Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Computer-Mediated Word-of-Mouth Communication on RateMyProfessors.com: Expectancy Effects on Student Cognitive and Behavioral Learning Autumn Edwards Ohio University Chad Edwards University of Kansas Carrie Shaver Indiana University Mark Oaks Michigan University The purpose of this study was to experimentally test the influence of expectancies formed through computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication (WOM) on student learning. Increasingly, students rely on computer-mediated WOM through sites such as RateMyProfessors.com to aid in the process of information-gathering and course selection. It was hypothesized that students who received positive computer-mediated WOM about a course would demonstrate greater levels of cognitive and behavioral learning than would students who received no information or negative computer-mediated WOM. Results demonstrated the predicted effects for cognitive and behavioral learning. It was further hypothesized that observed expectancy effects would be mediated by affect toward learning. Results supported a partial mediational role for affect in the context of positive expectancies, but not negative expectancies. Results were discussed in terms of the role of computermediated WOM in generating expectations, the expectations-affect-behavior hypothesis, and the influence of student expectations on learning outcomes. Key words: computer-mediated communication, word-of-mouth, expectancy effects, cognitive learning, behavioral learning, affective learning, RateMyProfessors.com. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01445.x Research has demonstrated that word-of-mouth communication (WOM) influences short-term and long-term perceptions (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991), attitudes, and behaviors (Harrison-Walker, 2001). As ‘‘a dominant force in the marketplace,’’ 368 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association WOM has been studied as it relates to judgments regarding products, services, and organizations (Mangold, Miller, & Brockway, 1999, p. 73). Increasingly, students rely on computer-mediated WOM through sites such as RateMyProfessors.com and PickAProf.com to aid in information-gathering and course selection. However, there has been little examination of this influence in the teaching/learning context (Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Qing, & Wahl, 2007; Herr et al., 1991). This study investigates the role of computer-mediated WOM in acting as a source of student expectations to influence learning. An experimental design is employed to test the effects of positive and negative computer-mediated WOM (operationalized as RateMyProfessors.com evaluations) on student levels of cognitive and behavioral learning, and to explore affect as a mediator of these effects. Literature Review Word-of-Mouth Communication (WOM) Defined by Harrison-Walker (2001) as ‘‘informal, person-to-person communication between a perceived noncommercial communicator and a receiver regarding a brand, a product, an organization, or a service’’ (p. 63), WOM is transferred from one person to another through a communication medium (Brown, Barry, Dacin, & Gunst, 2005). Research on WOM is extensive, demonstrating links between WOM and consumer purchasing behavior (e.g., Arndt, 1967; Howard & Gengler, 2001; Liu, 2006), product success (Day, 1971; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955), cross-cultural marketing (Cheung, Anitsal, & Anitsal, 2007), satisfaction with experiences (Burzynski & Bayer, 1977; Harrison-Walker, 2001; Wangenheim & Bayón, 2007), response to negative messages (DeCarlo, Laczniak, Motley, & Ramaswami, 2007), diffusion of innovations (Arndt, 1967; Singhal, Rogers, & Mahajan, 1999; Sultan, Farley, & Lehmann, 1990; Sun, Youn, Wu, & Kuntaraporn, 2006), perception of risk (Shrum & Bischak, 2001), and persuasion (Bytwerk, 2005; Carl, 2006; Compton & Pfau, 2004). According to Bickart and Schindler (2001), conventional WOM refers to spoken words exchanged face-to-face between friends or relatives. However, technologyfacilitated written personal opinions and experiences shared among acquaintances or strangers have come to typify computer-mediated WOM (Sun et al., 2006). Because of the Internet’s bidirectional communication capabilities, large-scale WOM networks have developed (Dellarocas, 2003) and broadened both the availability and the importance of WOM in the marketplace (Zinkhan, Kwak, Morrison, & Peters, 2003). Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry, and Raman (2004) argued that computer-mediated WOM has eclipsed conventional WOM’s influence on information and decisionmaking processes because of its speed, convenience, reach, and lack of face-to-face social pressure. Within an educational context, computer-mediated WOM and its influences have gone mostly unexplored. Borgida and Nisbett (1977) found that vivid face-to-face WOM about college courses had greater influence on course selection than did an Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 369 extensive collection of written course evaluations. However, today’s students have increased opportunities for accessing and participating in WOM about college courses and instructors because of the popularity of online instructor rating systems (Wilhelm & Comegys, 2004). Edwards et al. (2007) demonstrated through experimental design that positive computer-mediated WOM influenced student perceptions of instructors (credibility and attractiveness) and attitudes toward learning course content (state motivation and affective learning). Online Instructor Rating Systems Widely used sites like RateMyProfessors.com, PickAProf.com, ProfessorPerformance.com, and MySpace’s professor rating system are utilized for the evaluation of college instructors and their courses. Founded in 1999, the largest and best known website of this kind is RateMyProfessors.com (RMP) (Kindred & Mohammed, 2005). As of October 2008, over 6.8 million student-generated ratings had been posted, reviewing over 1 million instructors from more than 6,000 universities and colleges in the U.S., Canada, Scotland, and Wales (About Us, RateMyProfessors.com). RMP reaches approximately 10 million college students each year (Acquisition, PRNewswire.com). During the Fall quarter of 2007, MTV Network’s mtvU acquired RMP, solidifying