biot echnology, 16% of the articles focused on the likelihood of risks, while 48% mentioned benefits (Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003). Framing and the Elaboration Likelihood Model In the ELM, research regarding argument quality has explored the influence of utili positively and negatively framed messages to en courage persuasion (Petty & Wegener, Health communication research has investigated which message frames are mo to change behavior and have focused on negative ve eswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990) or benefits versus costs frames (Rothman & Salovey, 1997). Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990) examined how a negative or positive message fra influenced persuasion at different levels of issue involvement. The context of this study was a preventative health issue (high cholesterol) and addressed how message frames and issue involve ted that when respondents had low issu e involvement, the positively framed message arguments were more persuasive than negati ve message framing. Alternatively, when issue 50

PAGE 51

involvement was high, respondents reported th e negatively framed messages were more persuasive (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). Donovan and Jalleh (2000) also explored the use of positively and negatively framed persuasive messages in the context of attitude s toward immunization of infants. Responde with low-issue involvement were more pe rsuaded t nts hrough positive framing of messages, consi ct ys ive camp s. cs, l e involvement and need for cognition influenced attitudes more th an the message frames alone (Lundy, 2004). More stent with the Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990) findi ng. However, no framing effe was found for respondents with high levels of is sue involvement indicating that either frame choice would be equally successful in the persuasion process (Donovan & Jalleh, 2000). These studies provide empirica l support for the use of fram es in the development of persuasive communication; however, the use of positive versus negative frames may not alwa be the most practical option in persuasive co mmunication campaigns. In political persuas aigns, issue framing is a fundamental compone nt that influences attitudes and opinion Nelson and Oxley (1999) conducted two experiment s to explore different frames for policy problems (land development dispute and welfare re form). Drawing from discourse on the topi the frames utilized to present the land devel opment dispute were environmental preservation versus economic growth. The second study with the welfare reform co ntext used persona responsibility versus p rotecting childrens well-being issu e frames. In both experiments, the frame influenced opinions regarding the issue an d significantly affected evaluations about the importance of different beliefs for e ach policy area (Nelson & Oxley, 1999). Lundy (2004) conducted another study of the infl uence of two positively valenced message frames: mutual benefit and moral norms. Findings indicated that the message frames influenced cognitive processing, which may indicat e a salience effect, but issu 51

PAGE 52

resear selection and coverage of certa in haw, 1972). The agenda-setting hypot g is ith ot her communication theories such as framing (McC e ss media (Stone et al., 1999). Iyengar and Kinde r (1987) found that when evaluating political ch regarding how events are framed in the media can provide additional understanding of how public opinion is guided and formed as a resu lt of news coverage (M arks et al., 2007) Agenda Setting and Priming In addition to framing, agenda setting and prim ing are distinct communication theories that share some similarities in the underlying cogniti ve process and effects (Weaver, 2007). Agenda setting basically describes the me dias ability to tell people what to think about through the issues or events (McCombs & S hesis is related to cognitive psychology becaus e it is concerned with the importance people place on certain issues and how that salience is reached (Severin & Tankard, 1992). Funkhouser (1973) found a strong relationship between the pub lics ranking of important issues and the amount of coverage these issues received in the media. This fi nding supported the agenda-setting hypothesis, but also raised a causa l question of whether the media se ts the public agenda or if the public is setting the media agenda. Agenda setting can be further divided into two levels. The first level of agenda settin concerned with the salience given to objects, which have charact eristics or attributes that describe them. The second level of agenda sett ing emerged when more attention was given to connecting agenda setting research w ombs, 2005). The similarity of second-le vel agenda setting and framing lies in the emphasis on how issues are portrayed in the media rather than what issues are presented to a greater or lesser extent (Weaver, 2007). Theoretically, agenda-setting focuses on which issues are covered, while framing research studies how issues are reported (Tankard, 2001). Whereas framing research investigates the se lection and presentation of issues in th media, priming research investigates the mental processing of information supplied via the ma 52

PAGE 53

candidates, people rely on heuristics and cognitive shortcuts. Peopl e use available knowledge to make decisions or form opinions instead of actively thinking about al l the information The media he intere sts (Knight, 1999, p. 384). When fr aming is used consistently over time, these practitioners can oals and address complicated social a, to e journalists frame news and the resulting public opinion. Fram s; ion of assists in priming through the emphasis on certa in topics or issues that then prime t public to form opinions. Public Relations and Framing Knight (1999) states that pub lic relations practitioners alr eady utilize framing as a tool when writing news releases and developing in ternal communications. Public relations practitioners occupy positions id eally suited for framing issues in a way likely to advance both public and organizational help benefit the organizational g problems (Knight, 1999). Public relations practitioners use news releases to provide information to the medi suggest story ideas, and give names of sources for use in news articles. Studies have found a limited, but discernable, impact of public relations practitioners abil ity to utilize frames to shap the medias message (Barnett, 2005). More skillf ul crafting (i.e. framing) of messages from organizations may influence how ing may offer a way for public relations prof essionals to challenge journalistic narrative to present views ignored or derided by the mainstream press; to correct perceptions; and, ultimately, to redefine issues for their publics (Barnett, 2005, p. 358). Framing is integral to the practice of public relations because the establishment of common frames of reference about topics or issu es of mutual concern is a necessary condit for effective relations to be established (Hallahan, 1999, p. 207). Although framing research has been increasing in popularity for several decades, lit tle attention has been given to the role public relations as a source in news framing (Hallahan, 1999). 53

PAGE 54

54 for p. ofessionals attempt to frame the story prove media coverage and public awar eness of agricultural biotechnology. Dunwoody (1992) said the use of frames is cruc ial to journalists because they allow quick recognition and minimize mental effort. Public relations practitioners can assume the role of frame strategists who strive to determine how situations, attributes, choices, actions, issues, and responsibility should be posed to achieve fa vorable outcomes for c lients (Hallahan, 1999 224). When suggesting information for news, public relations pr to meet the news outlets preferred frami ng. Skilled practitioners are able to package the information in ways to meet the journalists exp ectations for news value, content, and flow. In turn, journalists attempt to present an issue using frames that will resonate with their perceptions of the audience (Hallahan, 1999). Summary The review of literature outlined in this chapter provided an overview of research regarding the persuasive comm unication process and specific a pplication of the ELM. Current gaps in knowledge illustrate a need to furthe r explore how agricultural communicators can utilize the ELM and framing theories to im

PAGE 55

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Overview As demonstrated in Chapters 1 and 2, the American public has a lim ited understanding of agricultural issues, and the am ount of people directly involve d in agriculture and natural resources continues to decrease. Without direct exposure to ag riculture, the public will tend to increase its reliance on news media reports for knowledge about pertinent agricultural science issues. However, journalists ability to report on scientific endeavors, including agricultural scientific applications, is hamp ered due to a number of individual and organizational constraints. To assist journalists who are reporting on complex agricultural topics, communicators need to effectively provide messages to the media that contain newsworthy information in an easily accessible format. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to dete rmine the effect of message framing on: 1) communicators attitudes toward the argument qua lity, and, 2) likelihoo d to publish a specific science application, agricultura l biotechnology. To conduct this st udy, attitudes toward argument quality were assessed within the framework of the ELM. Message framing has a rich research history and has received some attention in c onnection with persuasive communication theories such as the ELM. However, these empirical st udies often present in formation using opposite frames such as positive vs. negative or bene fits vs. costs while situations exist where communicators attempt to get positive messages in the media about agricultural issues or events. Thus, more research is needed to explore the salience of positively valenced frames and the influence on relevant attitudes or behaviors regarding these issues Through investigation of how message framing influences attitudes of argument quality and like lihood to publish science 55

PAGE 56

related agricultural information, communicators will be better equipped to reach journalists, and the broader public, with positively valenced messages. Research Questions and Hypotheses The current study seeks to address the following research questions: RQ1: When exposed to a specific positively valen ced news frame, to what extent do issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influence communicators attitudes toward ar gument quality of the message? RQ2: When exposed to a specific positively valen ced news frame, to what extent do issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influence communicators likelihood to publish the information? Based on the above research que stions, the following research hypotheses were developed: H1: Attitudes toward argument quality of a positively valenced message will differ significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame. H2: Attitudes toward likelihood to publish inform ation presented in a positively valenced message will differ significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame. H3: Subjects who are high in issue invol vement and are presented with the scientific progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those who are low in issue invol vement and receive either the economics or health frames. H4: Subjects who have more positive att itudes toward agricultural biotechnology and are presented with the scientific progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than thos e who have less positive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology and receive either the economics or health frames. H5: For those who receive the scientific progress frame, subjects who are high in issue involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than subjects who are low in issue involvement. H6: For those who receive the health frame, subjects who are low in issue involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than subjects who are high in issue involvement. H7: A combination of issue involvement, pr eexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in attitudes toward ar gument quality. 56

PAGE 57

H8: A combination of issue involvement, pr eexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in likelihood to publish the information. Research Design This study utilized a 2 (issue involvement: high and low) x 2 (preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology: more positive and less positive) x 3 (message frames: scientific progress, economics, and health ) between-subjects factorial quasiexperimental design. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of three message frames using an online random number generator. The experiment focused on determinin g whether an individual s issue involvement and attitudes toward agricultu ral biotechnology, when provided w ith a specific message frame, influenced resulting attitudes toward argumen t quality and likelihood to publish agricultural biotechnology news (Figure 3-1). Preexisting Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology ( more p ositive vs. less p ositive ) Argument Quality High Likelihood to Publish High Argument Quality Low Issue Involvement (high vs. low) Message Frame ( health, economics, scientific p ro g ress ) Likelihood to Publish Low Figure 3-1. Operational framew ork for the current study. A factorial design was chosen in order to determine the effect of two manipulated independent variables on the depe ndent variables, and the interaction among the variables (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). In this posttest-only, randomized subject design quasi-experiment: R = random assignment; O1 = posttest measures; X1 = scientific progress frame, high issue involvement, and more positive attitude; X2 = scientific progress frame, high issue involvement, 57

PAGE 58

and less positive attitude; X3 = scientific progress frame, low issue involvement, and more positive attitude; X4 = scientific progress frame, low issue involvement, and less positive attitude; X5 = economics frame, high issue involvement, and more positive attitude; X6 = economics frame, high issue involvement, and less positive attitude; X7 = economics frame, low issue involvement, and mo re positive attitude; X8 = economics frame, low issue involvement, and less positive attitude; X9 = health frame, high issue involvement, and more positive attitude; X10 = health frame, high issue involvement, and less positive attitude; X11 = health frame, low issue involvement, and more positive attitude; and X12 = health frame, low issue involvement, and less positive attitude. The group design is as follows: R X1 O1 R X2 O1 R X3 O1 R X4 O1 R X5 O1 R X6 O1 R X7 O1 R X8 O1 R X9 O1 R X10 O1 R X11 O1 R X12 O1 The research design took into account a number of threats to internal and external validity. Internal validity addresses the extent to wh ich changes in the depe ndent variable can be 58

PAGE 59

attributed to the independent variable(s) within an experimental situa tion. Ary et al. (2002) outline a number of threats to internal validity. The post-test only research design of the current study, combined with random assignment of s ubjects, addressed the threats of history, maturation, pretesting, regression, mortality, and selection-maturation interaction. Measuring instruments can be a threat to internal validity. This threat was addressed by using a panel of experts to establish face validity and pilot-testing the instrument for construct validity. The messages were also developed using a panel of experts and two rounds of message testing. No changes were made to the instrument during the timeframe of the experiment, which could have introduced a threat to internal validity. Other threats to internal validity are experiment er and subject effects. The use of an online instrument reduced the experimenter effect because this reduced any influence of the researchers personal characteristi cs on subjects. Subject effects such as the Hawthorne effect and John Henry effect were reduced because su bjects completed the experiment in their own setting, and although subjects were aware they were completing an online survey, they most likely were not aware they were participating in an experiment due to the unobtrusive nature of data collection. The final potential threat to internal validity was diffusion in which subjects in one group may communicate with those in another group regarding the experiment. This threat was addressed by not emphasizing th at an experiment was being conducted or that people may have received different messa ge frames (Ary et al., 2002). In addition to threats to internal validity, the research design also accounted for a number of threats to external validity such as population validity, ecological validity, and validity of operations (Ary et al., 2002). Population external validity addresses the ab ility to generalize the results of a sample to a larger population. Th e target population for th e current study includes 59

PAGE 60

communicators in science and agricultural cont ent areas. The experimentally accessible population includes members of two professional or ganizations (explained in more detail below). In the current study, it is possi ble to generalize from the study sample to the experimentally accessible sample because all members of the organizations were included and randomly assigned to message conditi ons (Christensen, 2001). Ecological validity refers to the environment in which the research was done. This threat to external validity was reduced because subjects completed the online instrument in their real world environment instead of a laboratory setti ng (Ary et al., 2002; Christensen, 2001). The final threat to external validity is the validity of operations, which was addressed by providing operational definitions and details of the procedur e to improve the likelihood that similar results could be obtained in the future w ith different researchers or meas urement procedures (Ary et al., 2002). Subjects The population for this study includes communi cators in both scie nce and agricultural science content areas who are members of the American Agricultural Editors Association (AAEA) and the National Association of Scie nce Writers (NASW). As of January 2008, AAEA had 238 members classified as active who work on the editorial staff of agricultural publications across the nation with an e-ma il address contact. AAEA members who were classified as affiliate, student, or honorary were not relevant to the study and were not included in the sample. The 2007 NASW directory included the names of 2,181 individuals with e-mail addresses. A thorough examination of these names indicated 1,167 people who were listed as staff reporters, editors, and freelance jour nalists in the United States. This list does not include research journal editors, retirees, university professors, or public information officers. Previous studies with communicators and journalists indicate the n eed to over-sample in order to 60

PAGE 61

reach an appropriate sample size based on poor response rates (Schmierbach, 2005). Therefore, the accessible sample of all 237 members of AAEA and 1,167 members of NASW who fit the sampling frame were included in the study for a total sample size of 1,404. From the initial email sent to all subjects, 164 (11.7%) were retu rned due to inaccessible addresses after two attempts (23 from AAEA, 141 from NASW). This wa s determined to be an inaccessible group in the sample. After removing the invalid addres ses, the final accessible sample size was 1,240. From this sample, 362 started the survey, but 54 ha d to be removed due to incomplete responses resulting in a final response rate of 24.8% (n = 308). In respect to e ach organization, response rates were 35.0% (n = 75) for AAEA and 21.0% (n = 215) for NASW. Eighteen respondents included in the study (5.8%) said they did not be long to either organiza tion although their contact information was located in one of the membership directories. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three message groups, which helped mitigate the influence of extraneous variables. Random assignment improves internal validity because each subject has an equal chance of being assigned to any group and any confounding variables are distributed in the same way (W immer & Dominick, 2003). The groups differed by the message frame scientific progress, economics and health. Message Stimuli The experiment in this study was designed to te st message stimuli. Subjects were randomly assigned (with the use of a random number genera tor) to one of three messages about peanut allergen research. The topic of the messages was based on actual res earch conducted at the University of Florida and featured by the Sc ientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP) Program. The researcher quoted in the me ssage, Dr. Maria Gallo, assisted in the message development and approved each version for accur acy. Each of the messages (see Appendix D) was presented using a press release format with masthead, dateline, contact information (which 61

PAGE 62

was left unassigned), Associated Press style, and the inverted pyramid style of news writing. The purpose of the message was to look close enough to an actual press release without using an actual contact person who might be c ontacted for additional information. Each of the messages presented a frame, two of which were positively valenced ( scientific progress and economics ) while the third acted as a conditional control ( health ). The conditional control message was developed to contain factual information to resemble the way this type of information is commonly presented. Identified as a dominant theme and benefit of agricultural biotechnology applications (Gaskell et al., 1999; Marks et al., 2007), the health message contained a human interest lead about someone w ith peanut allergies and continues with details about the prevalence of this type of allergy, foods to avoid, and one quote from the researcher. The headline read: Recen t study explores possibili ty of allergen-free peanuts. This frame did not provide any specifics about the research process or fu ture research endeavors. The scientific progress frame has been identified as a dominant frame in news media coverage of agricultural biotechnology (Gaskell et al., 1999; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002; Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003; Lundy & Irani, 2004; Crawley, 2007). The message developed that utilized this frame highlighted the research proce ss and used keywords or phrases such as breakthrough, paving a new path, progress, discovery, and future investigation. The message also featured step-by-step organization to highlight the research process. The headline for this message read: Scientific breakthr ough may lead to allerg en-free peanuts. The researcher explained the resear ch process and what the findings mean for future research. Also identified as a dominant frame in news coverage of agricultural biotechnology (Gaskell et al., 1999; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002 ; Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003; Crawley, 2007), the economics frame emphasized the impact the developmen t of allergen-free peanuts may have on 62

