on parents, peers, administrators, and advisers

181 Pages·2012·3.52 MB·English

by  Adam M. Maksl

ON PARENTS, PEERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND ADVISERS:
DEVELOPING A SYSTEM TO UNDERSTAND SELF-CENSORSHIP OF
CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL PRESS
_______________________________________

A Dissertation presented to
the Faculty of the Graduate School
at the University of Missouri-Columbia
_______________________________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
_____________________________________________________
by
ADAM M. MAKSL
Dr. Charles N. Davis, Dissertation Supervisor
JULY 2012
© Copyright by Adam M. Maksl 2012
All Rights Reserved
The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School,
have examined the dissertation entitled

ON PARENTS, PEERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND ADVISERS:
DEVELOPING A SYSTEM TO UNDERSTAND SELF-CENSORSHIP OF
CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL PRESS

presented by Adam M. Maksl,
a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy,
and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.

__________________________________________________
Professor Charles N. Davis

__________________________________________________
Professor Stephanie L. Craft

__________________________________________________
Professor Esther L. Thorson

__________________________________________________
Professor Timothy P. Vos

__________________________________________________
Professor Nicole M. Campione-Barr
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my family, who provided exceptional support,
even when I questioned whether the Ph.D. path was right for me. This is especially
dedicated to the memory of my father, Joseph W. Maksl. He passed away in December
2008, before I started the Ph.D. program, but his influence was felt throughout the
process. He encouraged me to follow my dreams and to always be thankful for the
wonderful gifts God has provided for me.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all the members of my doctoral committee, who provided
exceptional support along the way. In particular, Profs. Charles Davis and Stephanie
Craft guided me throughout all parts of my doctoral journey. Profs. Esther Thorson, Tim
Vos, and Nicole Campione-Barr all appreciated my efforts to develop interdisciplinarity
in this work. Thank you also to current and former members of the faculty at Ball State
University, including Profs. Marilyn Weaver, Dan Waechter, Vince Filak, Scott
Reinardy, and Brian Hayes, who all helped me first realize that a life in academia might
be for me.
Fellow doctoral students and friends at the Missouri School of Journalism and
elsewhere provided input and assistance, as well as much-needed distractions at times.
Special thanks to Nick Geidner, Chad Painter, Pat Ferrucci, Seth Ashley, Rachel Young,
Mark Poepsel, Erin Schauster, and Erin Willis.
My mother, Mary, and my brothers, Joey and Brian, supported my decision to
pursue the doctorate, knowing that doing so the year after my father’s unexpected death
would make the transition especially difficult. They reminded me of my strengths during
initial moments of uncertainty in my ability to continue with the program.
Finally, my wife, Renée Petrina, provided the most support during this process.
We met right as I started this Ph.D. program, and our dating and engagement spanned the
three years. I finished writing this dissertation just a few days before our wedding. She
provided tireless encouragement, including accepting that this dissertation would distract
me from some wedding planning. My life is made so much better with her in it.
ii
Thank you all for your support. This accomplishment bears your sweat and tears
just as much as mine.
ii i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. vii
Chapter
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................ 7
3. Study One .......................................................................................................... 50
4. Additional hypotheses and research questions .................................................. 75
5. Study Two ......................................................................................................... 89
6. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 117
Appendices
1. Appendix A: Complete survey for Study One ................................................ 131
2. Appendix B: Correlations between all variables in Study One ....................... 154
3. Appendix C: Correlations between all variables in Study Two ...................... 155
References ....................................................................................................................... 157
Vita .................................................................................................................................. 171

iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 – Descriptive statistics for data from Study One ........................................................ 52
3.2 – Factor loadings based on a principal axis factoring with Promax rotation for
controversial topics .................................................................................................. 59
3.3 – Descriptive statistics for independent and dependent variables used in the Study
One model ................................................................................................................ 64
3.4 – Study One hierarchical regression predicting one’s own comfort levels with stories
about controversial social issues running in the school newspaper ......................... 66
3.5 – Study One hierarchical regression predicting one’s own comfort levels with stories
about controversial school topics running in the school newspaper ........................ 67
3.6 – Study One hierarchical regression predicting awareness-of-self dimension of trait
autonomy .................................................................................................................. 68
3.7 – Study One hierarchical regression predicting feeling of choice of trait autonomy . 69
5.1 – Descriptive statistics for entire dataset as well as former high school journalist
subset of Study Two ................................................................................................. 91
5.2 – Descriptive statistics for independent and dependent variables used in the entire
Study Two model. .................................................................................................... 97
5.3 – Study Two hierarchical regression predicting one’s own comfort levels with stories
about social-oriented controversial issues running in the school newspaper .......... 99
5.4 – Study Two hierarchical regression predicting one’s own comfort levels with stories
about school-oriented controversial issues running in the school newspaper ....... 101
5.5 – Study Two hierarchical regression predicting awareness-of-self dimension of trait
autonomy ................................................................................................................ 103
5.6 – Study Two hierarchical regression predicting feeling-of-choice dimension of trait
autonomy ................................................................................................................ 104
5.7 – Study Two hierarchical regression predicting one’s own comfort levels with stories
about social-oriented controversial issues running in the school newspaper, with
high school journalism experience added to the demographic model ................... 115
5.8 – Study Two hierarchical regression predicting one’s own comfort levels with stories
about school-oriented controversial issues running in the school newspaper, with
high school journalism experience added to the demographic model ................... 116
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 – Full Study One model predicting comfort levels of covering controversial topics . 48
3.1 – Study One hypothesized structural equation model ................................................. 71
3.2 – Study One SEM predicting comfort levels with stories about school topics ........... 73
3.3 – Study One SEM predicting comfort levels with stories about social topics ............ 74
4.1 – Full Study Two model predicting comfort levels of covering controversial topics 88
5.1 – Hypothesized structural equation model for Study Two ....................................... 105
5.2 – Study Two SEM predicting comfort levels with stories about school topics ........ 107
5.3 – Study Two SEM predicting comfort levels with stories about social topics ......... 108
5.4 – Scatterplot showing best line fit for the effect of perceived peer’s comfort levels
with school-oriented controversial issues on personal comfort levels, for both high
and low maternal autonomy support ...................................................................... 111
5.5 – Scatterplot showing best line fit for the effect of perceived peer’s comfort levels
with social-oriented controversial issues on personal comfort levels, for both high
and low maternal autonomy support ...................................................................... 112
5.6 – Scatterplot showing best line fit for the effect of perceived peer’s comfort levels
with school-oriented controversial issues on personal comfort levels, for both high
and low adviser autonomy support ........................................................................ 113

v i
ON PARENTS, PEERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND ADVISERS:
DEVELOPING A SYSTEM TO UNDERSTAND SELF-CENSORSHIP OF
CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL PRESS

Adam M. Maksl
Dr. Charles N. Davis, Dissertation Supervisor

ABSTRACT

Two surveys of young college students (N =134; N =372) were used to examine what
1 2
perceived familial and educational factors influenced former high school journalism
students’ comfort levels with controversial stories running in the student newspaper.
Using theory from developmental psychology, newsroom sociology, communications,
and legal studies, this dissertation develops a model for understanding both direct and
indirect influences on freedom of expression in the scholastic press. Specifically, results
suggest that perceptions of peers’ and advisers’ comfort with publishing controversial
stories influences individual comfort levels. Contrary to suggestions from other scholastic
journalism research, former scholastic journalists’ perceptions of their principals’
opinions were not predictive of individual comfort levels with running controversial
stories. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

vi i