the former as the largest multiplatform college network and second most trafficked set of general college-focused websites (Acquisition, PRNewswire.com). Because mtvU is the largest, most comprehensive television network dedicated to college students (broadcasting around the clock to 750 colleges in the U.S., with a combined enrollment exceeding 7.2 million students), RMP will likely demonstrate continued growth and prominence (Acquisition, PRNewswire.com). On websites such as RMP, quantitative and open-ended evaluations of teaching effectiveness are anonymously posted in order to aid students in the process of course selection (Kindred & Mohammed, 2005). On RMP, students use 1 to 5 scales to rate instructors in terms of their helpfulness, clarity, and easiness. An overall quality rating for each instructor is derived by averaging their helpfulness and clarity ratings. The numerical average is also paired with an icon of a face with one of three expressions: smiling (good quality), neutral expression (average quality), and frowning (poor quality). In addition, users may indicate the physical attractiveness (‘‘hotness’’) of an instructor by putting a ‘‘chili pepper’’ next to the name. Open-ended evaluations of the instructor and course can also be posted and become immediately available for viewing by other users. Additionally, search tools allow users to browse by course code, instructor name, university, department, ‘‘hotness’’ of instructor, and overall quality of instructor. Several recent studies have focused on RMP. Kindred and Mohammed’s (2005) investigation demonstrated that students’ motives for using RMP included convenience, information-seeking, and interpersonal utility (curiosity about peer experience) and that instructor competence and features of classroom experience were the primary foci of comments posted on RMP (see also Silva et al., 2008). Felton, Mitchell and Stinson (2004; 2005) found that instructor quality scores on RMP were 370 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association strongly positively correlated with perceived course easiness and professor sexiness (as determined by the ‘‘chili pepper’’). Furthermore, Coladarci and Kornfield (2007) found a strong positive association between instructors’ RMP quality ratings and their scores on university-sanctioned student evaluations of teaching. In a second investigation surrounding the validity and usefulness of RMP evaluations, Otto, Sanford, and Ross (2008) found that RMP data is consistent with a valid measure of student learning and does not demonstrate a halo effect. Finally, Edwards et al. (2007) experimentally tested the effects of exposure to positive and negative RMP evaluations on students’ perceptions of a target instructor and course. Results showed that the content of RMP evaluations influenced student perceptions of instructor credibility and attractiveness as well as students’ reported levels of affective learning and state motivation to learn. Given the effects on students’ attitudes toward learning observed in Edwards et al.’s (2007) experiment, it is reasonable to expect that RMP evaluations may also influence expectations to influence students’ levels of cognitive and behavioral learning. Further investigation of the impact of RMP ratings on the educational experience is warranted given the increasing popularity and usage of instructor evaluation websites. In commenting upon mtvU’s acquisition of RMP, General Manager Stephen Friedman explained that ‘‘choosing the best courses and professors is a rite of passage for every college student, and connecting with peers on RateMyProfessors.com has become a key way millions of students now navigate this process’’ (Acquisition, PRNewswire.com). As students continue to view higher education from a consumerbased perspective, seeking to maximize the value of their educational dollars, the demand for information about instructors and courses prior to enrollment will continue to grow (Gilroy, 2003). And, as demonstrated by Edwards et al. (2007), students may rely heavily on computer-mediated communication prior to contact with an instructor and course to form expectations of later experience. Expectancy Effects Braun (1976) noted that expectations influence experience by constructing what becomes reality for an individual. The expectations we hold of ourselves and others heavily impact our perceptions and evaluations, with profound implications for cognitions and behavior (Brewer & Crano, 1994). The various effects of our beliefs, perceptions, and presumptions on our own and others’ behavior are termed expectancy effects (Rosenthal, 1978). Expectancy effects were first observed as placebo phenomena in pharmacology research (e.g., Beecher, 1966) and later as experimenter and confirmation bias effects in laboratory research (e.g., Rosenthal and Fode, 1961). The wider social relevance of expectancy effects was recognized with Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) experiment which demonstrated that raising elementary teachers’ expectations of their students resulted in both immediate and persistent intellectual gains on the part the students. In the educational context, the vast majority of research has focused on the ways in which instructors’ expectations of student achievement impact students’ Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 371 beliefs in their own abilities and their corresponding levels of educational success (e.g., Braun, 1976; Brophy, 1983; Cooper & Good, 1983; Raffini, 1993; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978). However, a number of studies have focused on the effects of students’ positive expectations of academic experience on their performance. For example, research has demonstrated that manipulating students’ expectations of teacher competence, instructor reputation, and program quality affects student perceptions and performance outcomes (Feldman & Prohaska, 1979; Feldman, Saletsky, Sullivan, & Theiss, 1983; Fries, Horz, & Haimerl, 2006; Jamieson, Lydon, Stewart, & Zanna, 1987; Leventhal, Perry, & Abrami, 1977; Perry, Abrami, Leventhal, & Check, 1979). Expectations may derive from past experiences with targets or from third-party accounts (Snyder & Stukas, 1999), as in the case of WOM. Previous research on WOM has demonstrated that it is an important source of consumer expectations (e.g., Clow, Kurtz, Ozment, & Ong, 