PAGE 63

the peanut industry. The headline read: Work on allergen-free peanuts ma y lead to substantial economic growth for $800 million peanut indust ry. This message utilized a number of keywords or phrases including economics, s upply and demand, sales, growth, and peanut commodity market. The researcher provid ed her opinion about what this research may mean for the peanut industry and how commodity representatives are involved in the research project. All three messages were revised by a pane l of experts and pre-tested with professional communicators. A manipulation check was al so included in the final instrument. Message Stimuli Testing To pre-test the message frames, 162 memb ers of the Association for Communication Excellence in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Life and Human Sciences (ACE) who are involved in the Writing Special Interest Group (SIG) received one of three messages (see Appendix B). ACE is a professional organi zation of communicators and information technologists who work in a variety of positions for universities, government agencies, and private companies. Members of the ACE Writing SIG were chosen due to their expertise and experience in writing and editing press releases Three messages were developed to exhibit a health, economics, or scientific progress frame. In the first round of message testing, respondents were asked to read a randomly assigned press rel ease then list the main topic of the message. The health frame was initially developed to serve as a c onditional control so it was not provided as a frame option. Following several more questions respondents were provi ded with a list of possible options to describe the frame: economics, scien tific progress, neither, or dont know. Less than half of the respondent s correctly identified their assigned message frame (48.7%, n = 19). Using comments from the respondents, message s were further refined to be more distinct, especially between the health and scientific progress frames. 63

PAGE 64

In the second round of message testing, res pondents were randomly assigned to receive one of the three message treatments and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback regarding the message topic or frame. Re spondents were asked to select a provided message frame that they would use to descri be the press release: economics, scientific progress, health or dont know. The health frame was included as an option after th e first round of message testing indicated the possibility that respondents wanted to choose th e best option instead of choosing neither. The messages showed improvement in testing with 73.5% (n = 25) of the respondents selecting the correct message frame (Table 3-1). Table 3-1. Frequency of Subjects Corre ctly Identifying the Message Frame Main Frame of Message N % Round 1 Economics 6 50.0 Scientific Progress 12 92.3 Control 1 .1 Total 19 48.7 Round 2 Economics 7 70.0 Scientific Progress 10 76.9 Health 8 72.7 Total 25 73.5 In the second round of message testing, respond ents were asked to evaluate the argument quality of the message using a 10-item index of attributes measuring on a semantic differential scale. A one-way ANOVA found no significant di fference between the three message frames (F2,33 = .43, p = .66) indicating that the respondents found them to be the same in argument quality regardless of the identified frame. Independent Variables This study has three independent variables one of which was manipulated. The message frame was manipulated so as to specifically focus on the scientific progress, economics, or health (the conditional control) fram e. The other independent variab les are issue involvement and 64

PAGE 65

attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Issue involvement was not manipulated, but was measured as a preexisting disposition using inst rumentation to indicate whether a subject was high or low in involvement. The final independent variable of attitude toward agricultural biotechnology was also not manipul ated. It was measured as a preexisting disposition for the purposes of comparison. Message Frame For the purpose of the study, three press rel eases were prepared regarding the same agricultural biotechno logy news story about the development of an allergen-f ree peanut. This context was selected because it is an area of biotechnology that includes both human and plant aspects. The Scientific Thinking and Educational Partnership (STEP ) featured this research area in its outreach endeavors. Within the press releases, the key information was consistent in all versions, but certain facts were emphasized or de-emphasized to utilize a specific frame. Manipulation checks during a preliminary round of message testing were conduc ted to establish the me ssages as distinct and identifiable by frame. As explained previ ously, the two treatment message frames ( scientific progress and economics ) were selected based on a review of the literature (Gaskell et al., 1999; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002; Priest & Ten Eyck, 2003; Lundy & Irani, 2004; Crawley, 2007). The conditional control frame ( health ) was selected because it ha s been identified as an important theme in news media coverage of bi otechnology (Gaskell et al ., 1999) and benefit of agricultural biotechnolo gy (Marks et al., 2007). Issue Involvement Issue involvement affects the amount of impor tance and attention individuals give to a persuasive message. The level of involvement influences what message elements (i.e. issuerelevant arguments, peripheral cu es, etc.) a message recipient at tends to and what thoughts are 65

PAGE 66

developed as a result of the persuasive messa ge (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). Issue involvement was not purposively manipulated in this study a lthough it is assumed that members of the two organizations (AAEA and NASW) ma y have different levels of i ssue involvement. Two different groups were used in order to ensure there would be some variation in issue involvement. Within the context of this study, comm unicators who regularly cover issues related to agriculture or agricultural biotechnolo gy are hypothesized to have higher levels of issue involvement. Conversely, individuals who do not report on agriculture or agricultural biotechnology issues regularly will have less personal relevance or issue involvement. This variable was measured using Zaichkow skys (1994) Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) s cale (cited in Bearden & Netemeyer, 1999). The 10-item PIIA scale was adapted from Zaichkowskys (1985) original 20-item Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) scale. The purpose of the PII scale is to m easure a persons perceived rational and emotional relevance toward an advertisement or object th rough assessment of intere sts, values, and needs (Zaichkowsky, 1985). The revised scale was selected a priori in an effort to minimize the time needed to complete the entire in strument. The PIIA presents an individual with the product of research interest followed by 10 semantic differe ntial items, each measured on a 7-point scale (a 5-point scale was used in the current study). The opposing adjectives include items such as Important versus Unimportant and Irrelevant versus Relevan t. Individuals then indicate the level of personal relevance to the object by marking along the 7-point scale for each semantic differential item. The PIIA scale has a reported reliability alpha coefficient ranging from .68 to .95 with a unidimensional structure in factor analysis (Zaichkowsky, 1994). Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology Two separate indices were used to measure the third independent variable of attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. On the first meas ure, respondents indicate d their attitude to 66

PAGE 67

the statement: I feel ag ricultural biotechnology is. This index used a five-point semantic differential scale with six bipolar adjective pairs: foolish/wise, wrong/right, unacceptable/acceptable, unfavorable /favorable, bad/good, and negative/positive Wood (2006) adapted this index from Burgoon, Cohen, Miller, and Montgomery (1978) to determine attitude toward agricultural biotechnology with an alpha reliability coefficient of .95. The second attitude index include d seven belief statements de rived from an original 20item list of arguments and counterarguments ut ilized by Wood (2006). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreemen t from strongly disagree to str ongly agree to each of the belief statements. No alpha reliability coefficient was provided in the original study for the 20-item index. In addition to preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, respondents also indicated their attitude toward the message topic (peanut allergen research) after receiving the message treatment. This variable was measured using the same six-item semantic differential index used to gather preexisting beliefs. Dependent Variables Argument Quality Petty and Cacioppo (1986) outline several subconstructs of argument quality including believability, comprehensibility, complexity, credibility, and familiarity of the message. Argument quality is often manipulated in studies of persuasive messages, but in the current study this construct is utilized to provide an objective measure of newsworthiness, which is a subjective measure of news quality. To measure attitudes toward argum ent quality, a 10-item semantic differential scale was utilized to measur e subjects perceptions of the issue-relevant arguments within the message they received. Se ven of the items were adapted from a 10-item index Lundy (2004) utilized to measure argument quality attributes, which was adapted from 67

PAGE 68

several scales (Beltramini, 1982; Thorson, Ch rist, & Caywood, 1991). These attributes were presented on a semantic differe ntial scale to determine whet her messages are perceived as believable, high quality, convincing, credible, reasonable, co nclusive, and accurate. The remaining three items were taken from Schmierb achs (2005) index of newsworthiness based on journalists rating of timeliness, significance, and relevance to readers. Th is 3-item index had an alpha of .80. Combining the two indices created a 10-item semantic differential index to measure the dependent variable of attitudes toward ar gument quality. By utili zing attitudes toward argument quality as a determinant of newswort hiness, this study seeks to provide a more objective measure of newsworthiness when communicators are presented with a positively valenced news frame. Likelihood to Publish To assess the likelihood a newspaper would publis h a story based on information in a press releasese, Schmierbach (2005) used a 2-item 10-point scale that aske d how likely respondents would be to write a story based on the press release and how likely they would be to use a wire story based on the information in the press release. The scores on these items were then averaged to develop an index about the likelihood a newspaper would publish a story based on the information (Cronbachs alpha = .72). These ques tions were adjusted in the current study to utilize a 5-point scale and an additional que stion was added to determine the likelihood a respondent would be to seek out a sour ce to write or publish a story. Attribute Variables In order to improve the generalizability of research findings, several attribute variables were included in the factorial design (Ary et al., 2002). These variable s included age, gender, education, years as a professional in the communi cations field, position title, type of news publication, circulation of publication, and need for cognition. Need for cognition was measured 68

PAGE 69

using the 18-item Need for Cognition Scale (N CS) with one item removed to improve the reliability coefficient alpha (Cacioppo et al., 1984). Instrumentation The instrumentation for this study was di stributed via an online survey using SurveyMonkey, which is an online tool used to create, deliver, and analyze online survey questionnaires. Online or Web surveys are the latest development in survey research as they become more frequently utilized. Web surveys ar e more common due to an increased familiarity and adoption of computers for everyday use as well as increased Internet access. Computer hardware and software make online surveys easi er to construct and less expensive to conduct (Dillman, 2007). Instrument Pilot Test To determine the instruments reliability and va lidity, it was pilot tested in April 2008 with a sample (n = 111) of media representatives within the state of Florida who were not members of either AAEA or NASW. Thirty-seven surveys were completed for a 33% response rate. Prior to disseminating the survey, it was reviewed by a panel of experts for face and content validity. Construct validity was es tablished through the logical approach, which measures each concept within a theory using a se t of questions. These questions are piloted and only those with high reliability are used in th e final instrument (Black, 1999). Using SPSS 16.0 for Windows, item analysis statisti cs were run to determine the construct validity of each of the scales measuring concepts of interest. In the social sciences, a reliability coefficient of .80 or larger indicates an index is well-constructed and relatively precise (Traub, 1994). This data analysis indicated several necessary changes to the instrument before final distribution. The 10-item issue involvemen t index measuring reporting on food and natural resource issues had an alpha reliability coefficient of .89. One item had a corrected item-total correlation 69

PAGE 70

of .37 and was removed from the index. The final version 9-item scale had a reliability alpha of .89 (Table 3-2). Table 3-2. The PIIA Scale Used to Measure Issue Involvement I feel that reporting on food and natural resource issues is Important* 1 2 3 4 5 Unimportant Boring 1 2 3 4 5 Interesting Relevant* 1 2 3 4 5 Irrelevant Exciting* 1 2 3 4 5 Unexciting Means Nothing to Me 1 2 3 4 5 Means A Lot To Me Appealing* 1 2 3 4 5 Unappealing Fascinating* 1 2 3 4 5 Mundane Worthless 1 2 3 4 5 Valuable Involving* 1 2 3 4 5 Uninvolving Not Needed 1 2 3 4 5 Needed Note: *Item is reverse coded. Strikethrough indicates item was removed in final instrument. To measure pre-existing attitudes toward ag ricultural biotechnology, two separate indices were piloted. The 6-item index had an alpha reliab ility of .97 so all items were kept in the final version. The 8-item index had an alpha reliabil ity of .79. One item had a corrected item-total correlation of .37 and was removed. As show in Ta ble 3-3, the final version used a 7-item index with an alpha reliability coefficient of .80. Table 3-3. The Scale Used to Measure Preexisti ng Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology Biotech foods are being forced on U.S. consumers.* Both large and small farmers reap economi c benefits from agricultural biotechnology. Agricultural biotechnology lacks adequate testing.* Agricultural biotechnology is natural. The process is just faster and more precise than traditional plant breeding. Biotech foods are in development that will improve human health. Agricultural biotechnology will help to feed the worlds rapidly expanding population. Biotech crops improve water quality, requiring fewer chemicals than traditional crops. Biotech foods pose unforeseen health risks.* Note: *Item is reverse coded. St rikethrough indicates item was removed in final instrument. Items measured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree a nd 5 = strongly agree. Attitude about the message topic, peanut allergen research, was measured using the same 6-item semantic differential index as preexisti ng attitudes toward biot echnology. This index had 70

PAGE 71

an alpha reliability of .95 so all items were reta ined for the final versi on. Argument quality was measured with a 10-item index that had an alpha reliability of .88. Seven of the items were drawn from Lundy (2004) while the remaining th ree were added from Schmierbachs (2005) study of newsworthiness. All of the items were reta ined in the final versi on. Intent to publish the information contained in the message was meas ured using a 3-item index with an alpha reliability coefficient of .94. All it ems had to be retained for the final version to be loaded as an index. The final index utilized in the instrume nt was need for cognition, which was measured using 18-items. The full index had an alpha re liability of .88, which was improved to .91 by dropping one item (Table 3-4). Table 3-4. The Scale Used to Measure Need for Cognition 1. I would prefer complex to simple problems. 2. I like to have the responsibil ity of handling a situ ation that requires a lot of thinking.* 3. Thinking is not my idea of fun.* 4. I would rather do something that requires li ttle thought than somethi ng that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.* 5. I try to anticipate and avoid situ ations where there is likely ch ange I will have to think in depth about something.* 6. I find satisfaction in deliberat ing hard and for long hours. 7. I only think as hard as I have to.* 8. I prefer to think about small, da ily projects to long-term ones.* 9. I like tasks that re quire little though once Ive learned them.* 10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me. 11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with ne w solutions to problems. 12. Learning new ways to think doesn t excite me very much.* 13. I prefer my life to be filled w ith puzzles that I must solve. 14. The notion of thinking abstra ctly is appealing to me. 15. I would prefer a task that is intellectual, di fficult, and important to one that is somewhat important buy does not require much thought. 16. I feel relief rather than satis faction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.* 17. Its enough for me that something gets the job done; I dont care how or why it works.* 18. I usually end up deliberating about issues ev en when they do not affect me personally. Note: *Item is reverse coded. St rikethrough indicates item was removed in final instrument. Items measured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree a nd 5 = strongly agree. 71

PAGE 72

Instrument Content The survey was the same for all subjects except for a randomly assigned link to three different versions of the message stimuli (Appe ndix D), which were presented as Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Files. The instrument (Appendix C) was deve loped as a series of pages to minimize scrolling and was comprised of the following elements: Page 1 included the informed consent pro cedure and online instru ctions for enabling JavaScript and cookies, which are necessary to access the onli ne survey in SurveyMonkey. This information was provided to overcome any technical difficulties respondents may have encountered. Page 2 included three demographic questions as king participants if they were members of AAEA or NASW, their current position title, an d what type of news organization they work for. These questions were included at the beginning because they were deemed crucial for data analysis. Page 3 included the 9-item Personal Involve ment Inventory for Advertising Scale to measure issue involvement to the statement: I feel that reporting on food and natural resource issues is. Page 4 included the first of two indices to measure attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. The instructions asked responde nts to indicate their attitude to the statement I feel agricultural biotechnology is on a series of six bipolar adjective statements. Page 5 included the second index to measur e attitudes toward ag ricultural biotechnology. This index asked respondents to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with seven belief statements. Page 6 included a link to the randomly assi gned message stimuli and instructions for the subjects to read the message car efully at least twice. The me ssage appeared in a separate window as an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document File. Page 7 included six comment boxes that al lowed respondents to provide their thoughts after reading the message. Questions then asked respondents how important the message was to them personally (measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important) and how motivated they were to read the message (measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = not at all motivated and 5 = very motivated). Another question asked respondents to identify the dominant frame or theme in the message as health, economics, sc ientific progress, or dont know. The final question on this page asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement (on a 5point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) to the statement: I believe this press release is newsworthy. 72

PAGE 73

Page 8 included an attitude index to measure attitudes toward the message topic of peanut allergen research. The instruc tions asked respondents to i ndicate their attitude to the statement I feel peanut allerg en research is on a series of six bipolar adjective statements. Page 9 included the attitudes toward argum ent quality index comprised of 10 bipolar adjective statements to measure newsworthiness. Page 10 included a three-item index to m easure respondents intent to publish the information contained in the message stimuli. Subjects were asked to indicate 1) how likely they were to utilize the information in the message, 2) if they saw this story on the AP wire service, how likely they would be to publish, and 3) how likely they would be to seek out a source to write or publish a stor y based on information in the message. These questions were measured using a 5-item Likert scale with 1 = hi ghly unlikely and 5 = highly likely. This index also included a Not Applicable res ponse option. The final question on this page asked subjects what their perceived method for receiving a press release was. Page 11 included the 17-item need for cogniti on scale, which was measured using a 5point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Page 12 was the final page of the survey and included additional demographic questions: year born, gender, highest level of educati on, years working in the communications field, and publications circulation. Respondents were also able to provide additional comments about the survey. Procedure To conduct the study, subjects were sent an e-mail with a link to a randomly assigned message treatment. The message treatment was embedded in a news release about agricultural biotechnology in the area of pea nut allergen research. The expe rimental manipulation was based on how the news release is framed scientific progress, economics, or health as the conditional control. A manipulation check within the instrument determined respondents were able to identify a dominant message frame. Following the framed message, respondents completed a thought-listing measure (Brock, 1967; Greenwald, 1968) in whic h they recorded any thoughts the message elicited. These thoughts were then coded as favorable, unfavorable or neutral toward the message (Cacioppo, Harkins, & Petty, 1981). 73

PAGE 74

Administration of the survey followed Dillm ans (2007) Tailored Design Method with adjustment for an online questionnaire instead of the traditional mail questionnaire. A pre-notice letter was mailed to the sample a few days before they were sent online directions for the survey (see Appendix A). This helped improve perceptions of importance and make the respondents aware of the upcoming e-mail. The letter also included the URL address for the online survey and the subjects e-mail address where the survey would be sent. This provided respondents an opportunity to access the survey immediately as well as to inform the researcher of any mistake in the provided e-mail address. The actual instru ment was then delivered to the sample through an e-mail link to the questionnair e with a randomly assigned treatme nt or control message frame (see Appendix B-2). This e-mail again emphasized why the respondents feedback was important and provided incentive to participate in the st udy. The informed consent process was provided on the first page of the survey in strument. Two weeks after the initi al pre-notice letter was mailed, a reminder e-mail with a link to th e questionnaire was distributed (see Appendix B-1). A final reminder e-mail was sent 10 days after the firs t reminder to encourage participation (Dillman, 2007). Data Analyses Data analysis for this study was co mpleted using SPSS 16.0 for Windows PC. Cronbachs coefficient alpha was used as an in ternal-consistency measur e of reliability. This measure is used with Likert type questions when a score can take on a range of values (Ary et al., 2002). Three-way and two-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to address the research hypotheses. Black (1999) states that this design can be more comprehensive in its examination of the main factors and possible interactions. This statistical procedure is more economical than other one-way designs and featur es the same amount of power. This type of 74

