Multilevel approaches provide a powerful way to assess simultaneously the contribution of message differences and individual differences to prediction of memory for media content. Many questions about memory legitimately invite investigation of not only factors that describe people but also variables describing messages as well as potential interactions between those two levels. This article introduces an example of how multilevel modeling techniques can be applied to avoid basic pitfalls and to predict memory for electronic media content. Using data from a sample of U.S. adolescents and data regarding the content and prevalence of nationally available health campaign advertisements, this study illustrates main effects and cross-level interactions relevant to an array of communication scholars and professionals.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.
3.
Blumberg, S. J. (2000). Guarding against threatening HIV prevention messages: An information-processing model. Health Education & Behavior, 27(6), 780-795.
4.
Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects of personal involvement:Thought provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763-769.
5.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon.
6.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 65-108.
7.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., Congdon, R., & Seltzer, M. (1986). An introduction to HLM: Computer program and user’s guide. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education.
9.
Buder, E. H. (1991). A nonlinear dynamic model of social interaction. Communication Research, 18(2), 174-198.
10.
Burstein, L. (1980). The analysis of multi-level data in educational research and evaluation. Review of Research in Education, 8, 158-233.
11.
Cappella, J. N. (1996). Why biological explanation?Journal of Communication, 46(3), 4-7.
12.
Chaffee, S. H., & Wilson, D. G. (1977). Media rich, media poor: Two studies of diversity in agenda holding. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 466-476.
13.
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 (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
14.
du Plessis, E. (1994). Recognition versus recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(3), 75-91.
15.
Eagly, A. H.,& Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
16.
Farris, P. W., & Parry, M. E. (1991). Clarifying some ambiguities regarding GRP and average frequency. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(6), 75-77.
17.
Flin, R. H.(1985). Development of visual memory:An early adolescent regression. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5(2), 259-266.
18.
Hagen, I., & Wasko, J. (2000). Introduction. In I. Hagen & J. Wasko (Eds.), Consuming audiences? Production and reception in media research (pp. 3-28). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
19.
Haney, W. (1980). Units and levels of analysis in large-scale evaluation. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 6, 1-15.
20.
Hornik, R. (1989). The knowledge-behavior gap in public information campaigns: A development communication view. In C. T. Salmon (Ed.), Information campaigns: Balancing social values and social change (pp. 113-138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Hornik, R. (1997). Public health education and communication as policy instruments for bringing about changes in behavior. In M. E. Goldberg, M. Fishbein, & S. E. Middlestadt (Eds.), Social marketing: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 45-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
Hornik, R., Maklan, D., Cadell, D., Judkins, D., Sayeed, S., Zador, P., et al. (2000). Evaluation of the national youth anti-drug media campaign: Campaign exposure and baseline measurement of correlates of illicit drug use from November 1999 through May 2000. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
23.
Hornik, R., Maklan, D., Judkins, D., Cadell, D., Yanovitzky, I., Zador, P., et al. (2001). Evaluation of the national youth anti-drug media campaign: Second semi-annual report of findings. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
24.
Kang, N., & Kwak, N. (2003). A multilevel approach to civic participation. Communication Research, 30(1), 80-106.
25.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
26.
Kreft, I. G. G., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Lang, A. (1995). Defining audio/video redundancy from a limited-capacity information processing perspective. Communication Research, 22(1), 86-115.
28.
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70.
29.
Lang, A., Geiger, S., Strickwerda, M., & Sumner, J. (1993). The effects of related and unrelated cuts on television viewers’ attention, processing capacity, and memory. Communication Research, 20(1), 4-29.
30.
Leippe, M. R., & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.
31.
Miller, L. L. (1999). Marihuana: Acute effects on human memory. In G. G. Nahas, K. M. Sutin, D. J. Harvey, & S. Agurell (Eds.), Marihuana and medicine (pp. 227-231). Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.
32.
Pan, Z., & McLeod, J. M. (1991). Multilevel analysis in mass communication research. Communication Research, 18(2), 140-173.
33.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer/Verlag.
34.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
35.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J., & Haugtvedt, C. (1992). Involvement and persuasion: An appreciative look at the Sherifs’ contribution to the study of self-relevance and attitude change. In D. Granberg & G. Sarup (Eds.), Social judgment and intergroup relations: Essays in honor of Muzafer Sherif (pp. 147-174). New York: Springer/Verlag.
36.
Petty, R. E.,& Priester, J. R. (1994). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37.
Price, V., Ritchie, L. D., & Eulau, H. (1991). Cross-level challenges for communication research. Communication Research, 18(2), 262-271.
38.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. T. (2001). HLM 5 for Windows (Version 5.03) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
40.
Ritchie, L. D., & Price, V. (1991). Of matters micro and macro: Special issues for communication research. Communication Research, 18(2), 133-139.
41.
Roediger, H. L., & Challis, B. H. (1989). Hypermnesia: Improvements in recall with repeated testing. In C. Izawa (Ed.), Current issues in cognitive processes: The Tulane Flowerree symposium on cognition (pp. 175-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
Roediger, H. L., Payne, D. G., Gillespie, G. L., & Lean, D. S. (1982). Hypermnesia as determined by level of recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 635-655.
43.
Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S. W., & Kang, S. J. (1991). Organizational design in high schools: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Education, 99(2), 238-266.
44.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
45.
Shoemaker, P. J., Schooler, C., & Danielson, W. A. (1989). Involvement with the media: Recall versus recognition of election information. Communication Research, 16(1), 78-103.
46.
Singh, S. N., Rothschild, M. L., & Churchill, G. A. (1988). Recognition versus recall as measures of television commercial forgetting. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 72-80.
47.
Southwell, B. G., Barmada, C. H., Hornik, R. C., & Maklan, D. M. (2002). Can we measure encoded exposure? Validation evidence from a national campaign. Journal of Health Communication, 7(5), 445-453.
48.
Stapel, J. (1998). Recall and recognition: A very close relationship. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(4), 41-45.
49.
Sullivan, J. M. (2000). Cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying learning and memory impairments produced by cannabinoids. Learning & Memory, 7(3), 132-139.
50.
Webster, J. G., Phalen, P. F., & Lichty, L. W. (2000). Ratings analysis: The theory and practice of audience research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51.
Wicks, R. H. (1992). Improvement over time in recall of media information: An exploratory study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 36(3), 287-302.
52.
Wright, C. R. (1986). Mass communication: A sociological perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.
53.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54.
Zhu, J. -H., Watt, J. H., Snyder, L. B., Yan, J., & Jiang, Y. (1993). Public issue priority formation: Media agenda-setting and social interaction. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 8-29.
55.
Zinkhan, G. M., Locander, W. B., & Leigh, J. H. (1986). Dimensional relationships of aided recall and recognition. Journal of Advertising, 15(1), 38-46.