1997) and evaluations (Herr et al., 1991). In fact, WOM is the primary means by which consumers gather information about services (Grönroos, 1990; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1993). Furthermore, WOM received prior to purchasing a good or service can create postpurchase effects (Burzynski & Bayer, 1977; Sheth, 1971). For example, Wangenheim and Bayón (2004) demonstrated that receiving positive prepurchase WOM can lead to higher postpurchase satisfaction. Thus, WOM figures importantly in the formation of expectations and subsequent behavior and experience. In the context of educational goods and services, students rely on computermediated WOM (on sites like RMP) to form expectations of prospective instructors and courses (Kindred & Mohammed, 2005). Students’ anticipations in terms of the amount and quality of their learning are likely outcomes of exposure to such messages. Research in the psychology of education demonstrates the significance of expectations of learning on its actualization. Learning expectations come from a variety of sources, including institutions, instructors, and peers (Brophy, 1986; Smith, Jussim, & Eccles, 1999). Significantly, students often internalize expectations derived from these others (c.f., Dusek, 1985), which then influence their subsequent educational experiences by acting as a positive or negative motivation for behavior (Kuh, 1999; Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, it is plausible that computer-mediated WOM (through sites such as RMP) will serve as a source of student expectancies that influence student learning outcomes. Simply stated, students who expect to perform well on academic tasks perform better than students who do not expect to perform well (Zanna, Sheraf, & Cooper, 1975). Student Learning The following sections briefly review two broad types of student learning: cognitive and behavioral. Cognitive learning According to Bloom (1956), cognitive learning refers to the comprehension and retention of knowledge. Cognitive learning is the ‘‘recall or recognition of knowledge 372 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association and the development of intellectual abilities and skills’’ (Bloom, 1956, p. 7). As Titsworth (2001) explained, ‘‘cognitive learning refers to the extent to which students achieve factual, conceptual, and critical understanding of course material’’ (p. 283). Previous research has shown a relationship between cognitive learning and a number of communication variables in the college classroom. Ellis (2000; 2004) demonstrated that teacher confirmation was highly related to students’ perceived levels of cognitive learning. Additionally, learner empowerment, affective learning, and state motivation to learn were positively related to students’ course grades (Frymier & Houser, 1999). Several studies have demonstrated positive associations between instructor immediacy and cognitive learning (e.g., Christensen & Menzel, 1998; McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, & Barraclough, 1996; Titsworth, 2001). In an experimental investigation of student recall and retention of lecture material, moderate levels of nonverbal immediacy on the part of the lecturer were found to have a positive impact on student cognitive recall but not retention (Comstock, Rowell, & Bowers, 1995). Furthermore, cognitive learning has been positively associated with ‘‘high-anxiety’’ learning environments (those characterized by constant monitoring by instructors), amount of presented information students understand and retain (Wallace & Truelove, 2006), instructor use of Behavior Alteration Techniques (Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, & Plax, 1987), and organizational cues and note-taking during lectures (Titsworth, 2001). By shaping students’ expectations of course experience, computer-mediated communication on websites like RMP should influence the extent to which students exhibit cognitive learning of course material. Therefore, we pose the following hypothesis: H1: Students who receive positive computer-mediated WOM (RMP ratings) about a course will demonstrate greater levels of cognitive learning than will students who receive no computer-mediated WOM or negative computer-mediated WOM. Behavioral learning Bloom (1956) argued that behavioral learning is evidenced by changes in a person’s behavior which result from being provided with alternative information. According to Bandura (1969), students are more likely to perform and enact new behaviors if they believe the new behaviors are pertinent and beneficial to their lives. Numerous studies have demonstrated positive correlations among instructor nonverbal immediacy and student attitudes toward and intent to engage in behaviors proposed in the classroom (e.g., Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Christophel, 1990; Comstock et al., 1995; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey & Richmond, 1986; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987; Richmond et al., 1987). However, beyond the well-established link between behavioral learning and instructor immediacy, little is known about its causes and correlates. By creating expectations of educational experience, computer-mediated WOM on websites like RMP likely influences students’ perceived levels of behavioral learning. Therefore, we pose the following hypothesis: Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 373 H2: Students who receive positive computer-mediated WOM (RMP ratings) about a course will report greater perceived levels of behavioral learning than will students who receive no computer-mediated WOM or negative computer-mediated WOM. Expectations-Affect-Behavior Hypothesis Although a plethora of research has established the existence of expectancy effects, relatively less has been carried out to determine when (and how) expectancy effects occur and when (and why) they do not. Specifically, there is little understanding of the mechanisms by which expectations lead to perceptual or behavioral outcomes. The studies that have been conducted have focused on the ways in which expectations, once formed, are transmitted to their targets (i.e., the ways in which teachers may directly and indirectly communicate raised expectations to their students; Harris & Rosenthal, 1985) as a means of explaining how expectations are fulfilled. What