PAGE 75

data analysis enhances external validity by maki ng it possible to generalize to realistic settings (Black, 1999). Additional analysis of the hypotheses utilized multiple linear regression to further explore the relationship between each dependent variable and the independent variables. The coefficient of multiple determination (R2) was used to explain the differe nce in each dependent variable attributed to the independent va riables. Finally, factor analysis procedures were utilized in post hoc analysis to examine groups of questions a nd their suitability to develop several indexes (Black, 1999). 75

PAGE 76

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Overview Utilizing the ELM and framing theory, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of message framing on: 1) communicators attitudes toward the argument quality, and, 2) likelihood to publish information regarding a specif ic science application. In this research, the message was about the application of agricultu ral biotechnology to develop an allergen-free peanut. The information was delivered via an on line press release format to members of the American Agricultural Editors Association (AAEA) and the National Association of Science Writers (NASW). Guided by the ELM and res earch hypotheses, the key three independent variables were preexisting at titudes toward agricultural bi otechnology, issue involvement, and message frame. The two dependent variables of in terest were attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish the informati on within the press release message. This chapter provides an analysis of the data beginning with sample demographics, then moves to analysis of th e variables of interest, which incl ude issue involvement with reporting food and natural resource issues, preexisting attitudes toward agricu ltural biotechnology, and attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish. Next the chapter c ontinues with a discussion of scale reliabilities utilized to deve lop the indexes that measure the independent and dependent variables. This is followed by an overv iew of manipulation checks, then tests of the hypotheses are provided. The chapte r concludes with a series of post hoc analyses. Descriptive Analysis Using online survey development and admini stration software, the 77-item questionnaire was administered to the accessible sample of 237 members of AAEA and 1,167 members of NASW who fit the sampling frame for a total sample size of 1,404. After removing the invalid e76

PAGE 77

mail addresses, the final accessible sample size was 1,240 and 308 questionnaires were completed for a 24.8% response rate. The response rate for AAEA was 35.0% (n = 75) and NASW had a 21.0% (n = 215) response rate. Potential Error Dillman (2007) describes four types of erro r that can occur when conducting surveys: sample, coverage, measurement, and nonresponse Sampling error is created when a proportion, and not all, of the population is sampled. To address this possibilit y, all members of the population who met the guidelines of the sampli ng frame were included in the study. The next type of error that can occur is coverage error, which is possible when the list used to draw the sample does not include all members of the population. The current study does have a limitation due to coverage error because the sample included only member s of the organizations who had e-mail addresses listed in the membership dir ectories. Those members who did not have e-mail addresses were not included in the accessible samp le and may have differences from those in the study. Measurement error, the third type of survey er ror, occurs when the questionnaire is poorly constructed or questions are difficu lt for the sample to answer. To address this potential error, a panel of experts was used to establish face validit y and the instrument was pilot tested to develop construct validity. The final type of error is nonresponse error, which happens when a significant portion of the sample does not respond to the su rvey and may be different than those who do respond (Dillman, 2007). The current study had a fina l response rate of 24.8% and falls within the range of response rates repor ted in previous studies that have surveyed journalists or communicators using online instruments (Arant & Anderson, 2001; Cassidy, 2005; Chung, Kim, Trammell, Porter, 2007). To account for poten tial nonresponse bias, early responders were compared to late responders on key demogr aphic characteristics including organization 77

PAGE 78

membership, current position title, type of news organization for which they work, gender, age, education, years working in the communications field, and their public ations circulation. Early responders (n = 250) were defined as those who completed the survey prior to the first reminder e-mail. Late responders (n = 58) were those who completed the survey after the first or second follow-up e-mail. In a study with NASW members, Y un and Trumbo (2000) found that 80% of responses to an e-mailed survey were collected within three days of sending the initial e-mail demons trating a similar skew toward early responses. Chi-square statistics compared the early a nd late responders on a number of demographic characteristics (Table 4-1) and an independent samples t-test compared the groups on age (Table 4-2) to determine if the proportion of responde rs in the early and late categories were significantly different. No signi ficant difference was found between early and late responders on gender, education, years in communication pr ofession, position, several news organization categories, publication circula tion, and age. Results indicated a significant difference between the responder groups in terms of membership (p value = .05) and those who work in a communication department (p value = .03). As anticipated, the difference between the membership categories may be attributed to how salient the research topic was to individuals. These two groups were chosen to ensure so me variation in issue involvement and AAEA members may have found the topic of peanut allergen research to be more closely related to their interests. The other significant difference between the early and late responder groups was those who worked in communication departments with many more replying earlier than later. This difference may be because responders could identify themselves in more than one category of 78

PAGE 79

news organization. These differences in respond er groups do introduce a limitation to the study and a potential nonresponse bias. Table 4-1. Characteristics of Early and Late Survey Respondents Early Respondents Late Respondents X2 p value N % N % Membership American Agricultural Editors Association 66 28.1 9 16.4 3.19 .05 National Association of Science Writers 169 71.9 46 83.6 Gender Male 105 44.3 23 41.8 .11 .43 Female 132 55.7 32 58.2 Education Some college to bachelors degree 97 40.6 22 38.6 .08 .45 Graduate or professional degree 142 59.4 35 61.4 Years in Communication Profession Less than 3 years 7 2.9 2 3.5 2.12 .83 3-5 years 28 11.7 5 8.8 6-10 years 30 12.6 10 17.5 11-15 years 30 12.6 7 12.3 16-20 years 25 10.5 8 14.0 More than 20 years 119 49.8 24 43.9 Position Title Freelance 136 55.1 38 66.7 6.57 .36 Writer for single publication 25 10.1 6 10.5 Editor for single publication 45 18.2 8 14.0 Public relations practitioner 7 2.8 3 5.3 President or owner 3 1.2 0 0 Other 31 12.6 2 3.5 79

PAGE 80

Table 4-1. Continued Early Respondents Late Respondents X2 p value N % N % News Organization Daily newspaper 29 11.6 5 8.6 .43 .35 Weekly newspaper 20 8.0 2 3.4 1.47 .18 Weekly magazine 22 8.8 7 12.1 .59 .29 Monthly magazine 123 49.2 29 50.0 .01 .51 News Organization Online journalism 104 41.6 17 29.3 2.98 .06 Broadcast journalism 16 6.4 5 23.8 .37 .36 Communication department 31 12.4 2 3.4 3.94 .03 Public relations 12 4.8 3 5.2 .01 .56 Publication Circulation Less than 19,999 18 7.6 4 7.1 3.28 .66 20,000-49,999 16 6.8 1 1.8 50,000-74,999 14 5.9 2 3.6 More than 75,000 41 17.4 13 23.2 Work for more than one publication 131 55.5 32 57.1 Other 16 6.8 4 6.8 Table 4-2. Independent Samples T-Test to Compare Age of Early and Late Survey Respondents Early Responders Late Responders Mean SD Mean SD t df p value Age 49.63 13.40 51.28 11.87 -.83 281 .41 Additional comparison of the early and late resp onders utilized independent samples t-tests to compare the two responder groups scores on th e independent variables of issue involvement 80

PAGE 81

and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnol ogy. As shown in Table 4-3, no significant differences were indicated. Table 4-3. Independent Samples T-Test for Significant Differe nces Between Early and Late Respondents Early Respondents Late Respondents N Mean SD N Mean SD t df p value Issue Involvement 235 4.24 .56 54 4.22 .52 .34 287 .74 Preexisting Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology 243 3.98 .84 55 3.85 .84 1.05 296 .29 Demographics Demographic characteristics coll ected in the survey included: gender, age, education, years working in the communications field, organi zation membership (AAEA or NASW), type of news organization, current position title, and publication circulation (Table 4-4). Several demographic questions have missing responses becau se they were included at the end of the instrument and some respondents did not complete th e survey in its entirety. Descriptive analysis indicated 164 female respondents (53.2%) and 1 28 male respondents (41.6%). Respondents ages ranged from 22 to 85 years old with a mean age of 49.9 years. The majority of respondents had a graduate or professional degree (57.5%, n = 177) and 37.7% (n = 116) had at least a f our-year bachelors degree. Thr ee (1.0%) responded that they had at least some college. Nearly half of the respondents (46.8%, n = 144) had worked as a professional in the communications field for mo re than 20 years. The remaining respondents exhibited a range of years of experience from less than three years (2.9%, n = 9), three to five years (10.7%, n = 33), six to 10 years (13.0%, n = 40), 11 to 15 years (12.0%, n = 37), and 16 to 20 years (10.7%, n = 33). 81

PAGE 82

Seventy-five respondents were members of AAEA (24.4%) and 215 respondents (69.8%) were members of NASW. The remaining responde nts (5.8%, n = 18) indicated they were not members of either organization, in troducing some potential for cove rage error. At the time the study was conducted, the most current membership directories were utilized to develop the sample. However, these respondents may have c hosen to leave the organizations since the directories were made available. Respondents worked for a variety of news or ganizations and could choose more than one response due to the possibility of freelance writers working w ith a number of clients. The greatest number of respondents worked for a monthly magazine (49.4%, n = 152). The next highest category was online public ation (39.3%, n = 121) followed by a daily newspaper (11.0%, n = 34), communication division/d epartment (10.7%, n = 33), weekly magazine (9.4%, n = 29), weekly newspaper (7.1%, n = 22), broadcast (6.8%, n = 21), and pub lic relations (4.9%, n = 15). In addition, 95 respondents (30.8% ) provided other responses including freelance, quarterly magazines, non-profit organizations, and book publishers. Respondents worked in a variety of positions, but the majority (58.4%, n = 180) described themselves as freelance writers who work for more than one client. Other positions represented in the sample included: editor for single publi cation (17.2%, n = 53), writ er for single publication (10.1%, n = 31), public relations prac titioner (3.2%, n = 10), or pres ident or owner (1.3%, n = 4). Positions in the other category were identified as broadcast journalist (1.9%, n = 6), editor for several publications (1.3%, n = 4) working in a communication divi sion as a writer or editor (1.0%, n = 3), multimedia developer (.6%, n = 2), and the remaining 11 respondents positions (3.6%) were those who perform a va riety of tasks that could not be labeled with one position title or had unique titles that could not be categorized. 82

PAGE 83

The final demographic characte ristic collected was circulation of publication. Due to the large percentage of respondents who were freelan ce writers, the majority of respondents (52.9%, n = 163) could not provide a circulation number. The remaining respondents worked for publications with more than 75,000 (17.5%, n = 54), followed by publications with less than 19,999 circulation (7.5%, n = 23), circulation of 20,000-49,999 (5.5%, n = 17), and circulation of 50,000-74,999 (5.2%, n = 16). Respondents in the other category worked for online publications (1.3%, n = 4) or broadcast radio or television (1.0%, n = 3). Five respondents (1.6%) said they did not know or could not provide this inform ation. The remaining respondents (2.3%, n = 7) said the question was not appli cable or provided numbers that could not be identified as online, viewership, or circulation. Table 4-4. Characteristics of Survey Respondents N% Membership American Agricultura l Editors Association 75 24.4 National Association of Science Writers. 215 69.8 Neither 18 5.8 Gender Male 128 41.6 Female 164 53.2 Education Some college to bachelors degree 119 38.6 Graduate or profe ssional degree 177 57.5 Years in Communication Profession Less than 3 years 9 2.9 3-5 years 33 10.7 6-10 years 40 13.0 11-15 years 37 12.0 16-20 years 33 10.7 More than 20 years 144 46.8 83

PAGE 84

Table 4-4. Continued N% Position Title Freelance 180 58.4 Writer for single publication 31 10.1 Editor for single publication 53 17.2 Public relations practitioner 10 3.2 Position Title President or owner 4 1.3 Broadcast journalist 6 1.9 Multimedia 2 .6 Communication division writer or editor 3 1.0 Editor for several publications 4 1.3 Other 11 3.6 News Organization Daily newspaper 34 11.0 Weekly newspaper 22 7.1 Weekly magazine 29 9.4 Monthly magazine 152 49.4 Online journalism 121 39.3 Broadcast journalism 21 6.8 Communication department 33 10.7 Public relations 15 4.9 Other 95 30.8 Publication Circulation Less than 19,999 23 7.5 20,000-49,999 17 5.5 50,000-74,999 16 5.2 More than 75,000 54 17.5 Work for more than one publication 163 52.9 Online 4 1.3 Broadcast 3 1.0 Dont Know 5 1.6 Other 7 2.3 84

PAGE 85

In addition to demographic characteristics, respondents were asked to provide their preferred method for receiving press releases The majority of respondents prefer online methods, specifically e-mail (71.8%, n = 221), webs ites (13.3%, n = 41), and RSS feeds (1.9%, n = 6). Only 5.5% (n = 17) prefer receiving pre ss releases via mail and no respondents indicated fax as a preferred method. In addition, seven (2.3 %) respondents said they do not want to receive press releases. Issue Involvement Issue involvement was measured using Za ichkowskys (1994) Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) scale (cited in Bearden & Netemeyer, 1999). The 10-item PIIA scale was adjusted to 9-items after pilot testing revealed improvement of the reliability alpha by removing one item. Using a 5-point semantic differential scale, respondents indicated their response to each item. In order to test the re search hypotheses, a mean split was conducted to establish two groups (high and low) based on av erage issue involvement scores. The mean for this scale was 4.24 resulting in 141 low issue involvement respondents (M = 3.78, SD = .42) and 148 high issue involvement respondents (M = 4.67, SD = .22). An independent samples t-test indicated a significant difference between the tw o groups issue involvement scores (t = -22.84, p = .00). Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology To determine preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology respondents indicated their response to I feel agricultural biotechno logy is using six bipolar adjectives (foolish/wise, unacceptable/acceptable, unfavorable/favorable, wrong/right, bad/good, negative/positive) on a 5-point scale. Responses we re then summed and averaged to develop the attitude scale. Respondents were classified as more positive or less positive in their average attitude responses using a mean split of 3.96, re sulting in 115 less positive attitude respondents 85

PAGE 86

(37.3%) and 183 more positive attitude respondent s (59.4%). An independent samples t-test indicated a significant difference between the tw o groups attitude scores (t = -25.65, p = .00). The mean response for the less positive group was 3.08 (SD = .52) while the mean response for the more positive group was 4.51 (SD = .43). Furthe r exploration of the data indicated no significant difference in attitude s toward agricultural biotech nology between high and low issue involvement respondents (t = -1.53, p value = .13). Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements Following the six-item scale to determine preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, respondents were asked a series of seven belief statements regarding agricultural biotechnology. Using a 5-point Likert scale, respondents indicated their agreement to each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongl y agree). Subjects gave the belief statement, Agricultural biotechnology will he lp to feed the worlds rapidly expanding population, the highest overall mean of 3.82 (SD = .96). The lo west mean was 2.85 (SD = 1.11) for the belief statement, Agricultural biotechno logy is natural. The process is just faster and more precise than traditional plant breeding. Table 4-5 displays the means for each statement organized by high and low issue involvement. Independent samp les t-tests to compare the responses for high and low issue involvement respondents found no si gnificant differences on any of the belief statements. Attitudes Toward Message Topic After reading the randomly assigned message tr eatment, respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their att itude regarding the message topic about peanut allergen research. Respondents were asked to indicate their response to I feel peanut allergen research is using six bipolar adjectives on a 5-point Likert scale. The response categories were the same as those used to determine preexisting attitudes towa rd agricultural biotec hnology. Responses were 86

PAGE 87

summed and averaged to develop the attitude scale. The mean score was 4.36 (SD = .70) indicating more positive attitudes ov erall toward the message topic. Table 4-5. Agreement with Agricultur al Biotechnology Belief Statements High Issue Involvement Low Issue Involvement N Mean SD N Mean SD Both large and small farmers reap economic benefits from agricultural biotechnology. 148 3.28 1.13 141 3.40 .97 Agricultural biotechnology lacks adequate testing.* 147 2.98 1.10 141 2.96 1.01 Agricultural biotechnology is natural. The process is just faster and more precise than traditional plant breeding. 148 2.86 1.13 141 2.86 1.12 Biotech foods are in development that will improve human health. 148 3.72 .91 141 3.71 .89 Agricultural biotechnology will help to feed the worlds rapidly expanding population. 148 3.81 1.07 140 3.89 .81 Biotech crops improve water quality, requiring fewer chemicals than traditional crops. 148 3.44 .96 140 3.48 .83 Biotech foods pose unforeseen health risks.* 147 2.91 .97 141 2.99 .92 Scores based on Likert scale wi th 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. *Item was reverse coded. Likelihood to Publish Respondents were asked a series of three questions to measure the likelihood the information within the message would be published. The items used a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being highly unlikely and 5 being highly likely with an option to re spond not applicable. Table 4-6 displays the descriptive statistics for the individual statements The scores for these questions 87