is lacking, however, is an explanation of how an expectation for one’s self (e.g., an expectation for learning) leads to the realization of the expected outcome (e.g., actual learning). Although researchers rarely explicate a causal mechanism to explain the process, their accounts often imply that expectations are accompanied by a change in affect, which, in turn, leads to a change in behavior such that an expectancy effect materializes. Brewer and Crano (1994) term this proposed chain of events the expectations-affect-behavior hypothesis. Previous research examining positive affect has demonstrated that positive feeling states improve task performance ability in a number of ways (Erez & Isen, 2002). For instance, positive affect (both natural and induced) is associated with effective and flexible thinking, decision making, and problem solving (e.g., Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1997; Isen, 1999; Taylor & Aspinwall, 1996; Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999). Scholars of instructional communication have posited an important role for affect in the educational environment. Specifically, the term affective learning has been used to refer to ‘‘an increasing internalization of positive attitudes toward the content or subject matter’’ (Kearney, 1994, p. 81). Rodriquez, Plax and Kearney (1996) demonstrated that affective learning serves as a precursor to cognitive learning and is positively related with student state motivation to learn (see also, Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Christophel, 1990; Frymier & Houser, 2000; McCroskey, Richmond, & Bennett, 2006). Additionally, affective learning is positively related to instructor communication behaviors, including immediacy (Mottet, Parker-Raley, Beebe, & Cunningham, 2007; Pogue & AhYun, 2006; Titsworth, 2001; Witt & Schrodt, 2006), clarity (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001), use of instructional technology (Turman & Schrodt, 2005; Witt & Schrodt, 2006), and humor (Gorham & Christophel, 1990). Myers (2002) demonstrated an inverse relationship between affective learning and instructor verbal aggressiveness. Moreover, affective learning is associated with student behavior. Students who report greater levels of affective learning tend to give higher instructor evaluations (Teven & McCroskey, 1997), demonstrate greater willingness to comply 374 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association with instructors (Burroughs, 2007), and are more likely to enroll in another class with the same instructor (Gorham & Christophel, 1990; McCroskey et al., 1996). Edwards et al. (2007) experimentally demonstrated that students who received positive computer-mediated WOM about a fictitious instructor reported higher levels of affective learning than did students who received negative WOM or no WOM. This research supports the notion that manipulated expectations are accompanied by a change in affect. H1 and H2 predict that positive expectations will lead to an increase in cognitive and behavioral learning. In order for the expectations-affectbehavior hypothesis to receive support, affect toward learning should mediate the relationship between manipulated expectations and the cognitive and behavioral learning outcomes. H3a: Student affect toward learning will mediate the relationship between expectations generated through computer-mediated WOM (positive versus negative or no RMP ratings) and cognitive learning. H3b: Student affect toward learning will mediate the relationship between expectations generated through computer-mediated WOM (positive versus negative or no RMP ratings) and behavioral learning. Method Participants The convenience sample was composed of 135 undergraduate students enrolled at a large university in the Midwestern U.S. Participants included 90 females (66.70%) and 45 males (33.3%).1 The majority self-identified as White/Caucasian (85.9%, n = 116). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 40 years, with a mean of 20.67 (SD = 2.83). The largest percentage of participants classified as sophomores (37.0%, n = 50), followed by juniors (32.60%, n = 44), seniors (17.0%, n = 23), first-years (11.90%, n = 16), and ‘‘others’’ (1.50%, n = 2). Participants received extra credit points in return for taking part in the study. Procedures Upon securing institutional review board approval, an experimental design consisting of two treatment groups (positive and negative RMP ratings) and a control group (no RMP ratings) was utilized (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). According to Snyder and Stukas (1999), experimental methods are well-suited to precise control of perceiver expectations, which is essential to being able to isolate observed effects to perceiver expectations. Participants enrolled in six introductory communication courses were randomly assigned to one of two treatments: positive RMP or negative RMP. Participants enrolled in three additional introductory communication courses comprised the control group. Data collection occurred during regularly scheduled class sessions near the midpoint of the academic semester. After participants provided informed consent, all were informed that they would be watching a 10-minute video Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 375 clip of an instructor delivering a lecture on the topic of nutrition and trans fats. Participants were further informed that at the conclusion of the presentation, they would be asked to answer questions based on the content of the video. Next, the students receiving the positive or negative RMP treatments were given an RMP handout that corresponded with the valence of their specific group treatment. The handout was described as a printout from RMP about the instructor and course appearing in the video. The students were encouraged to read the handouts prior to viewing the video and were given several minutes to do so. The control group did not receive a RMP handout. At the completion of the video, all participants received a questionnaire comprised of measures of cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning, as well as a brief demographic survey. Following collection of the surveys, participants were debriefed and thanked. Independent Variable To create the two treatments, two handouts (each one page in length) were produced to simulate printouts of