PAGE 88

were then summed and averaged to create the lik elihood to publish index. Overall, the mean score for this index was 2.48 (SD = 1.26) indicat ing a low intent to publish the information contained in the message. Table 4-6. Descriptive Statistic s for Likelihood to Publish N Number of not applicable Mean SD How likely would you be to utilize the information in the press release to write or publish a story? 274 29 2.32 1.37 If you saw this story on the AP wire service, how likely would you be to publish the information? 244 59 2.51 1.36 How likely would you be to seek out a source to write or publish a story based on the information in the press release? 270 33 2.63 1.40 Scores based on Likert scale with 1 = highly unlikely and 5 = highly likely. Need for Cognition For the purposes of the current study, need for cognition (NFC) was evaluated as an attribute variable. The original 18-item scale wa s adjusted to 17 items following pilot testing, which revealed an improvement in Cronbachs al pha with the deletion of one item. Respondents indicated their agreement to th e 17 items on a 5-point Likert s cale where 1 indicated strongly disagree and 5 indicated strongly agree. Due to the length of this index and its placement at the end of the instrument, it was not completed by all respondents (273 subjects completed the index). Average NFC scores ranged from 1.82 to 5.00 with a mean score of 3.95. For the purpose of describing respondents, a mean split was used to categorize respondents as high or low in need for cognition, which resulted in 146 ( 47.4%) low need for cognition respondents who 88

PAGE 89

scored below the mean and 127 ( 41.8%) high need for cognition re spondents who scored at or above the mean. An independent samples t-test indicated a significant difference between the two groups (t = -20.38, p = .00). The ELM Scales Within the framework of the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), several scales were utilized to determine the underlying constructs of issue involvement, attitudes to ward argument quality, and need for cognition. The current study used issue involvement and attitudes toward agricultural biotechno logy as independent variables while at titudes toward argument quality was a dependent variable. Need for cognition was an attribute variable that was not included in the hypothesis testing process. Issue Involvement Scale In the current study, issue involvement was measured using Zaichkowskys (1994) Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) scale (cited in Bearden & Netemeyer, 1999). Following pilot testing, the 10 -item PIIA scale was adjusted to nine items to improve the reliability alpha. Using a 5-point semantic differential scale, respondents indicated their response to each of the nine items. The scale had a range of standard deviations from .52 to .96 demonstrating some variance in the data for this scale. The discrimination index for the items included in the issue involvement scale (Table 4-7) showed the corrected item-total correlation ranged from .44 to .73. The corrected item-total correlation measures the correlation between each item and the overall summated index score. Th e alpha reliability coefficient for the entire index was = .87 and would not be improved by removi ng any item. Therefore, the grand mean for the issue involvement scale was 4.24 (SD = .55). 89

PAGE 90

Table 4-7. Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertising (PIIA) Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Important/Unimportant* 4.76 .54 .48 .87 Boring/Interesting 4.26 .90 .66 .85 Relevant/Irrelevant* 4.70 .70 .44 .87 Exciting/Unexciting* 3.61 .92 .73 .85 Appealing/Unappealing* 3.92 .88 .73 .85 Fascinating/Mundane* 3.70 .96 .72 .85 Worthless/Valuable 4.64 .57 .56 .86 Involving/Uninvolving 3.82 .93 .69 .85 Not needed/Needed 4.74 .52 .52 .87 Scores based on semantic differential scale w ith 1 = important and 5 = unimportant. *Item was reverse coded. Valid N = 289. Attitudes Toward Argument Quality Attitudes toward argument quality were meas ured in this study using a researcherdeveloped index that was a combination of tw o scales. After reading the randomly assigned message, respondents indicated their attitude re garding issue-relevant arguments within the message on a series of 10 bipolar adjectives measured using a 5-point semantic differential scale. Seven items were adapted from a 10-item index that Lundy (2004) utilized to measure argument quality attributes and the remaining three items were drawn from Schmierb achs (2005) index of newsworthiness. The standard deviations for th e scale ranged from .79 to 1.18 and the lowest corrected item-total correlation was .56 as shown in Table 4-8. The alpha reliability coefficient for the overall index was = .92 and could not be improved by deleting a single item. The grand mean for the argument quality index was 3.43 (SD = .79). 90

PAGE 91

Table 4-8. Perceived Argument Quality Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Insignificant/Significant 3.29 1.18 .72 .90 Irrelevant/Relevant 3.54 1.10 .69 .91 Untimely/Timely 3.31 1.15 .60 .91 Not Believable/Believable 3.96 .95 .68 .91 Low Quality/High Quality 3.12 1.17 .76 .90 Not Convincing/Convincing 3.25 1.11 .77 .90 Not Credible/Credible 3.74 .97 .70 .91 Unreasonable/Reasonable 3.85 .91 .72 .91 Inconclusive/Conclusive 2.69 1.15 .70 .91 Inaccurate/Accurate 3.52 .79 .56 .91 Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1 = insignificant and 5 = significant. Valid N = 282. Need for Cognition Scale The Need for Cognition Scale c onsisted of 17 Likert-type qu estions where 1 was strongly disagree and 5 was strongly agree. The data for this scale demonstrated a satisfactory amount of variance with standard deviation ranging from .73 to 1.12. The discrimination index for the NFC scale (Table 4-9) showed the lowest corrected item-total correlation was .31. The reliability alpha coefficient for the overall NFC index was = .86 and would not have been improved with the removal of any single item. The grand mean for the overall index was 3.95 (SD = .51). Table 4-9. Need for Cognition Scale In ter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted NFC.1 3.55 .92 .41 .86 NFC.2* 4.46 .74 .58 .85 NFC.3* 4.27 .87 .46 .86 91

PAGE 92

Table 4-9. Continued. Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted NFC.4 4.47 .73 .51 .86 NFC.5 3.40 1.12 .31 .86 NFC.6* 3.93 .98 .52 .85 NFC.7* 3.64 .99 .38 .86 NFC.8* 3.88 .94 .48 .86 NFC.9 4.08 .86 .59 .85 NFC.10 4.26 .81 .62 .85 NFC.11* 4.35 .74 .62 .85 NFC.12 3.44 .93 .46 .86 NFC.13 3.92 .92 .55 .85 NFC.14 3.93 .98 .54 .85 NFC.15* 3.74 1.00 .47 .86 NFC.16* 4.10 .92 .44 .86 NFC.17 3.70 .91 .37 .86 Scores based on Likert scale wi th 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. *Item was reverse coded. Valid N = 273. Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology To measure preexisting attit udes toward agricultural bi otechnology, respondents provided their response to six items on a 1 to 5 semantic di fferential scale. Standard deviations for items in this index ranged from .89 to .95. The lowest corre cted item-total correlati on (Table 4-10) for the items in this index was .85 indicating strong co rrelation between each item and the overall index score. The alpha reliability coefficient was = .96 justifying its use in the study. The grand mean for the overall scale was 3.96 (SD = .84). 92

PAGE 93

Table 4-10. Preexisting Attitudes toward Ag ricultural Biotechnology Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Foolish/Wise 3.99 .90 .87 .96 Unacceptable/Acceptable 4.09 .89 .85 .96 Unfavorable/Favorable 3.93 .94 .90 .96 Wrong/Right 3.93 .89 .90 .96 Bad/Good 3.93 .90 .92 .95 Negative/Positive 3.86 .95 .88 .96 Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1 = foolish and 5 = wise. Valid N = 298. Agricultural Biotechnology Belief Statements In addition to the six-item scale to assess preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, respondents provided th eir responses to a series of seven belief statements. These items were measured on a 5-point Likert scal e with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. Standard deviati ons for items in this scale ranged from .89 to 1.11. Table 4-11 shows the discrimination index with the lowest corrected item-total co rrelation at .58. The alpha reliability coefficient is = .85 indicating an acceptable level of reliability. Th e grand mean for the complete index was 3.30 (SD = .72). Table 4-11. Agricultural Biot echnology Belief Statements Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Both large and small farmers reap economic benefits from agricultural biotechnology. 3.34 1.06 .60 .84 Agricultural biotechnology lacks adequate testing.* 2.95 1.04 .58 .84 93

PAGE 94

Table 4-11. Continued Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Agricultural biotechnology is natural. The process is just faster and more precise than traditional plant breeding. 2.86 1.11 .60 .84 Biotech foods are in development that will improve human health. 3.71 .89 .63 .83 Agricultural biotechnology will help to feed the worlds rapidly expanding population. 3.82 .96 .70 .82 Biotech crops improve water quality, requiring fewer chemicals than traditional crops. 3.44 .92 .62 .83 Biotech foods pose unforeseen health risks.* 2.95 .93 .60 .84 Scores based on Likert type scale with 1 = st rongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. *Item was reverse coded. Valid N = 301. Attitudes Toward Message Topic To measure attitudes toward the message topi c of peanut allergen research, respondents provided their response to the same six items us ed to establish preexis ting attitudes toward agricultural biotechno logy. The six items were measured us ing a 1 to 5 semantic differential scale. Standard deviations for items in this attitude index ranged from .89 to .95. The discrimination index found the lowest corrected item -total correlation (Tab le 4-12) for the items in this index was .78. The alpha reliability coefficient was = .95 indicating its acceptability as an index in the current study. The grand m ean for the overall scale was 4.36 (SD = .70). 94

PAGE 95

Table 4-12. Attitudes toward Message Topic Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Foolish/Wise 4.29 .79 .81 .95 Unacceptable/Acceptable 4.53 .72 .78 .95 Unfavorable/Favorable 4.34 .81 .86 .94 Wrong/Right 4.32 .80 .86 .94 Bad/Good 4.34 .78 .91 .94 Negative/Positive 4.35 .77 .89 .94 Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1 = foolish and 5 = wise. Valid N = 299. Likelihood to Publish This scale included three items to measure how likely the respondent was to use the information contained in the message to write or publish a story. Standard deviations for the scale ranged from 1.36 to 1.41. The lowest correc ted item-total correlation shown in the discrimination index (Table 4-13) was .75. Table 4-13. Likelihood to Publish Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted How likely would you be to utilize the information in the press release to write or publish a story? 2.33 1.39 .85 .81 If you saw this story on the AP wire service, how likely would you be to publish the information? 2.51 1.36 .80 .85 How likely would you be to seek out a source to write or publish a story based on the information in the press release 2.59 1.41 .75 .90 Scores based on Likert type scale with 1 = highly unlikely and 5 = highly likely. Valid N = 239. 95

PAGE 96

The alpha reliability coefficient fo r the likelihood to publish index was = .90, which is an acceptable level to use this index in the study. Although the alpha could be improved by removing one item, it is necessary to retain all three items in order to construct an index. The grand mean for the overall scale was 2.48 (SD = 1.26). Manipulation Checks To evaluate the message frame stimuli used as an independent variable, a series of manipulation checks were conducte d. The three message frames ( scientific progress, health, and economics ) were developed using the same basic inform ation regarding resear ch of an allergenfree peanut. Each individual message was then en hanced with key words and phrases to exhibit the characteristics of the assigne d frame. The messages were review ed by a panel of experts then submitted to two rounds of message stimuli test ing. During the second round of message testing, the mean attitudes toward argument quality scor e (based on the 10-item index utilized in the study) was used to compare the three frames. A one-way ANOVA found no significant difference between the attitudes toward argum ent quality of the three message frames (F2,33 = .43, p = .66) indicating that the respondents found them to be the same in argument quality regardless of the frame. In the current study, respondents were randomly assigned to receive one of the three message frames. As a second manipulation check, re spondents were then asked to select one of the frame categories ( scientific progress, health, or economics) they thought was the most appropriate classification for the dominant theme or frame for the message. The economics and health frames seemed to be easily identifiable, but respondents who received the scientific progress frame classified it as either the intended frame ( scientific progress ) or the health frame (Table 4-14). This confusion between the scientific progress and health frames is a limitation of the study. Overall, 63% (n = 194) correctly identified their assigned message stimuli frame. 96

PAGE 97

Table 4-14. Classification of Me ssage Frame by Assigned Frame Identified Frame Assigned Frame N Health Economics Scientific Progress Dont Know Health 91 66 3 19 3 Economics 103 19 70 8 6 Scientific Progress 114 53 0 58 3 Total 308 138 73 85 12 A one-way ANOVA found a significan t difference between the attitudes toward argument quality of the three message frames (F2,281 = 7.46, p = .00). In post hoc analysis, the Bonferroni procedure was used to explore this differen ce and found a significant difference in perceived argument quality between the health message frame and economics message frame (p = .00) and the economics and scientific progress frames (p = .01). However, no significant difference was found between the health and scientific progress message frames (p = 1.0 0). In the current study, argument quality was not in tentionally manipulated a priori and was explored as a dependent variable and proxy for m easuring newsworthiness. To further evaluate the manipulation influe nce on the message frames, three additional univariate ANOVA tests were conducted (Table 4-15). Subjects were asked two questions to assess how important the message was to them personally and how motivated they were to read the message. To determine importance, subjects were asked How important was the press release message to you personally? on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being not important at all and 5 being very important. A one-way ANOVA to compare the mean responses for subjects receiving the different message frames was not significant (F2, 305 = .84, p = .43). To determine motivation, subjects were asked How motivated were you to read the press release? on a 5-point Likert scale. Comparis on of the mean response for each message frame 97

PAGE 98

using a one-way ANOVA found there was a significant difference (F2,306 = 5.10, p = .01). Subjects who received the health message frame indicated more personal motivation (M = 3.06, SD = .95) than those who received the economics (M = 2.72, SD = 1.11) or scientific progress (M = 3.13, SD = .93) message frames. Subjects were also asked to assess the newswo rthiness of the press release message using a 5-point Likert scale where 1 was strongly disagr ee and 5 was strongly agree. Responses to the statement: I believe this press release is news worthy were significantly different between the three message frames (F2,306 = 11.54, p = .00). The mean response for health (M = 3.53, SD = .98) and scientific progress (M = 3.49, SD = 1.13) indicated these message frames were more newsworthy than the economics frame (M = 2.87, SD = 1.14). Table 4-15. ANOVA for Subjects Per ceptions of Message Frames Health Economics Scientific Progress N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD Importance 90 2.34 1.11 102 2.18 1.01 114 2.34 1.10 Motivation 90 3.06 .95 103 2.72 1.11 114 3.13 .93 Newsworthiness 91 3.53 .98 103 2.87 1.14 113 3.49 1.13 F p value Importance .84 .43 Motivation 5.10 .01 Newsworthiness 11.54 .00 Additional Bonferroni comparis ons were conducted to extend the manipulation check of the message frames. The comparison showed no significant difference in motivation or importance between the three frames, but did show a significant difference in newsworthiness between the health and economics message frames (p = .00) and economics and scientific progress message frames (p = .00). The co mparison did not show a significant 98

PAGE 99

difference between the health and scientific progress message frames in regard to newsworthiness. Tests of Hypotheses Hypothesis testing focused on three indepe ndent variables (message frame, issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward ag ricultural biotechnology) and two dependent variables (attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish). H1: Attitudes toward argument quality of a positively valenced message will differ significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame. To address H1, a three-way factorial ANOVA wa s conducted to examine the interaction of the independent variables on attitudes toward argu ment quality. As illustrated in Table 4-16, the interaction of message frame, issue involveme nt, and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology was not significant (F2,253 = 2.76, p = .07) on attitudes toward argument quality. However, the three-way factorial ANOVA did i ndicate main effects for message frame (F1,253 = 5.65, p = .00), issue involvement (F1,253 = 3.88, p = .05), and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural bi otechnology (F1,253 = 22.42, p = .00). Table 4-16. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality Source df F p value Message Frame 2 5.65 .00 Issue Involvement 1 3.88 .05 Preexisting Attitudes 1 22.42 .00 Message Frame Issue Involvement Preexisting Attitudes 2 2.76 .07 Post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni procedur e examined the significant difference in message frame and found a significant difference between the health and economics message frames (p = .00) and economics and scientific progress message frames (p = .02). The 99

PAGE 100

comparison did not show a signi ficant difference between the health and scientific progress message frames (p = 1.00). An overall means ta ble provides a summary of attitudes toward argument quality, split by high/low issue invol vement, more positive/less positive preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the assigned me ssage frame (Table 4-17). Table 4-17. Means for Attitudes Toward Argument Quality Split by High/Low Issue Involvement, More Positive/ Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, and Message Frame Message Frame High Issue Involvement Low Issue Involvement More Positive Attitudes Less Positive Attitudes More Positive Attitudes Less Positive Attitudes Health 3.97 (26) 3.15 (13) 3.74 (23) 3.14 (19) Economics 3.46 (27) 3.03 (15) 3.23 (27) 2.93 (20) Scientific Progress 3.57 (39) 3.69 (14) 3.67 (22) 3.03 (20) Total 3.65 (92) 3.28 (42) 3.53 (72) 3.03 (59) Note: Frequencies are in parentheses. H2: Attitudes toward likelihood to publish inform ation presented in a positively valenced message will differ significantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame. To address H2, a three-way factorial ANOVA wa s conducted to examine the interaction of the independent variables on attitudes toward likelihood to publish. The three-way factorial ANOVA for likelihood to publish found no significant in teraction or main effects (Table 4-18); therefore, H2 is not supported. Table 4-19 provides the means tabl e for likelihood to publish split by the two levels for issue involvement a nd preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology and the three message frames. 100

PAGE 101

Table 4-18. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Likelihood to Publish Source df F p value Message Frame 2 2.40 .09 Issue Involvement 1 .80 .37 Preexisting Attitudes 1 2.76 .10 Message Frame Issue Involvement Preexisting Attitudes 2 .049 .95 Table 4-19. Means for Likelihood to Publish Sp lit by High/Low Issue Involvement, More Positive/ Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, and Message Frame Message Frame High Issue Involvement Low Issue Involvement More Positive Attitudes Less Positive Attitudes More Positive Attitudes Less Positive Attitudes Health 2.76 (25) 2.14 (12) 2.95 (20) 2.52 (17) Economics 2.63 (23) 2.18 (15) 1.97 (22) 1.83 (14) Scientific Progress 2.70 (37) 2.60 (10) 2.41 (18) 2.36 (12) Total 2.70 (85) 2.28 (37) 2.43 (60) 2.26 (43) Note: Frequencies are in parentheses. H3: Subjects who are high in issue invol vement and are presented with the scientific progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those who are low in issue involvement and receive either the economics or health frames. It was hypothesized that subjects who were presented with the scientific progress frame who were high in issue involvement (n = 53) would have more favorab le attitudes toward argument quality than those who were low in issue involvement a nd received either the economics (n = 47) or health (n = 42) message frames. A two-way factorial ANOVA partially supported this hypothesis (Table 4-20). The inter action of message frame and issue involvement 101

PAGE 102

was not significant (F2,262 = .01, p value = .99), but the main eff ects were significant for message frame (F1,262 = 5.50, p value = .01) and issue involvement (F1,262 = 4.70, p value = .03). Although the interaction of message frame and issue involvement was not si gnificant, visual inspection of the means table indicated that the mean for at titudes toward argument quality was highest for subjects exposed to the health frame with high issue involvement (M = 3.69, SD = .84), followed by the hypothesized group subjects exposed to the scientific progress frame with high issue involvement (M = 3.56, SD = .83). Table 4-20. ANOVA for Message Frame and Issue Involvement on Percei ved Argument Quality Source df F p value Message Frame 2 5.50 .01 Issue Involvement 1 4.70 .03 Message Frame Issue Involvement 2 .01 .99 H4: Subjects who have more positive attitude s toward agricultural biotechnology and are presented with the scientific progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those who have less positive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology and r eceive either the economics or health frames. It was expected that subjects exposed to the scientific progress frame who had more positive preexisting attitudes toward agricultu ral biotechnology (n = 61) would have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those with less positive attitudes and presented with the economics (n = 35) or health (n = 32) message frames. A two-way factorial ANOVA (Table 4-21) provides partial support for this hypothesis. The interaction between message frame and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology was not significant (F2,271 = 2.04, p value = .13). However, the ANOVA did indicate significan t main effects for message frame (F1,271 = 6.59, p value = .00) and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology (F1,271 = 28.52, p value = .00). 102

PAGE 103

Table 4-21. ANOVA for Message Frame and Attit udes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality Source df F p value Message Frame 2 6.59 .00 Preexisting Attitudes 1 28.52 .00 Message Frame Preexisting Attitudes 2 2.04 .13 Post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni procedur e examined the significant difference in message frame and found a significant difference between the health and economics message frames (p = .00) and economics and scientific progress message frames (p = .01), but did not find a significant difference between the health and scientific progress message frames (p = 1.00). Visual inspection of the means table indicated that the mean for atti tudes toward argument quality was highest for subjects exposed to the health frame with more positive preexisting attitudes (M = 3.89, SD = .70), followed by the hypothesized group subjects exposed to the scientific progress frame with more positive preexisting attitudes (M = 3.63, SD = .81). H5: For those who receive the scientific progress frame, subjects who are high in issue involvement will have more favorable attitude s toward argument quality than subjects who are low in issue involvement. It was expected that for subjects who were presented with the scientific progress frame, those who were high in issue involvement (n = 53) would have more favo rable attitudes toward argument quality than those low in issue involve ment (n = 42). An independent samples t-test (Table 4-22) found no significant difference betw een the two groups (t = -1.23, p value = .22), providing no support for this hypothesis. The mean attitudes toward argument quality score for those low in issue involvement was 3.37 (SD = .69) compared to the mean score of 3.56 (SD = .83) for those high in issue involvement. 103

PAGE 104

Table 4-22. Independent Sample s T-test for Significant Di fferences Between High/Low Issue Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality for Subjects Who Received Scientific Progress Message Frame N Mean SD t df p value Low Issue Involvement 42 3.37 .69 -1.23 95 .22 High Issue Involvement 55 3.56 .83 H6: For those who receive the health frame, subjects who are low in issue involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argum ent quality than subjects who are high in issue involvement. It was hypothesized that for subject s who were presented with the health frame, those who were low in issue involvement (n = 42) would have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those high in issue involvement (n = 39). An independent samples t-test (Table 423) found no significant difference between the two groups and indicated no support for this hypothesis. In fact, the mean for those high in issue involvement (M = 3.70, SD = .84) was greater than those low in issue involvement (M = 3.47, SD = .70). Table 4-23. Independent Sample s T-test for Significant Di fferences Between High/Low Issue Involvement on Perceived Argument Quality for Subjects Who Received Health Message Frame N Mean SD t df p value Low Issue Involvement 42 3.47 .70 -1.29 79 .20 High Issue Involvement 39 3.70 .84 H7: A combination of issue involvement, pr eexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in attitudes toward ar gument quality. To test H7, multiple linear regression was conducted with issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, message frame serving as predictors of attitudes toward argument quality. Table 4-24 displays the re sults of this analysis and provides support for the hypothesis. The model is significant (F3,264 = 15.46, p value = .00) and explained 14.1% (adjusted R2) of the variance in perceived argument qua lity. Of the significant predictors, the 104

PAGE 105

beta weights for preexisting attitudes ( = .33) and issue involvement ( = .18) indicate a positive relationship between each of these variables and attitudes toward argument quality. Table 4-24. Multiple Linear Regression Anal ysis for Variables Predicting Perceived Argument Quality Argument Quality Adjusted R2 Explanatory Variable B SE B p value .141 Message Frame -.04 .06 -.04 .45 Preexisting Attitudes .31 .05 .33 .00 Issue Involvement .27 .08 .18 .00 H8: A combination of issue involvement, pr eexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in likelihood to publish the information. Similar to the previous hypothesis, H8 expects that the combination of three independent variables will explain th e greatest variance in likelihood to publish. Table 4-25 displays the results of this analysis and provides support for the hypothesis. The m odel is significant (F3,224 = 3.57, p value = .02), but only explains 3.3% (adjusted R2) of the variance in likelihood to publish. Preexisting attitudes was a significant pred ictor of attitudes towa rd argument quality and the positive beta weight ( = .18) indicates a positive relationship. Table 4-25. Multiple Linear Regression Analys is for Variables Predicting Likelihood to Publish. Argument Quality Adjusted R2 Explanatory Variable B SE B p value .033 Message Frame -.07 .10 -.04 .50 Preexisting Attitudes .28 .10 .18 .01 Issue Involvement .23 .15 .10 .12 105

PAGE 106

Post Hoc Analyses The data collected in this study allowed for additional data analysis using independent samples t-tests, ANOVA, and regression. These an alyses provided additional insight into the data and possible implicati ons beyond those hypothesized a priori Message Frame Identification In reference to the lack of clarity between the scientific progress and health message frames, a three-way AVOVA was conducted using th e message frames as subjects identified them instead of the randomly assigned message condition. The independent variables of issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward ag ricultural biotechnology were also included to explore the interaction of subj ect-identified message frames on attitudes toward argument quality. Subjects had four options to identify the frame: health, economics, scientific progress, or unknown. Table 4-26 displays the results of th is ANOVA which found a significant three-way interaction between the message frame identified by subjects, issue involvement, and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology (F3,264 = 3.24, p value = .01) on attitudes toward argument quality. The main effects of message frame (F3,264 = 8.57, p value = .00) and attitudes toward agricultural bi otechnology (F1,264 = 11.20, p value = .00) were also significant, but the issue involvement main effect was not significant (F1,264 = 2.55, p value = .11). Table 4-26. ANOVA for Subject-Iden tified Message Frame, Issue Involvement, and Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality Source df F p value Subject-Identified Me ssage Frame 3 8.57 .00 Preexisting Attitudes 1 11.20 .00 Issue Involvement 1 2.55 .11 Message Frame Issue Involvement Attitudes 3 3.24 .01 106

PAGE 107

Attitudes and Message Frame As outlined in hypotheses 5 and 6, the influence of high or low issue involvement did not demonstrate a significant difference in at titudes toward message quality for the health and scientific progress frames. However, preexisting attitude s toward agricultur al biotechnology did have an influence on message quality between those who were more positive or less positive in their attitudes for two of the three messages (Tab le 4-27). Independent samples t-tests showed that for subjects who received the health message frame, there was a significant difference between those who were more positive or less positive in their preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechno logy (t = -4.96, p value = .00). This significant difference was also found for those who received the economics frame (t = -2.46, p value = .02), but there was not a significant difference between the two groups for those who received the scientific progress message (t = -1.98, p value = .05). Table 4-27. Independent Samp les T-test for Significant Differences Between More Positive/Less Positive Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology on Perceived Argument Quality Spil t by Message Frame Message Frame N Mean SD t df p value Health Less Positive 33 3.14 .65 -4.96 85 .00 More Positive 54 3.89 .70 Economics Less Positive 37 2.94 .75 -2.46 90 .02 More Positive 55 3.35 .78 Scientific Progress Less Positive 35 3.32 .69 -1.98 96 .05 More Positive 63 3.63 .83 In addition to preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, subjects also provided their attitudes toward the message topic of peanut allergen research. An independent samples t-test (Table 4-28) to compare less positive and more positive subjects in terms of 107

PAGE 108

preexisting attitudes found a significant difference on attitudes to ward the message topic (p = .00). Table 4-28. Independent Samples T-Test for Significant Differences Between Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology Groups and Attitudes Toward Message Topic N Mean SD t df p value Less Positive 112 3.98 .75 -8.29 292 .00 More Positive 182 4.60 .53 Need for Cognition Need for cognition scores were collected in the instrument, but were not included in the hypothesis tests. Subjects were split into high and low need for cognition based on a mean split (M = 3.95, SD = .51) resulting in 146 (47.4%) low need for cognition subjects and 127 (41.2%) high need for cognition subjects. Independent samp les t-test to compare low and high need for cognition subjects found no significa nt difference on attitudes toward argument quality (p = .15). Post hoc analysis using multiple linear regression included need for cognition score with the independent variables of issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frame to predict perceived argument quality score. This regression model (Table 4-29) was significant (F4,245 = 11.59, p value = .00) and explained 14.7% of the variance in the perceived argument quality score. Table 4-29. Multiple Linear Regression Anal ysis for Variables Predicting Perceived Argument Quality, Including Need for Cognition Argument Quality Adjusted R2 Explanatory Variable B SE B p value .147 Message Frame -.04 .06 -.04 .49 Attitudes .28 .06 .30 .00 Issue Involvement .26 .09 .17 .00 Need for Cognition -.25 .09 -.16 .01 108

PAGE 109

Need for cognition was also included in a 4-way factorial ANOVA to examine the interaction of message frame, issue involveme nt, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and need for cognition on attitudes toward argument quality. As Table 4-30 shows, the 4-way interaction was not significant (F2,246 = 1.75, p= .18), but the ANOVA did find significant main effects for the message frame (F2,246 = 6.57, p = .00) and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology (F1,246 = 3.09, p = .08). A Bonferroni procedure to explore the significant difference between message frames i ndicated a significant difference between the health and economics frames (p = .00) and scientific progress and economics frames (p = .01), but the health and scientific progress frames were not significa ntly different (p = 1.00). Table 4-30. ANOVA for Message Frame, Issue Involvement, Preexisting Attitudes Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, and Need for Cognition on Perceived Argument Quality Source df F p value Message Frame 2 6.57 .00 Preexisting Attitudes 1 24.49 .00 Issue Involvement 1 3.09 .08 Need for Cognition 1 .32 .57 Message Frame Issue Involvement Attitudes Need for Cognition 2 1.75 .18 Differences Between Organization Membership Post hoc analyses were conducted to explore what differences existed between members of AAEA and NASW. As mentioned previously, 75 respondents we re members of AAEA (24.4%) and 215 (69.8%) were members of NASW, while the remaining 18 (5.8%) respondents said they were not members of either organization. Mean s for average issue involvement score were compared using an independent samples t-test to determine if there were any differences according to organization membership. Table 4-31 demonstrates there were significant differences in means for issue involvemen t based on membership in AAEA or NASW. 109

PAGE 110

Respondents who were members of AAEA had higher average issue involvement scores than members of NASW. This was originally hypothes ized because the issue involvement question dealt with reporting on food and natural resource issues, which best describes the topics members of AAEA would report on most often. A lthough the mean issue involvement scores are statistically significantly different for the two groups, the mean scores for AAEA (M = 4.39) and NASW (M = 4.20) are on the higher end of the sc ale indicating an overall interest in food and natural resource topics for both groups. This result demonstrates agricultural topics have the potential to be covered by different types of reporters, but issue involvement does vary and may be an influence when persuading communicators as to the newsworthiness of agricultural issues. Table 4-31. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization Membership and Issue Involvement N Mean SD t df p value AAEA 73 4.39 .51 2.54 275 .01 NASW 204 4.20 .56 Note: AAEA = American Agricultural Editors Association and NASW = National Association of Science Writers. Preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology between members of the professional communication organiza tions were also significantly different as shown in Table 432. AAEA members indicated more positive att itudes toward agricultu ral biotechnology (M = 4.39, SD = .71) than NASW members (M = 3.80, SD = .82). Again, both means were above the midpoint on the 1 to 5 scale indicating more posit ive preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology overall. 110

PAGE 111

Table 4-32. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization Membership and Preexisting Attitude s toward Agricultural Biotechnology N Mean SD t df p value AAEA 74 4.39 .71 5.472 282 .00 NASW 210 3.80 .82 Note: AAEA = American Agricultural Editors Association and NASW = National Association of Science Writers. Further data analysis examined what frames were randomly assigned to members of each organization. Table 4-33 shows the proportion of subjects who received each message frame divided by their membership organization. Compar ison of the percentage of subjects for each frame indicated similar distribution across frames and between groups. Table 4-33. Percentage of Assigned Fram e Split within Membership Organization Assigned Frame Membership Organization Health Economics Scientific Progress AAEA 25.3 (19) 37.3 (28) 37.3 (28) NASW 30.7 (66) 33.0 (71) 36.3 (78) Total 29.3 (85) 34.1 (99) 36.6 (106) Note: Frequencies are in parentheses. Missing N=18. This data was further explored to disc over whether or not members of the two organizations were able to identify the frame to which they were assigned. Table 4-34 shows the proportion of subjects who identified each fram e divided by the membership organization. For AAEA members, 68.4% (n = 13) correctly identified the health frame, 50% (n = 14) correctly identified the economics frame, and 57.1% (n = 16) correctly identified the scientific progress frame. For NASW members, 75.8% (n = 50) correctly identified the health frame, 73.2% (n = 52) correctly identified the economics frame, and 53.8% (n = 42) correctly identified the 111

PAGE 112

scientific progress frame. Overall, NASW memb ers were better able to correctly classify their assigned frame. It appeared that AAEA members who received the economics frame were confused on how to classify it. Only half of the subjects correctly identified the frame, while the remaining half were divided between health (32.1%, n = 9) and scientific progress (14.3%, n = 4) frames. The scientific progress frame was also difficult for me mbers of both organizations to classify. For those who received scientific progress as their assigned message frame, 42.9% (n = 12) of AAEA members and 43.6% (n = 34) of NASW members classified it as the health frame. This confusion may be attributed to the fact that the topic of peanut a llergen research can be viewed as a health concer n and subjects chose the health frame accordingly. Table 4-34. Classification of Message Fr ame within Membership Organization Percent of Identified Frame Assigned Frame Health Economics Scientific Progress Dont Know AAEA Health 68.4 (13) .0 (0) 26.3 (5) 5.3 (1) Economics 32.1 (9) 50.0 (14) 14.3 (4) 3.6 (1) Scientific Progress 42.9 (12) .0 (0) 57.1 (16) .0 (0) NASW Health 75.8 (50) 3.0 (2) 18.2 (12) 3.0 (2) Economics 14.1 (10) 73.2 (52) 5.6 (4) 7.0 (5) Scientific Progress 43.6 (34) .0 (0) 53.8 (42) 2.6 (2) Note: Frequencies are in parentheses. Missing N=18. Beyond the independent variables, the two membership groups were also compared on the dependent variables of attit udes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish. Table 4-35 112

PAGE 113

displays the results of an independent samples t-test that indicated a significant difference between the groups in their attitudes toward argument quality. AAEA members were more favorable in their attitudes toward the argumen t quality of the messages (M = 3.85, SD = .73) than NASW members (M = 3.25, SD = .73). Table 4-35. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization Membership and Attitudes Toward Argument Quality N Mean SD t df p value AAEA 72 3.85 .73 5.72 266 .00 NASW 196 3.25 .76 Note: AAEA = American Agricultural Ed itors Association and NASW = National Association of Science Writers. Upon further examination, a significant di fference was found between each groups mean scores for attitudes toward argument quality for each frame (Table 4-36). AAEA members indicated significantly more favor able attitudes toward argument qua lity for each of the message frames than NASW members. For both groups, the health frame received the most favorable attitudes toward argument qual ity with the AAEA mean score of 4.15 (SD = .63) and the NASW mean score of 3.41 (SD=.75). Table 4-36. Independent Samples T-tests for Significant Differences Between Organization Membership and Attitudes Toward Ar gument Quality of Message Frames AAEA NASW Message Frame N Mean SD N Mean SD t df p value Health 18 4.15 .63 63 3.41 .75 3.83 79 .00 Economics 26 3.55 .83 65 3.03 .73 2.97 89 .00 Scientific Progress 28 3.93 .61 68 3.33 .77 3.72 94 .00 Finally, the two membership groups scores on the likelihood to publish index were compared. An independent samples t-test foun d a significant difference between the groups on 113