RMP ratings. The handouts were created by using html code to manipulate the text and other content of an actual RMP rating page. A fictitious instructor name and a fictitious academic affiliation (intended to be a ‘‘peer institution’’ to the one in which participants were enrolled) were created and listed at the top of the RMP handout. The middle of the handout included an icon of a face displaying an expression (either a smile or a frown) and corresponding fabricated quantitative summaries of fictitious student-raters’ evaluations on the dimensions of easiness, helpfulness, clarity, and overall quality (the average of helpfulness and clarity scores). For all dimensions, scores were based on ratings ranging from 1.0 (minimum) to 5.0 (maximum). The bottom portion of the handout included five fabricated, open-ended comments attributed to five fictitious students regarding the course and instructor. These comments were modeled from student comments appearing on actual RMP results pages. The dates attached to each of the fabricated comments spanned the two academic semesters prior to the one in which the study was conducted. In terms of the positive RMP handout, the average easiness rating was listed at 3.2 out of 5.0, with 1.0 representing difficult and 5.0 representing easy.2 The average helpfulness rating was listed as 5.0 and the average clarity rating was listed as 4.8. These numbers were averaged to provide an overall quality rating of 4.9 out of 5.0, with 5.0 representing the highest possible overall quality rating. Moreover, the positive RMP stimulus handout included a ‘‘smiley face’’ to visually indicate the high overall quality of the instructor. Five simulated student-generated positive comments about the instructor/class were provided. Each was designed to produce a high expectation for learning in the course. For example: • You’ll learn a lot about healthy eating from this class. He gives great tips. I’ve actually been following a lot of his suggestions about how to eat. • I learned so much from this class. I still remember everything we covered. You can imagine how easy it was to pass the tests! 376 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association For the negative RMP handout, the average easiness rating was again listed at 3.2 out of 5.0. The average helpfulness rating was listed as 2.0 and the average clarity rating was listed as 1.4, providing an overall quality rating of 1.7.3 The negative RMP handout included a ‘‘frowny face’’ to visually indicate the low overall quality of the instructor. For this condition, the five simulated student-generated comments about the instructor/class were negative. Correspondingly, each was designed to produce a low expectation for learning in the course. For example: • You’ll learn nothing about healthy eating from this class. His eating tips are worthless, which is why I don’t follow any of his suggestions. • It was impossible to learn anything in this class. I can’t remember a single thing we covered. You can imagine how hard it was to pass the tests! In order to ensure that the difference between the two sets of comments was limited to valence, the negative RMP comments were produced by reversing the sentiments expressed in each of the five comments used on the positive RMP evaluation. In a small group setting, 10 undergraduate students familiar with RMP were asked to evaluate all comments for their realism. These students suggested minor changes in the wording of some comments, which were incorporated in the RMP handouts prior to their use in the experiment. Video Stimulus A member of the research team who was unknown to the student participants was videotaped performing a lecture on the topic of nutrition and trans fats. He was instructed to deliver a teaching performance of ‘‘average quality.’’4 In order to ensure that participants believed that the instructor and course were affiliated with a university other than their own, videotaping of the 10-minute lecture took place in a classroom at an area college. The upper body of the presenter standing behind a podium, a basic PowerPoint outline of the lecture, and a portion of a chalkboard were visible in the video frame. Dependent Variables Cognitive learning Cognitive learning was assessed with a 20-item questionnaire assessing student factual recall of videotaped lecture content. Frymier and Houser (1999) noted that ‘‘[i]n experimental research, cognitive learning can be adequately measured using an objective examination over content presented in the experiment’’ (p. 2). Recall of lecture material was tested by use of a true/false-formatted quiz designed to simulate those frequently employed in introductory level classes to gauge student understanding of recently presented lecture or text material. Quiz questions were developed by the research team and pertained to information that was presented in the 10-minute nutrition and trans fat lecture (e.g., ‘‘Trans fats are created by hydrogenising animal fats,’’ ‘‘Tub margarine is a recommended alternative for stick Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 377 margarine,’’ and ‘‘Trans-fats can reduce the amount of refrigeration needed to keep foods safe’’). Incorrect quiz answers were assigned a value of 0 and correct answers were assigned a value of 1. An overall cognitive recall score for each participant was computed by summing the resultant values, such that a score of 0 indicated no correct answers and a score of 20 indicated all correct answers. The mean for this measure across all conditions was 12.07 (SD = 2.72), representing an average ‘‘quiz grade’’ of approximately 60%. As a pilot test of the measure, 17 upper-level undergraduate students were shown the videotaped lecture and asked to complete the quiz. They were further asked to provide comments on the clarity, difficulty, and appropriateness of the quiz questions and to offer suggestions for improvement. Their insights were incorporated into the quiz prior to its use in the experiment. Behavioral learning Behavioral learning was assessed with an 8-item measure (Andersen, 1979). The first four items measure students’ attitudes toward the recommended behaviors along 7-point semantic differential scales (e.g., ‘‘The behaviors recommended in this presentation are: worthless/valuable’’). The other four items use the same test format to measure students’ intentions to engage in the recommended behaviors (e.g., ‘‘My likelihood of actually attempting to engage in the behaviors recommended in this presentation is: like/unlikely’’). Past studies have reported reliability coefficients exceeding. 