PAGE 114

this dependent variable (Table 4-37) with AAEA members providing a more favorable mean score (M = 3.11, SD = 1.30) than NASW members (M = 2.23, SD = 1.16). Table 4-37. Independent Samples T-test for Significant Differences Between Organization Membership and Likelihood to Publish N Mean SD t df p value AAEA 62 3.11 1.30 4.89 224 .00 NASW 164 2.23 1.16 Note: AAEA = American Agricultural Ed itors Association and NASW = National Association of Science Writers. Table 4-38 shows the mean likelihood to publish score for each message frame split by membership group. Again, there is a significant difference between the two groups scores for likelihood to publish for each message frame with health receiving the most favorable mean score for both AAEA members (M = 3.26, SD = 1.40) and NASW members (M = 2.42, SD = 1.21). It is also interesting to note that AAEA members lowest mean score was for the economics frame (M = 2.75, SD = 1.34), which was stil l greater than any mean score provided by NASW members regardless of the message frame. Table 4-38. Independent Samples T-tests for Significant Differences Between Organization Membership and Likelihood to Publish for Each Message Frame AAEA NASW Message Frame N Mean SD N Mean SD t df p value Health 18 3.26 1.40 53 2.42 1.21 2.43 69 .02 Economics 21 2.75 1.34 56 2.01 1.02 2.60 75 .01 Scientific Progress 23 3.32 1.15 55 2.28 1.22 3.47 75 .00 Index Development Additional post hoc analysis further explored the cons truction of the issue involvement and attitudes toward argument quality indexes. The issue involvement s cale was based on nine items, 114

PAGE 115

which had an alpha reliability coefficient of = .87. Through factor analysis, principal component analysis found that the items load ed to form two components (Table 4-39). Table 4-39. Factor Loadings for It ems Measuring Issue Involvement Items Component 1 Component 2 Important/Unimportant* .59 .38 Boring/Interesting .75 -.05 Relevant/Irrelevant* .55 .415 Exciting/Unexciting* .79 -.38 Appealing/Unappealing* .79 -.32 Fascinating/Mundane* .79 -.36 Worthless/Valuable .67 .46 Involving/Uninvolving .77 -.32 Not needed/Needed .64 .58 Eigenvalue 4.52 1.33 Percent of Variance Explained 50.18 14.80 Cronbachs Alpha .87 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. *Item was reverse coded. Zaichkowsky (1994) also found two subscales during the developm ent of the 10-item Personal Involvement Inventory for Advertisi ng (PIIA) that was used to measure issue involvement in the current study. The items of interesting, appealing, fascinating, exciting, and involving were found to be based more on emotions a nd could be loaded to form an affective issue involvement scale. The items of i mportant, relevant, valuable, means a lot to me, and needed appeared to be more rational in nature and could be loaded together to form a cognitive issue involvement scale (Z aichkowsky, 1994). During the pi lot testing process, the means a lot to me item was removed to improve alpha reliability. Follow-up principal component analysis used these individual items to form the cognitive and affective issue involvement scales, which then loaded as unidimensional constructs. 115

PAGE 116

The cognitive issue involvement index (Table 4-40) had an alpha reliability coefficient of = .74 and explained 57.31% of the items variance. The scale had a range of standard deviations from .51 to .72. The discrimination index for the c ognitive issue involvement scale (Table 4-41) showed the corrected item-total correlation ranged from .47 to .63. The grand mean for the cognitive issue involvement scale was 3.55 (SD = .34). Table 4-40. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Cognitive Issue Involvement Items Component 1 Important/Unimportant* .70 Relevant/Irrelevant* .70 Worthless/Valuable .79 Not needed/Needed .839 Eigenvalue 2.29 Percent of Variance Explained 57.31 Cronbachs Alpha .74 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. *Item was reverse coded. Table 4-41. Cognitive Issue Involvement Scal e Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Important/Unimportant* 4.76 .53 .47 .71 Relevant/Irrelevant* 4.69 .72 .49 .72 Worthless/Valuable 4.62 .60 .58 .65 Not needed/Needed 4.75 .51 .63 .63 Scores based on semantic differential scale w ith 1 = important and 5 = unimportant. *Item was reverse coded. Valid N=296. The affective issue involvement index (Table 442) had an alpha reliability coefficient of = .89 and explained 69.18% of the items variance. Standard devi ations for this index ranged from .88 to .96, and the discrimination index (Tab le 4-43) showed the corrected item-total 116

PAGE 117

correlation ranged from .62 to .77. The grand mean for the affective issue involvement scale was 3.21 (SD = .64). Table 4-42. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Affective Issue Involvement Items Component 1 Boring/Interesting .74 Exciting/Unexciting* .87 Appealing/Unappealing* .85 Fascinating/Mundane* .86 Involving/Uninvolving .83 Eigenvalue 3.46 Percent of Variance Explained 69.18 Cronbachs Alpha .89 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. *Item was reverse coded. Table 4-43. Affective Issue Involvement S cale Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Boring/Interesting 4.27 .90 .62 .89 Exciting/Unexciting* 3.62 .92 .74 .85 Appealing/Unappealing* 3.92 .88 .75 .86 Fascinating/Mundane* 3.71 .96 .77 .85 Involving/Uninvolving 3.83 .93 .72 .86 Scores based on semantic differential scale w ith 1 = boring and 5 = interesting. *Item was reverse coded. Valid N = 293. Factor analysis was also utilized to further investigate the attitudes toward argument quality index during post hoc analysis. The index used in the current study was developed using seven items adapted from a 10-item index that Lundy (2004) utilized to measure argument quality attributes and the three items drawn from Schm ierbachs (2005) index of newsworthiness. In the current study, the 10-item index had an alpha reliability coefficient of = 117

PAGE 118

.92. Principal component analysis found these used individual items loaded as two distinct constructs (Table 4-44). Table 4-44. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Perceived Argument Quality Items Component 1 Component 2 Insignificant/Significant .76 .49 Irrelevant/Relevant .74 .47 Untimely/Timely .66 .50 Not Believable/Believable .76 -.33 Low Quality/High Quality .81 .08 Not Convincing/Convincing .83 -.20 Not Credible/Credible .78 -.45 Unreasonable/Reasonable .79 -.31 Inconclusive/Conclusive .76 .16 Inaccurate/Accurate .64 -.35 Eigenvalue 5.72 1.31 Percent of Variance Explained 57.18 13.11 Cronbachs Alpha .92 Extraction Method: Princi pal Component Analysis. The two subscales that were included to de velop the attitudes toward argument quality index were then divided back into the 3-item and 7-item scales. These subscales then loaded as unidimensional constructs. The 3-item newsworthiness index of significant, relevant, and timely (Table 4-45) had an alpha reliability coefficient of = .87 and explained 79.23% of the items variance. This index had standa rd deviations ranging from 1.09 to 1.17. The discrimination index (Table 4-46) showed the correct ed item-total correlat ion ranged from .66 to .80. The grand mean for the affective issue involve ment scale was 3.01 (SD = .90). 118

PAGE 119

Table 4-45. Factor Loadings for It ems Measuring Newsworthiness Index Items Component 1 Insignificant/Significant .92 Irrelevant/Relevant .92 Untimely/Timely .83 Eigenvalue 2.38 Percent of Variance Explained 79.23 Cronbachs Alpha .87 Extraction Method: Princi pal Component Analysis. Table 4-46. Newsworthiness Scale Inte r-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Insignificant/Significant 3.28 1.17 .79 .77 Irrelevant/Relevant 3.53 1.09 .80 .77 Untimely/Timely 3.33 1.15 .66 .89 Scores based on semantic differential scale with 1 = insignificant and 5 = significant. Valid N = 300. The 7-item argument quality subscale (Table 4-47) had an alpha reliability coefficient of = .90 and explained 63.71% of the items variance. Standard devi ations for this index ranged from .80 to 1.17, and the discrimination index (T able 4-48) showed th e corrected item-total correlation ranged from .64 to .82 The grand mean for the affective issue involvement scale was 2.76 (SD = .65). Table 4-47. Factor Loadings for Items Meas uring Seven-Item Argument Quality Index Items Component 1 Not Believable/Believable .80 Low Quality/High Quality .79 Not Convincing/Convincing .87 Not Credible/Credible .86 Unreasonable/Reasonable .83 119

PAGE 120

120 Table 4-47. Continued Items Component 1 Inconclusive/Conclusive .72 Inaccurate/Accurate .69 Eigenvalue 4.46 Percent of Variance Explained 63.71 Cronbachs Alpha .90 Extraction Method: Princi pal Component Analysis. Table 4-48. Seven-Item Argume nt Quality Scale Inter-item Consistency Statistics Mean SD Corrected ItemTotal Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Not Believable/Believable 3.96 .95 .71 .89 Low Quality/High Quality 3.13 1.17 .72 .89 Not Convincing/Convincing 3.25 1.11 .82 .87 Not Credible/Credible 3.74 .97 .78 .88 Unreasonable/Reasonable 3.86 .91 .75 .88 Inconclusive/Conclusive 2.69 1.15 .64 .90 Inaccurate/Accurate 3.52 .80 .59 .90 Scores based on semantic differential scale w ith 1 = not believable and 5 = believable. Valid N = 284.

PAGE 121

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Overview Research suggests that the American public has a limited understand ing of science and specifically its application in agricultural pursuit s. The media are the pub lics primary source of current information regarding science information, but provide limited coverage of agricultural topics. Those within the agri cultural industry charged with communicating about new and possibly controversial agricultural issues such as agricultural biotechno logy can utilize message frames to influence public opinion through media c overage. Traditionally, ag ricultural issues are framed as positive versus negative or risk versus benefit. However, little empirical research has been conducted to examine how the use of positi vely valenced message frames could affect communicators opinions toward the message and likelihood to publish the information. This study utilized the ELM framework to examine preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, issue involvement, a nd message frames on attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish information within the message. Three positively valenced message frames ( health, economics, and scientific progress) were constructed to communicate the development of an allerg en-free peanut through the us e of agricultural biotechnology. Accessible samples of AAEA and NASW members were randomly assigned to receive one of the messages, which featured a distinct message frame. Chapter 4 provided data analyses and resu lts, which are based on 308 subjects for an overall response rate of 24.8%. Seventy-fi ve (24.4%) were AAEA members and 215 (69.8%) were NASW members. The remaining 18 subjec ts (5.8%) did not identify themselves as members of either organization. Subjects were 53.2% (n = 164) female and 41.6% (n = 128) male with a mean age of 49.9 years old. Subjects had either a graduate or professional degree 121

PAGE 122

(57.5%, n = 177) or at least a four-year bachelors degree (3 7.7%, n = 116). Most subjects identified themselves as freelance writers ( 58.4%, n = 180). This chapter presents the key findings, implications, limitations, recommendations for theory and practice, and conclusions. Key Findings Descriptive analysis of the da ta found a mean issue involve ment score, to reporting on food and natural resource topics, of 4.24 (where 5.0 is the upper limit) to the issue of reporting food and natural resource topics indicating that overall, subjects were highly involved with the research area. As anticipated, members of AAE A and NASW did have si gnificantly different issue involvement scores, but the mean for bot h groups was on the upper end of the scale (AAEA M = 4.39, NASW M = 4.20). Subjects also had mo re positive preexisti ng attitudes toward agricultural biotechno logy overall with a mean score of 3.96 on a 1-5 scale. A total of eight major hypotheses were te sted in this study. Hypothesis 1 stated: Attitudes toward argument quality of a positively valenced message will differ si gnificantly as a function of issue involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricul tural biotechnology, and message frame. Hypothesis 1 was partially suppor ted. Findings indicated that the three-way interaction of message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology was not significant. However, the main effect for each of these variables was significant. Those with more favorable preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology had higher mean scores on attitudes toward argument qualit y. Similarly, those who were high in issue involvement had higher mean scores on attitudes toward argument quality. The frame alone also had a significant influence on attitudes toward argument quality. Although the hypothesis was not fully supported, visual inspect ion of the means table suggested that subjects who received the health frame and were high in issue involveme nt with more positive preexisting attitudes provided the highest mean score for attitudes toward argument quality. Conversely, subjects who 122

PAGE 123

received the economics frame and were low in issue involve ment with less positive preexisting attitudes indicated the lowest mean scor e for attitudes toward argument quality. Hypothesis 2 was similar to Hypothesis 1, but examined the second dependent variable: Attitudes toward likelihood to publ ish information presented in a positively valenced message will differ significantly as a function of issu e involvement, preexisting attitude toward agricultural biotechnolo gy, and message frame. Hypothesis 2 was not supported. The interaction of issue involvement, preexisting attitude towa rd agricultural biotechno logy, and message frame did not have a significant threeway interaction. Also, no main effects were found for any of the independent variables. Hypothesis 3 compared subjects in each of the message treatment conditions: Subjects who are high in issue involvement and are presented with the scientific progress frame will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those who are low in issue involvement and receive either the econom ics or health frames Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Findings indicated that a two-way interaction of message frame and issue involvement was not significant, but the main effects for each of thes e variables was significant. Those who were high in issue involvement had higher scores on attitudes toward argument quality. The message frame alone also influenced attitudes toward argumen t quality. Visual inspect ion of the means table indicated that the mean attitude s toward argument quality score was highest for subjects exposed to the health message frame who were high in issu e involvement. The hypothesized group of subjects exposed to the scientific progress message frame with high issue involvement had the next highest attitudes towa rd argument quality score. Hypothesis 4 also compared recipients of the three message frame conditions and postulated that: Subjects who have more positive attitudes toward agricultura l biotechnology and 123

PAGE 124

are presented with the scientific progress fram e will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than those who ha ve less positive attitudes towa rd agricultural biotechnology and receive either the econom ics or health frames. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. Although the two-way interaction was not signif icant between message frame and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, the main effects were significant for each variable on attitudes toward argument quality. Those who had more positive preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechno logy had higher scores on attitudes toward argum ent quality. The message frame alone also influenced attitudes toward argument quality. Visual inspection of the means table, found that for subjects who had more pos itive attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, the mean score for attitudes toward argument quality score was highest for subjects exposed to the health message followed by the hypothesized group of subjects exposed to the scientific progress message frame. Hypothesis 5 focused only on subjects who received the scientific progress frame and stated: For those who receive the scientific progre ss frame, subjects who are high in issue involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than subjects who are low in issue involvement. Hypothesis 5 was not supported becaus e an independent samples t-test found no significant difference between high an d low issue involvement groups for those exposed to the scientific progress frame. Hypothesis 6, which focused only on the subjects exposed to the health frame, stated: For those who receive the health frame, subjects w ho are low in issue involvement will have more favorable attitudes toward argument quality than subjects who are high in issue involvement. Hypothesis 6 was not supported. Fo r subjects who received the health frame, an independent samples t-test found no significant difference be tween high and low issue involvement groups. 124

PAGE 125

Hypothesis 7 examined the various independent variables ability to predict attitudes toward argument quality and postulated that: A combination of issue involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in attitudes toward argument quality. Hypothesis 7 was supported. The multiple linear regression model with message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology was significant and explained 14.1% of the variance in attitudes toward argument quality. The beta weight for preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnolo gy was .33, which means that for each unit increase in preexisting attitudes, the score on attitude s toward argument quality increased by .33 (t = 5.68, p = .00). In addition, the beta weight for issue involvement was .18 meaning that with each unit increase in issue involvement score, attit udes toward argument quality incr eased by .18 (t = 3.21, p = .00). Hypothesis 8 examined the various independent variables ability to predict attitudes toward the second dependent variable of likelihood to publish and stated: A combination of issue involvement, preexisting attitude s toward agricultural biotechnology and the scientific progress frame will explain the greatest variance in likelihood to publish the information. Hypothesis 8 was supported. Although the multiple linear regression model with message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attit udes toward agricultural biot echnology was significant, it only explained 3.3% of the variance in attitudes toward likelihood to publish. In this model, preexisting attitudes toward agri cultural biotechnology was a significant predictor of attitudes toward argument quality. The positive beta weight of .18 (t = 2.70, p = .01) means that with each unit increase in preexisting attit udes, the score on at titudes toward argumen t quality increases by .18. 125

PAGE 126

Implications The results of this study provide several significant theoretical and practical implications. Prior studies have researched framing messages within the ELM framework by comparing positive and negative frames and found that positive frames were more effective in persuading individuals with low issue involvement than the use of negative frames (Maheswaran & MeyersLevy, 1990; Donovan & Jalleh, 2000). The current study explored the use of three positively valenced message frames and found that issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology influenced attitudes to ward argument quality, but had little impact on likelihood to publish. These findings further the empirical work to examine framing and the ELM, and contribute to the agricultural communications discipline by illustrating how agricultural communicators can effectively utilize frames to improve media coverage and public awareness of agricultural issues. In previous ELM studies, argument quality was not a commonly researched construct (Areni & Lutz, 1988). However, argument quality is an important part of the persuasive communication process because it can influence thoughts and whic h route to persuasion is utilized (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). The current study treated attitude s toward argument quality as a dependent variable because it was necessa ry to gain a better understanding of how communicators identify argument qua lity, which can then be app lied to produce more effective persuasive messages. Based on the results of th is study, the frames did differ in terms of the subjects attitudes of argume nt quality. Certain frames (health and scientific progress) were viewed as higher in perceived argument quality, which indicate d that the frame can promote attitudes toward argument quality because so me frames are more salient for certain communicators. This implies that in order to improve media coverage of certain topics, 126

PAGE 127

practitioners should pay attention when tailoring the news messag es to develop those that are most attractive for the intended audience. Within the ELM, issue involvement is a measure of how much importance message recipients give to a persuasive message (Pet ty & Cacioppo, 1979). When issue involvement is high, people are more likely to dedicate cognitive effort to develop opinions of the issue and evaluate the issue-relevant arguments (Pe tty Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). In the present study, the mean issue involvement score indicated a skew toward higher issue involvement and no difference was found between those categorized as low or high issue involvement on their attitudes toward argument quality. In cases such as this, when issue involvement is already at a high level, it is important to utilize messages th at contain issue-releva nt arguments to support evaluation of the persuasive communication. Results of this study suggest that while frames do make a difference in terms of attitudes toward argument quality, they are not solely responsible for the likelihood information will be published. The mean for the dependent variable of likelihood to publish might have been lower than expected because whether or not somethi ng is published is often not a straightforward decision. This may be attributed to where the topic of agricultural biotechnology currently is within the issue-attention cycle. Other agricu ltural issues are taking precedence during this election year such as the farm bill, food safety, and alternative fuels. The mean may also be low because many other factors influence a messages news value including human interest, prominence of the issue, number of people a ffected, controversy or conflict, uniqueness, proximity, timeliness, and locality (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). The message frame alone may have some impact on drawing journalists at tention (Dunwoody, 1992), but the results of the 127

PAGE 128

current study found that the frame is not solely predictive of whether or not something may be presented in the media. In the data analysis process, the inability to find significant three-wa y interactions between message frame, issue involvement, and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology illustrated the difficulty in developing frames that are salient for the intended message recipient. Although the message frames developed a priori were deemed identifiable and salient during the message development and testing process with a panel of experts and individuals who are responsible for developing messages as a part of their professional careers, subjects did not always associate the intended frame w ith the one they received. However, post hoc analysis for the three-way ANOVA with the subject-identified frame was significant, which indicates that how message recipients interpret the frame was more important than how the frame was intended to appear. This implies that communicators who develop messages with specific frames may have difficulty in tailoring them appropriately in order to reach their a udience and be perceived by that audience as the intended frame. In further post hoc analysis, preexisting attitudes to ward agricultural biotechnology made a difference in attitudes toward of argum ent quality for those who received the health and economics message frames, but not for recipients of the scientific progress frame. This implies that preexisting attitudes toward a topic can have an impact on how certain frames are judged for argument quality. Also, examination of the less positive/more positive groups for preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology found a significant di fference in their attitudes toward the message topic of peanut allergen research. Subjects who had more positive preexisting attitudes toward agri cultural biotechnology indicated significantly more favorable attitudes toward the message topic than subjects who had less positive preexisting attitudes. This 128

PAGE 129

further illustrates the important role message r ecipients attitudes have on the evaluation of persuasive messages. Need for cognition was examined during post hoc analysis and was found to be a significant predictor of attitude s toward argument quality when included in a regression model with issue involvement, preexis ting attitudes toward agricult ural biotechnology, and message frame. However, the issue involvement and pr eexisting attitude variables were stronger predictors of attitudes toward argument quality and further ju stify identifying these audience member characteristics as they influence how persuasive messages are evaluated. Members of the two communication orga nizations (AAEA and NASW) differed significantly in their issue i nvolvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, attitudes toward argument qualit y, and likelihood to publish. Memb ers of the organizations are all communicators, but these findings imply that they do vary in key ch aracteristics that may influence how they interpret positively framed me ssages. It may be more difficult to persuade general science writers, who may have less fa vorable opinions about agricultural biotechnology, to publish information that is presented w ith the use of positive frames. In fact, post hoc analysis to explore the message frames influence on attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish for members of each organization found si gnificant differences between the two groups. Members of AAEA consistently indicated more fa vorable attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish for each message frame. Although the topic of peanut allergen research extends beyond production agricultu re and incorporates agricu ltural science, NASW members were still less favorable in their evaluations of the framed messages when compared to AAEA members. Overall, the health frame received the most favorab le scores on attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish, which implies that this message frame may be the 129

PAGE 130

most effective way to communicate about new agricultural technologies, including biotechnology. The factor analysis procedure indicated that the issue involvement index contained two subscales affective issue involvement and cognitive issue involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1994). These subscales indicate that perceptions of issue involvement are based on both rational and emotional evaluation. The attitudes toward argument quality index was also examined using factor analysis, which identified two subscales defined as the newsworthiness index and the seven-item argument quality index. This finding implies that the index requires additional refinement to identify what items best descri be how media professionals form attitudes toward argument quality. Limitations The exploratory nature of this study provides the opportunity for future research in the areas of framing within the ELM, persuasive communication developm ent, and agricultural communication, but several limitations do exist. The first limitation is that results are limited to members of the two organizations (AAEA and NASW) that comprised the accessible sample. Members of these organizations may differ from other communicators due to selection bias that encouraged them to join the organization. These subjects were also a ll rather high in issue involvement, which could be attributed to the self-selection nature of the survey where only those who were somewhat interested in or involved with the topi c of peanut allergen research mentioned in the pre-notice letter and e-mail announcement would feel compelled to complete the study. Although this sample was more appropriate than using a surrogate population, the sample was difficult and time-consuming to access. The response rate of 24.8% was similar to other studies of journalists and communicators through th e use of online surveys, but it still presents a 130

PAGE 131

potential for nonresponse error. Chapter 4 ad dressed this potential for error through the comparison of early and late responders, which were similar for the key independent variables and most of the demographic char acteristics. Chi-square tests did find a significant difference for the membership (AAEA or NASW) and the ne ws organization categor y of communication department. The difference in membership was anticipated because AAEA members were expected to have higher levels of issue involvement with repo rting food and natural resource topics. The difference in communication depart ment respondents may be attributed to the option to select more than one news organiza tion (to accommodate freelance writers). Some respondents may have not identified with this category while others may have selected this with another response option. This doe s indicate potential response erro r that should be addressed in future research. Another limitation of the study was th e subjects identi fication of the scientific progress frame as the health frame. The identification of the message frame as health may be justified because the topic of peanut allerg ies can be classified as a health issue. Prior studies examining the use of frames in persuasive communication have focused on positive versus negative frames (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990; Donovan & Jall eh, 2000). However, negative frames are not always available for the persuasion topic and other frames may be better suited to communicate the intended message. In this current study, the dis tinction between the health and scientific progress frames was not evident to subj ects although the manipulation check conducted during message stimuli testing found the frames to be distinguishable. This limitation illustrated the difficulty in developing message frames a priori and encourages the future study of how communicators identify and define intentionally de veloped message frames. 131

PAGE 132

This study used a one-time only exposure to the message frame. Strong attitudes are resistant to change and require repeated exposur e to persuasive messages to influence change through the persuasion process (Perloff, 2003). The effect of the frames in this study were measured based on a single exposure, whereas repeated exposure over an extended amount of time would potentially discover a more significant influence of message frame on attitudes. The research instrument was designed to be as concise as possible, but it still required approximately 20 minutes to complete. Efforts were made to decrease the length of the questionnaire by removing repetitive questions and index items that would improve alpha reliability coefficients. The online questionnaire also included a progress bar so respondents knew their progress through the instrument. Despite these efforts, several respondents failed to answer every question or complete the final pages with the need for cognition index and additional demographic questions. Several respo ndents commented that the survey was too long or they did not have time to complete it. These obstacles were anticipated so important demographic questions were includ ed at the beginning of the inst rument and efforts were made to decrease the number of questions before res pondents received their assigned message frames. Future surveys of this audience should place im portant questions at the beginning and explain why longer indexes are included in the instrument. Finally, the use of an online su rvey could be viewed as a lim itation due to potential selfselection for those who are more comfortable co mpleting an online survey. However, journalists and communicators are increasingly utilizing the Internet and e-mail to do their jobs (No Ones Yelling Copy Anymore, 2001; Trumbo et al., 2001; Duke, 2002) indicating a familiarity with this technology. Dillman (2007) noted that online or Web surveys are the latest development in survey research and are becoming more frequent ly utilized. Conducting th is study online allowed 132

PAGE 133

subjects to receive the message frame as they of ten would from an online news room or e-mailed press release. Recommendations Recommendations for Theory and Future Research Results from this study suggest several area s of future research. From a theoretical perspective, additional research to connect framing to the ELM should be conducted to examine the development of persuasive communication messa ges. The results of this study found that the a priori defined message frames did not have a si gnificant interaction with issue involvement and preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biot echnology on attitudes toward argument quality or likelihood to publish. However, when the subj ect-identified frames were considered, they did have a significant intera ction. This result should be further examined to discover how researchers develop and embed message frames in pers uasive communication messages and how the intended audience interprets these frames. In the current study, subjects had di fficulty distinguishing between the health and scientific progress message frames. Further research should explore if the difference is indeed negligible or if it is only the case for the message topic ut ilized in the study. This research could also expose subjects to all message frame stimuli so they can evaluate the appropriateness of each frame to meet their preferred style of comm unication. Additional research should utilize the tested message frames ( health, economics and scientific progress) with other agricultural topics to explore their effect on att itudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish. In particular, the effectiveness of the health message frame in producing more positive attitudes toward argument quality should be further examin ed by applying it to other agricultural topics. This future research direction could also explore what other types of pos itively valenced frames 133

PAGE 134

can be used with agricultural sc ience issues such as biofuels and food safety, which have been covered in the media recently. When forming attitudes toward argument quality, subjects relied more on preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology than issue involvement. The influence of attitudes should be examined through further investigation to explore how these attit udes affect persuasive communication in other areas of ag riculture. Also, issue involvemen t for subjects was rather high in this study so additional rese arch is needed to examine issu e involvement when it is low to explore what persuasive t echniques and message frames are most effective. Future research should analyze the qualitativ e data collected in the current study through the thought-listing technique to examine the elaboration component of the ELM. This study did not examine which route to persuasion was util ized, but further resear ch could examine what impact message frames have on encouraging the central or peripheral route to persuasion. This data analysis would also expl ore the methodological feature of using online surveys to collect open-ended responses. Subjects responses to th ese items where typing was necessary should be compared to traditional thought-listing pro cedures that requires handwriting on a paper instrument. Additionally, more research is needed to further test and re fine the argument quality index with respect to how media repres entatives develop perceptions of message quality. This area of research should examine how news writers construct argument quality and test it as a dependent factor. Factor analysis with the data in th is study indicated two subscales for the argument quality index, which need to be further tested with larger samples. Furthermore, the issue involvement index was found to contain two subscal es through factor analysis procedures. These 134

PAGE 135

subscales should be used to perf orm exploratory analysis of the data to determine what, if any, significant influence each has on other variables in the study. Recommendations for future research al so include examining how agricultural communicators develop persuasive messages and what frames are most effective for various topics. This study examined one area of agricult ural science, agricultu ral biotechnology, while many other topics are available for examination. Fu rther investigation of the process agricultural communicators utilize to develop persuasive messages would highlight effective methods and improve the discipline. Recommendations for Practitioners In this study, issue involvement and preexisting attitudes had an important influence on the persuasion process. An individua ls issue involvement can impact the ability of a persuasive message to develop supportive or contrary thoughts in regard to a message topic. Also, the attitudes one has prior to receiving a persuasive message af fect how the message arguments are interpreted. To produce the most effective persuasive communication messages, practitioners need to understand these characteristics about th eir audience members. It may be difficult to change the issue involvement or preexisting at titudes, but the persuasive messages can be adjusted over time to be more effective. This study found that how communicators de velop message frames is not always consistent with how message recipients interpret these frames. For practitioners, this means that more attention should be paid to the development of message frames that are consistent with the messages intentions. When charged with commun icating scientific information to the media, communicators need to tailor the messages so they are viewed as higher in argument quality that will encourage journalists to pay attention to the information. 135

PAGE 136

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the STEP program at the University of Florida is an example of an effort to improve the dissemination of scie ntific results to a broa der audience. The use of online technology to do so is an effective met hod to reach journalists and other interested audience members. As the results of this st udy found, respondents indicated e-mail was their preferred method to receive press releases, foll owed by websites. With this preference in mind, practitioners need to make an effort to devel op e-mail lists of contacts for press releases and incorporate the information within the text of the e-mail, not as an attachment. Additionally, emphasis should be placed on how the message is fr amed within the press release to encourage recipients to read it and utilize the information in subsequent communication. Based on the results of this study, when developing communication me ssages, agricultural communicators need to examine how they frame ag ricultural topics and e xplore the use of the health frame. Most consumers are well removed from the agrarian lifestyle and view agriculture as only a source of food. This he uristic should be nurtured by addressing the health angle of agricultural topics. The media atte ntion given to natural and organi c foods today has made health more salient for consumers and driven their desire to know more about what they eat. It may also be necessary for agricultural communicators to utilize more than one message frame for a particular topic depending on th e intended receiver. Issue involvement and preexisting attitudes are individual differen ce variables and communicators will be more effective in having their messages used if they ar e able to tailor them, through the use of frames, to effectively reach segmented audiences. Th e opportunity to positively frame agricultural science topics, especially those that are controve rsial, in a way that encourages their adoption would do much to improve the publics awaren ess and understanding of agricultural issues. 136

PAGE 137

Conclusions This study examined the interaction of issu e involvement, preexisting attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology, and message frames on attitudes toward argument quality and likelihood to publish. How persuasive messages are framed influences attitudes toward argument quality, which is related to the amount of cogn itive processing undertaken and the route to persuasion utilized with the ELM. While issue in volvement and preexisting attitudes are harder to change, agricultural communicators can pl ace emphasis on the development of effective message frames that promote agricultural issues including those that are more controversial agricultural science topics such as agricultural biotechnology. The results of this study i ndicate potential for agricultu ral communicators to utilize persuasive communication to influence attitude s toward argument quality. While the likelihood to publish information remains a complex deci sion-making process, communicators can be proactive in making their messages more attractiv e to those who make the decision to include information in the media by paying attention to how messages are framed. When tailoring persuasive communication messa ges, practitioners still need to be cognizant of their audiences indivi dual differences and use this information to develop effective messages and communication strategies. There will never be one right way to present scientific information and constant attention is needed to produce messages that are most effective. 137

PAGE 138

APPENDIX A PRE-NOTICE LETTER 138

PAGE 139

139 Figure A-1. Pre-notice letter

PAGE 140

APPENDIX B E-MAIL CONTACTS Message testing e-mail Hello member of the ACE Writing SIG, My name is Courtney Meyers and I am a doctoral candidate at the Univers ity of Florida. For my dissertation, I am conducting a research proj ect to gain a better understanding of how communicators perceive information regarding research being done on the development of a hypoallergenic peanut. In preparation for my study, I have developed an online press release about th is research project. As a professional communicator, your input is greatly appreciated in evaluating this message to ensure it is an effective presentation of the information. You were randomly selected from the ACE Writing SIG to receive a short survey. Please click the link to be connected to a web-based questionnai re that contains the pr ess release and a series of questions regarding its content. This survey will take no more than 10 minutes to complete and I would greatly appreciate your f eedback by next Friday, March 21. LINK Thank you in advance for your feedback in the development of this communication material. Sincerely, Courtney Meyers 140

PAGE 141

Survey contact e-mail Subject: Brief Survey from University of Florida Hello. My name is Courtney Meyers, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida currently researching communicat ors opinions and perceptions of how findings about the development on an allergen-free peanut should be disseminated. Hopefully, you received a letter in the mail informing you of this study. You have been randomly selected to participate in a brief online survey. The results of this survey will be used to enhan ce communication efforts related to peanut allergen research. Your response is crucial to the success of this st udy and will make a significant impact in better understanding communicators opinions and preferen ces regarding informa tion about scientific advances. I realize your time is incredibly valuable so this survey has been designed to be as concise as possible and should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Your responses will remain confidential and all results will be presented in summary format. If you have any questions, please contact me at 352-392-4680 or cameyers@ufl.edu To fill out the survey, please click on the link below: LINK Thank you for your feedback. It is much apprecia ted and will contribute significantly to this research project and the future impr ovement of communication efforts. Sincerely, Courtney Meyers 141

PAGE 142

Text for follow-up e-mail Subject: Reminder: Brief Survey from University of Florida Date Last week a link to a web-based questionnaire was sent to you seek ing your opinions and perceptions of how findings about the development on an alle rgen-free peanut should be disseminated. If you have already completed the questionnaire please accept my sincere thanks. If you have not, please do so at your earliest convenience. I am esp ecially grateful for your help because it is only by asking people like you to share your experiences that we can enhance communication efforts in related areas. In case you have misplaced the original e-mail, a link to the survey is provided below. LINK Thank you again for your participation. Sincerely, Courtney Meyers 142