90 (Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). In this study, a reliability coefficient of. 89 (M = 39.79; SD = 9.43) was obtained. Affect Affect was assessed with the 4-item ‘‘affect toward course content’’ subscale of McCroskey’s (1994) measure of affective learning. Each item requests students to indicate their affect for course subject matter along a 7-point semantic differential scale (e.g., ‘‘I feel that the class content is: good/bad’’). Past studies have reported reliability coefficients exceeding. 90 (McCroskey, 1994). In the present study, the internal reliability for affect toward course content was. 82 (M = 19.23, SD = 5.02). Results In order to address H1 and H2, a one-way K-group multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the effects of learning expectations induced through computer-mediated WOM (positive, negative, or no RMP ratings) on the dependent variables of cognitive learning (recall) and behavioral learning. A MANOVA was chosen because previous research has demonstrated that the dependent variables are associated. In the present study, cognitive and behavioral learning were moderately positively related, r(128) = .263, p < .01. Results of Box’s M indicated that the assumption of equality of covariance matrices was tenable, M = 10.76, F(6, 379456.004) = 1.75, p = .105. Significant differences were found among the positive, negative, and control computer-mediated WOM conditions on the dependent measures, Wilks’s = .775, 378 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association F(4, 252) = 8.544, p < .001. The multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s lambda was moderate,. 12. Table 1 reports the means and standard deviations on the dependent variables for the three groups. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. To test the ANOVA assumption of equality of error variances, Levine’s test was performed on both dependent variables. Results indicated no violation of the assumption for cognitive learning [F(2, 127) = .93, p > .05] or behavioral learning [F(2, 127) = 3.22, p > .05]. To control for Type I error, the Bonferroni method (.05/2) was utilized and the ANOVAs were tested at the. 025 level. The ANOVAs were significant for both cognitive learning [F(2, 127) = 7.75, p = .001, η2 = .10] and behavioral learning [F(2, 127) = 13.02, p < .001, η2 = .17]. Posthoc analyses to the ANOVAs consisted of pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD). Results demonstrated that the positive treatment group scored significantly higher in cognitive learning and behavioral learning when compared to the negative treatment group and the control group. As a multivariate follow-up to the MANOVA, a discriminant analysis was conducted to determine whether the two learning outcomes could be used to predict the condition to which student participants had been assigned (positive, negative, or control). Wilks’s lambda was significant, = .78, χ 2 (4, N = 130) = 32.175, p < .001, indicating that overall, the predictors differentiated among the three conditions. The residual Wilks’s lambda was not significant, = .99 χ 2 (1, N = 130) = 1.072, p = .30. This test indicated that the predictors did not differentiate significantly between the three conditions after partialling out the effects of the first discriminant function. Therefore, we chose only to interpret the first discriminant function. The within-group correlations between the predictors and the discriminant function, as well as the standardized weights are presented in Table 2. Based on these coefficients, both cognitive learning and behavioral learning demonstrated strong relationships with the discriminant function. On the basis of the results, we chose to label the discriminant function ‘‘student learning.’’ Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for the Three Conditions on the Dependent Variables Positive Variable Cognitive Learning Behavioral Learning Negative Control M (SD) M (SD) M 13.37a 45.09a (2.31) (7.47) 11.37b 35.56b (2.44) (10.63) 11.52b 39.02b (SD) (2.93) (7.52) Note. Means in a row with differing subscripts are significantly different at p < .05 in the Tukey HSD comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 379 The means on the discriminant function are consistent with this interpretation. The positive RMP rating condition (M = .74) had the highest mean on student learning, whereas the negative RMP rating condition (M = −.52) and control condition (M = −.18) had lower means. When we tried to predict condition, we were able to correctly classify 45.4% of the individuals in this sample. To take into account chance agreement, a kappa coefficient, which may range from -1 to +1, was computed. The obtained value of. 18 represents a moderate value. Finally, to assess how well the classification procedure would predict in a new sample, we estimated the percentage of people accurately classified using the leave-one-out technique (in which all cases are left out once and classified based on classification functions for the N-1 cases; Green & Salkind, 2005) and correctly classified 42.3% of the cases. H3a and H3b predicted that affect would mediate the relationship between learning expectations induced through computer-mediated WOM (positive versus negative or no RMP ratings) and cognitive and behavioral learning. Following procedures detailed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Holmbeck (2002), mediation was tested through regression analyses by examining the following for significance: (1) the association between the predictor and outcome, (2) the association between the predictor and mediator, and (3) the association between the mediator and outcome, after controlling for the effect of the predictor. Upon meeting the above conditions, the predictor ♦ outcome effect was examined to determine whether it significantly decreased after controlling for the mediator. An effect reduced to zero indicates full mediation, whereas a remaining effect that is significantly reduced indicates partial mediation. To make the categorical condition variable (positive, negative, control) amenable to regression analysis, we employed orthogonal coding, which allowed for planned contrasts specified in H3a and H3b. Contrast codes in multiple regression are appropriate for directly testing a set of a priori hypotheses (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Wendorf, 2004). Two (K − 1) vectors were created (Pedhazur, 1997; Serlin & Levin, 1985). Vector 1 compared the mean of the positive treatment group to the means of both the negative and control groups. Vector 2 compared the means of the control group to the negative treatment group, while ignoring the positive treatment group. The first model tested the relation between expectation conditions, affect, and cognitive learning (see Fig. 1). A multiple regression treating the two vectors as predictor variables and cognitive learning as the outcome variable was significant, Table 2 Standardized Coefficients and Correlations of Predictor Variables With the Student Learning Discriminant Function Predictors Cognitive Learning Behavioral Learning 380 Correlation coefficients with discriminant function .65 .85 Standardized coefficients with discriminant function .53 .77 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association Affect −.35** Expectations .19* -.35** Cognitive Learning Figure 1 Model illustrating the mediating relation of affect between expectations and cognitive learning ∗ = p < .05; ∗∗ = p < .001 R = .349, r 2 = .12, F(2, 132) = 9.138, p < .001. Consistent with the results of the MANOVA, the planned contrast between the control group and negative treatment group (vector 2) was not significant for cognitive learning, β = −.030, t(132) = −.366, p = .715. However, the contrast between the control group and negative treatment group was significant for affect toward learning, β = −.20, t(128) = −2.497, p = .014. Because of the failure to meet the first condition of mediation testing, subsequent analysis was confined to the contrast between the means of the positive treatment group and the means of both the negative and control groups. The model suggested a significant relation between expectations and cognitive learning, β = −.35, t(132) = −4.259, p < .001, and between expectations and affect, β = −.35, t(128) = −4.280, p < .001. The model also suggested a significant relation between affect and cognitive learning, after controlling for expectations, β = .19, t(127) = 8.385, p < .001. Results from the Sobel test indicated that the impact of expectations significantly decreases when affect is considered a mediator variable (Sobel test statistic = 2.627, p < .01). Hence, affect was a significant partial mediator of the relationship between learning expectations induced through computer-mediated WOM (positive versus negative or no RMP ratings) and cognitive learning. To test H3b, the above procedure was replicated using behavioral learning as the outcome variable (see Fig. 2). The multiple regression was significant, R = .412, r 2 = .17, F(2, 127) = 13.017, p < .001. As expected, the planned contrast between the control group and negative treatment group (vector 2) was not significant for behavioral learning, β = −.15, t(127) = −1.886, p = .062, thus analysis again focused on vector 1 (contrasting the positive treatment with both the negative and control groups). The model suggested a significant relation between expectations and behavioral learning, β = −.39, t(127) = −4.776, p < .001, and between expectations and affect, β = −.35, t(128) = −4.280, p < .001. The model also suggested a significant relation between affect and behavioral learning, after controlling for Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 381 Affect −35** Expectations .60** −.39** Behavioral Learning Figure 2 Model illustrating the mediating relation of affect between expectations and behavioral learning ∗∗ = p < .001 expectations, β = .60, t(125) = 2.094, p < .05. Results from the Sobel test indicated that the impact of expectations significantly decreases when affect is considered a mediator variable (Sobel test statistic = 3.937, p < .001). Thus, H3b also received support. Affect was a significant partial mediator of the relationship between learning expectations induced through computer-mediated WOM (positive versus negative or no RMP ratings) and behavioral learning. Discussion The current study sought to experimentally test the effects of expectations induced through computer-mediated WOM (RMP) on students’ cognitive and behavioral learning. Results supported hypotheses 1 and 2, demonstrating that students who received positive computer-mediated WOM performed better on a cognitive recall task and reported higher levels of behavioral learning than did students who received negative or no computer-mediated WOM. Furthermore, hypotheses 3a and 3b received support, with affect acting as a partial mediator of the relationships between expectations generated through computer-mediated WOM (positive versus negative or no RMP ratings) and cognitive and behavioral learning outcomes. Thus, the findings establish the existence of an expectancy effect based on computer-mediated WOM and support the expectations-affect-behavior hypothesis of expectancy effects. These findings are consistent with Harrison-Walker’s (2001) claim that communication about products or services affects customers’ evaluation of their experiences. The results also further evidence the ‘‘postpurchase’’ effects observed in WOM research, as they show that WOM received prior to an experience can influence expectations to result in altered perceptions of subsequent experience quality (Burzynski & Bayer, 1977; Sheth, 1971; Wangeheim & Bayón, 2004). Current findings are also consistent with previous research demonstrating that computer-mediated WOM influences students’ levels of state motivation to learn 382 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association and affective learning (Edwards et al., 2007). Finally, these results extend the literature on determinants and outcomes of student expectations of learning by demonstrating that online comments attributable to peers are consequential for students’ learning achievements and perceptions. Significantly, type of computer-mediated WOM (RMP ratings) accounted for 10% of the variance in cognitive learning. On average, students exposed to positive RMP ratings prior to viewing the presentation scored approximately 10 percentage points higher on the cognitive recall task than did those exposed to