PAGE 143

APPENDIX C INSTRUMENT 143

PAGE 144

144

PAGE 145

145

PAGE 146

146

PAGE 147

147

PAGE 148

148

PAGE 149

149

PAGE 150

150

PAGE 151

151

PAGE 152

152

PAGE 153

153

PAGE 154

154

PAGE 155

155

PAGE 156

156

PAGE 157

157

PAGE 158

158

PAGE 159

APPENDIX D MESSAGE VERSIONS 159

PAGE 160

Figure D-1. Health Message 160

PAGE 161

Figure D-2. Economics Message 161

PAGE 162

162 Figure D-3. Scientific Progress Message

PAGE 163

LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson, A., & Marhadour, A. (2007). Slick PR? The media politics of the Prestige oil spill. Science Communication, 29 (9), 96-115. Andrews, L. B., Fullarton, J. E., Ho ltzman, N. A., & Motulsky, A.G. (1994). Assessing genetic risks: Implications for health and social policy Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Arant, M.D., & Anderson, J.Q. (2001). Newspaper online editors support traditional standards. Newspaper Research Journal, 22(4), 57-69. Areni, C. S., & Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 197-203. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Ashlock, M. A., Cartmell, D. D., Kelemen, D. B. (2006). The cow that stole Christmas: Framing the first U.S. mad cow crisis. Journal of Applied Communication, 90 (2), 29-46. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Barnett, B. (2005). Feminists shaping news: A fr aming analysis of news releases from the National Organization for Women. Journal of Public Relations, 17(4), 341-362. Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Urbana: University of Illiniois Press. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16 7995. Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Beltramini, R. F. (1982). Advertis ing perceived believability scale. In D. R. Corrigan & F. B. Kraft & R. H. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the Southwes tern Marketing Association (pp. 1-3). Wichita, KS: Southweste rn Marketing Association. Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitativ e research in the social scienc es: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Boone, K., Meisenbach, T., & Tucker, M. (2000). Agricultural communications: Changes and challenges. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 163

PAGE 164

Borchelt, R. E. (2001). Communicating the future: Report of the Research Roadmap Panel for Public Communication of Science and T echnology in the Twenty-First Century. Science Communication, 23 (2), 194-211. Brock, T. C. (1967). Communication discrepancy a nd intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production. Journal of Experiment al Social Psychology, 3 269-309. Buchanan, G. (2007, May 10). Statement before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://agriculture.house.gov/te stimony/110/h70510a/Buchanan.doc. Burgoon, M., Cohen, M., Miller, M. D., & Montgome ry, C. L. (1978) An empirical test of a model of resistance to persuasion. Health Communications Research, 5(1), 27-39. Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes and cognitive responses and their relationship to behavior. In R. Petty, T. Ostrum, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48 (3), 306-307. Cassidy, W.P. (2005). Variations on a theme: The professional role conceptions of print and online newspaper journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82 (2), 264280. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion co ntext. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought: Limits of aw areness, intention, and control (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford. Chaiken, S., Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of persua sion. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 702-742). New York: Guilford Press. Christensen, L. B. (2001). Experimental methodology (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chung, D.S., Kim, E., Trammell, K.D., & Porter, L.V. (2007). Uses and pe rceptions of blogs: A report on professional journalist s and journalism educators. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 62 (3), 305-322 Clayman, S. E., & Reisner, A. (1998). Gatek eeping in action: Edito rial conferences and assessments of newsworthiness. American Sociological Review, 63 (2), 178-199. 164

PAGE 165

Crawley, C. E. (2007). Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication, 28( 3), 314-346. Diamond, J. (1997, May). Kinship with the stars. Discover 18 44-49. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Donovan, R. J., & Jalleh, G. (2000). Positive vers us negative framing of a hypothetical infant immunization: The influence of involvement. Health Education & Behavior, 27 (1), 8295. Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, jour nalists, and the meaning of un certainty. In Friedman, S.M., Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C.L. (Eds). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duke, S. (2002). Wired science: Use of World Wi de Web and e-mail in science public relations. Public Relations Review, 28 311-324. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Einsiedel, E. F. (1992). Framing scien ce and technology in the Canadian press. Public Understanding of Science, 1 89-101. Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U. S. coverage of international ne ws: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41 (4), 6-27. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward cl arification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51-58. Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In A.R. Poratkanis, S.J. Breckler, & A.G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude Structure and Function (pp. 153-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attit ude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin: University of Texas Press. Florida Department of Agriculture an d Consumer Services. (2002, January 14). Public awareness campaign to show economic value of agriculture, Florida's second-largest industry. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/press/2002/01142002.html Frick, M. J., Birkenholz, R. J., & Machtmes, K. (1995). Rural and urban adult knowledge and perceptions of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36 (2), 44-53. 165

PAGE 166

Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C. L. (1986). Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York: Free Press. Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C. L. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Frodeman, R., & Holbrook, J. B. (2007, Spring). Sciences social effects. Issues in Science and Technology, 28-30. Funkhouser, G. R. (1973). The issues of the sixt ies: An exploratory study in the dynamics of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 62-75. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science, 285 (5426), 384-387. Gaunt, P. (1992). Making the newsmakers: Interna tional handbook on journalism training. Westport. Greenwood Press. Gitlin,T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass me dia in the making and unmaking of the new left Berkely, CA: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Free Press. Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, co gnitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrum (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 148-170). New York: Academic Press. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communica tion, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. Griffin, R. J., & Dunwoody, S. (1997). Community st ructure and science framing of news about local environmental risks. Science Communication, 18 (6), 362 384. Hacker, R. G., & Harris, M. (1992). Adult learni ng of science for scien tific literacy: Some theoretical and methodol ogical perspectives. Studies in the Education of Adults, 24 (2), 217-225. Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of fram ing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11 (3), 205-242. Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the dist ance between science and journalism threatens Americas future Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center. Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Pers onality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and re sistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (2), 308-319. 166

PAGE 167

Holsinger, K. E. (2006). A new era fo r the public understanding of science. BioScience, 56 (12), 955. Hoban, T. J. (1998). Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum, 1 (1), 3-7. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v1n1/v1n1a02-hoban.htm Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hurt, R. D. (2002). American agriculture: A brief history. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Husselbee, L. P., & Elliot, L. (2002). Looking beyond hate: How national and regional newspapers framed hate crimes in Jasper, Texas, and Laramie, Wyoming. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79( 4), 833-852. Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago. Kalaitzandonakes, N., Marks, L. A., & Vickner, S. S. (2004). Media coverage of biotech foods and influence on consumer choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86 (5), 1238-1246. Kellogg Foundation, W. K. (n.d.) Farm and farm-related employment. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.wkkf.org/default.aspx?tab id=102&CID=19&CatID=19&ItemID=190274&N ID=20&LanguageID=0. Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2002). The facet of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11 143-154. LaFollette, M. C. (1990). Making science our own: Public images of science, 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lawrence, R. G. (2004). Framing obesity: The ev olution of news discourse on a public health issue. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9 (3), 56-75. Lengell, S. (2008, May 6) Watchdogs see waste in farm-bill reform. The Washington Times, pp. A4. Leshner, A. I. (2007, January 12). Outr each training needed. Science, 315, 161. Lichter, S. R., Amundson, D., & Lichter, L. S. (2005). The message from rural America: Media coverage of rural America 2002 vs. 2004. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from http://www.wkkf.org/DesktopModules/WKF.00_DmaSupport/ViewDoc.aspx?fld=PDFFi le&CID=297&ListID=28&ItemID=44093&LanguageID=0 167

PAGE 168

Lundy, L. K. (2004). Globally speaking: The effe ct of internal message frames on attitudes and cognitive processing focused on international izing agricultural ex tension within the elaboration likelihood model. Unpublished doctoral dissertat ion, University of Florida, Gainesville. Lundy, L. (2006). Effect of framing on c ognitive processing in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32, 295-301. Lundy, L. K., & Irani, T. A. (2004). Framing bi otechnology: A comparison of U.S. and British national newspapers. Journal of Applied Communication, 88 (2), 37-49. Lundy, L., Ruth, A., Telg, R., & Irani, T. (2006) It takes two: Public understanding of agricultural science and ag ricultural scientis ts understandin g of the public. Journal of Applied Communication, 90( 1), 55-68. Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). Th e influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27 361-367. Marks, L. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L., & Zakharova, L. (2007). Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public U nderstanding of Science, 16, 183-203. Martin, A. (2008, May 30). Food report criticizes biofuel policies. The New York Times, pp. C1. Martin, A., & Severson, K. (2008, April 18). Sticker shock in the organic aisles. The New York Times, pp. C1. McCombs, M. E. (1997). New frontiers in agenda setting: Agendas of attributes and frames. Mass Communication Review, 24, 32-52. McCombs, M E. (2005). A look at age nda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6, 543-557. McCombs, M., Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E ., & Rey, F. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74 703-717. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda setting function of the media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (2), 176-187. Miller, J. D. (2000). The developm ent of civic scientific literacy in the United States, in D.D. Kumar and D. Chubin (Eds.), Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice (pp. 21-47). New York: Plenum Press. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientif ic research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13 273-294. National Agricultural Library. (2002). Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://www.nal.usda .gov/speccoll/collect/ril ey/memorial.htm. 168

PAGE 169

National Agricultural Researc h, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (1997). Improving public understanding and appreciation of agriculture. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://www.nal.usda.gov/assessment/comments/whitepaper.pdf National Research Council. (2003). Frontiers in agricultural research: Food, health, environment, and communities. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. National Science Foundation. (2006a). Investing in Americas futu re: Strategic plan FY 20062011. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from http ://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0648/NSF-0648.pdf National Science Foundation. (2006b). Science & engineering indicators Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/st atistics/seind06/pdf/c07.pdf Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the pr ess covers science and technology (2nd Ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Nelkin, D., & Lindee, S. (1995). The DNA mystique New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties confliect and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91 567-583. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue fr aming effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61 (4), 1040-1067. Nisbet, M. C., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Bi otechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23 (4), 359-391. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J ., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or prom ise? A media effects model for public perceptions of scie nce and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608. No ones yelling copy anymore; Journalists use of the Internet at all-time high. (2001, June). Public Relations Tactics, 8 7. Oliver, P. E., & Myers, D. J. (1999). How events enter the public sphere : Conflict, location, and sponsorship in local newspaper coverage of public events. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 38-87. Ostrom, T. M., Bond, Jr., C. F., Krosnick, J. A., & Sedikides, C. (1994). Attitude scales: How we measure the unmeasurable. In S. Shavitt & T.C. Brock (Eds.) Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 15-42). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Perloff, R. M. (1993). The dynamics of persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Commu nication and attitudes in the 21st century. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 169

PAGE 170

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue invo lvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915-1926. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer Verlag. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847855. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & St rathman, A. (2005). To think or not to think? Exploring two routes to persuasion. In T.C. Brock & M.C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 81-116). Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology (pp. 323-390) Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The el aboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.) Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2006, December). Awareness of gene tically modified food has declined over the past five years. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://pewagbiotech.org /research/2006update/1.php Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Sw itching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24(5), 481-501. Priest, S. H. (1999). Popular beliefs, media, a nd biotechnology. In S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C.L. Rogers (Eds.) Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 95-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Priest, S. H. (2000). U.S. public op inion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939-942. Priest, S. H. (2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham: MD. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Priest, S. H., & Eyck, T. T. (2003). Ne ws coverage of biotechnology debates. Society 40 (6), 2934. 170

PAGE 171

Reisner, A., & Walter, G. (1994). Agricultural jo urnalists assessments of print coverage of agricultural news. Rural Sociology, 59 (3), 525-537. Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: a social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47 (3), 26. Rogers, C. L. (1999). The importance of understanding audiences. In S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C.L. Rogers (Eds.) Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rosenwald, M. S. (2008, June 3). Fast food goe s organic; high noon sa le reflects growing appetite for quick, healthy eateries. The Washington Post pp. D1. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping pe rceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121 (1), 3-19. Ruth, A., Eubanks, E. E., & Telg, R. ( 2005). Framing the mad cow media coverage. Journal of Applied Communication, 89(4), 39-54. Ruth, A., Lundy, L., Telg, R., & Ira ni, T. (2005). Trying to relate: Media relations training needs of agricultural scientists. Science Communication, 27 (1), 127-145. Ruth, A., Muegge, T. & Irani, T. (2005). Seeds planted for recovery: Framing of agriculture during the 2004 Florida hurricanes. Paper presented at th e annual Association for Communication Excellence conference, San Antonio, TX. Sands, D. R. (2008, May 15). Food trade caps faulted; top economi st sees worsening. The Washington Times, pp A15. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missi ng data: Our view of th e state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7 (2), 147-177. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49 103-119. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, primi ng, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society 3 (2 & 3) 297-316. Schmierbach, M. (2005). Method matters: Th e influence of met hodology on journalists assessments of social science research. Science Communication, 26 (3), 269-287. Schmit, J. (2008, April 22). Outbreaks prompt sc rutiny of food labeling; chicken entrees appear already cooked, but arent. USA Today pp. B1. Scientific Thinking and Educati onal Partnership Program. (2007a). Home page. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http: //step.ufl.edu/index.html 171

PAGE 172

Scientific Thinking and Educati onal Partnership Program. (2007b). UF Genetics. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://www.ufgenetics.com/default.aspx Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Frami ng European politics: a content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50 (2), 93. Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (1992). Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group. Shin, A. (2008, June 29). Tainted tomatoes may still be on the market; FDA to look at other produce, too. The Washington Post pp. A1. Shoemaker, P. J., & Resse, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message: Theori es of influences on mass media content. New York: Longman. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message. White Plains, NY: Longman. Stephens, L. F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27 (2), 175-199. Stiff, J. B. (1994). Persuasive communication. New York: Guilford Press. Stone, G., Singletary, M., Richmond, V. P. (1999). Clarifying communication theories: A handson approach. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Stringer, S., & Thomson, J. (1999, June). Defining agricultural issues: Daily newspaper editors perspectives. Paper presented at Agricultural Communicators in Education/National Extension Technology Conference, Knoxville, TN. Ten Eyck, T. A., & Williment, M. (2003). The nati onal media and things genetic: Coverage in the New York Times (1971) and the Washington Post (1977-2001). Science Communication, 25 (12), 129-152. Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 289-338. Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Scientif ic literacy: Issues and perspectives. Scientific Literacy Papers: A Journal of Research in Science, Education and Research, 1, 1-14. Traub, R. E. (1994). Reliability for the social sc iences: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trumbo, C. (1996). Constructing clim ate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5 269-283. United States Department of Agriculture (2002). 2002 Census of Agriculture Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Pull_Data_Census. 172

PAGE 173

United States Department of Agriculture (2007). Biotechnology FAQ Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s .7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&navid=A GRICULTURE&contentid= BiotechnologyFAQs.xml United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. (2005). Science in your shopping cart. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/shopcart/shopcart.pdf Tankard, J. W. (2001). The empiri cal approach to the study of media framing. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, & A.E. Grant (Eds.) Framing public life (pp. 95-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tankard, J., Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S. (1991). Media frames: Approaches to conceptua lization and measurement. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston. Thorson, E., Christ, W. G., & Caywood, C. (1991). E ffects of issue-image st rategies, attack and support appeals, music, and visual content in political commercials. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35 465-486. Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23 (3), 310-322. Trumbo, C. W., Sprecker, K. J., Dumlao, R. J., Yun, G. W., and Duke, S. (2001). Use of e-mail and the Web by science writers. Science Communication, 22 (4), 347-378. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the c onstruction of reality. New York: Free Press. Weaver, D. H. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57 142-147. Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communi cating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164-193). Weisman, J., & Morgan, D. (2008, May 22). House ove rrides veto of farm bill; glitch may force repeat of the process. The Washington Times, pp. A1. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Wood, M. L. M. (2006). Expertise and prior attitude: Explor ing new moderators in the context of inoculation research Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Woodall, I. (2007, July). A unanimous decision: Survey shows online newsrooms are required for media interaction. Public Relations Tactics, 14 (7), 9-11. 173

PAGE 174

174 Yun,G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2000 ). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, email, & Web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6 (1). Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/yun.html Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klei n, J. S., & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10 37-58. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 341-352. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The Personal Involv ement Inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59-70.

PAGE 175

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author was born Courtney Alyssa Wimmer in 1980, in Fort Scott, Kansas. She grew up in Fulton, a small town in southeastern Kansas. Her family includes her parents, Gary and Sheila Wimmer; a twin sister, Gaea; a brother, Zach; and a younger sister, Sheridan. Her interest in agricultural communications was nurtured th rough involvement in FFA at Jayhawk-Linn High School in Mound City, Kansas, where she graduated in 1999. In August 1999, Courtney began her college caree r at Kansas State University majoring in agricultural communications and journalism. Wh ile at K-State, Courtney worked for the International Grains Program and was active in Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow. She graduated summa cum laude in May 2003. In August 2003, Courtney continued her educat ion at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. While earning her masters degree in agricultural and extension education, she spent a summer working for the Scottish Agricultura l College in Edinburgh, Scotland. Courtney was selected as the Dale Bumpers College of Agricu ltural and Life Sciences Masters Scholar when she graduated in 2005. After completing her masters degree, Courtney married Dani el Meyers in June 2005, and moved to Gainesville, Florida, to pursue her doctoral degree in agricultural communications. Courtney received the Univers ity of Florida Alumni Academ ic Fellowship to support her doctoral education in the Department of Agri cultural Education and Communication. During her degree program, Courtney taught or assisted clas ses in technical writing, Web and print design, and communication campaign development. She c onducted research in Web and print material evaluation, scholarship of teaching and learning, media coverage of agricultural issues, and public awareness of agricultural topics.

PAGE 176

Courtney and her husband welcomed their firs t child, Isabel Ashle y, in 2008. In August, Courtney will begin her faculty care er at Texas Tech University as an assistant pr ofessor in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communications, teaching agricultural communications.