negative or no RMP ratings, a difference which translates to a letter grade advantage. Seventeen percent of the variance in behavioral learning was due to type of computer-mediated WOM (RMP ratings). Importantly, a sizeable portion of the variance in the overall set of student learning variables (12%) was due to factors wholly outside an instructor’s realm of control (i.e., expectations generated through computer-mediated student interaction). Research on WOM has yielded contradictory results in terms of the relative strength of positive versus negative appraisals (see, e.g., Ahluwalia, 2002; Fiske, 1980; Holmes & Lett, 1977; Mizerski, 1982). The expectancy literature has focused almost exclusively on the effects of positive expectations, owing mainly to the questionable ethics associated with manipulating expectations of self or others in a negative direction. Taken in conjunction with the results of Edwards et al.’s (2007) study, the current findings suggest that in the context of education, positive computer-mediated WOM is more influential than negative computer-mediated WOM on student learning outcomes. Negative RMP comments produced no effect on cognitive or behavioral learning. These results should be heartening to educators who may worry about the damaging effects of the online circulation of negative student appraisals of their courses. Simultaneously, the findings point to the advantages of positive computer-mediated WOM for both instructors and students. The current study also sheds light on how expectations lead to their effects. The relationship between expectations (positive versus negative or none) and each learning outcome was partially mediated by affect toward learning, thereby lending some support to the frequently implied assumption that expectations work by producing a change in affect, which then leads to a change in behavior. But, two points need to be made. The first is that the mediational function of affect was partial. Thus, there may also be a direct causal relationship between expectations and learning outcomes, and/or additional mediating variables that were not accounted for in this experiment. The second point is that affect did not serve as a mediator variable in the contrast between the negative treatment and control groups, which did not differ in terms of cognitive and behavioral learning. The negative group reported significantly less affect than the control group, but the lowered affect did not correspond to lower learning scores. Therefore, the expectations-affect-behavior hypothesis received support solely in the context of positive expectations. Additional research is needed to account for the reasons that altered affect did not impact learning in the context of negative expectations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 383 In general, the results of this study demonstrate that positive computer-mediated WOM can generate expectancy effects. These findings may be broadly applicable to the accumulating mass of online rating systems, including those devoted to reviews of physicians, lawyers, hotels, restaurants, and a whole range of consumer goods and services. Furthermore, the expectations-affect-behavior hypothesis may help partially explain the ways in which all such sites exert their influence on recipients’ subsequent behavior. However, the findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the measurement of cognitive learning is a formidable task. The 20-question instrument used in this experiment tested only short-term recall of information. Long-term knowledge retention and deeper analytical skills (e.g., application) were not assessed. Similarly, the measure of behavioral learning was limited to attitudinal dimensions (self-reported affect toward recommended behaviors and intent to engage in recommended behaviors). Thus, changes in actual behavior were not addressed. Future research could remedy these shortcomings by employing a delayed posttest of cognitive learning and observing students’ responses to a behavioral choice offered within the experiment (cf., Comstock et al., 1995). Second, experimental investigations often involve sacrificing a degree of realism in order to isolate effects to an independent variable. In the present study, students were exposed only to a brief videotaped lecture. In their actual college careers, students have an entire semester to form and modify impressions of an instructor and to adapt their own behavior accordingly to achieve learning objectives. Moreover, the stakes for performing well on academic tasks are considerably higher in students’ actual college courses than they were in the present study. Future research could examine associations among computer-mediated WOM and its effects in more naturalistic conditions. Finally, continued research on the topic of computer-mediated WOM is necessary to provide a more complete understanding of its range of effects and the mechanisms by which they occur. Explorations of students’ processes for making sense of information posted on sites such as RMP represents one avenue. For instance, in navigating online professor rating systems to choose courses or form expectations, students must regularly encounter seemingly contradictory opinions about an instructor or course (the presence of mixed reviews). The process by which students utilize some comments to form expectations and dismiss others may shed light on computer-mediated message features important to perceived credibility and degree of influence. Such a study is currently underway. Notes 1 Since there were considerably more female than male participants, analyses were conducted to determine whether there were gender effects in the data. Results from a series of 2 × 3 ANOVAS demonstrated no signification gender by condition effect for any dependent variable. 384 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 2 In the U.S., the average easiness rating of social science professors is 3.2 (Felton et al., 2005). On the RMP website, easiness is not factored into the overall quality rating assigned to professors; thus, we held constant across conditions the rating of 3.2. 3 The overall quality ratings of 1.7 and 4.9 used for the positive and negative RMP rating pages approximate equidistant intervals from the average overall quality rating of social science professors in the U.S., which is several tenths higher than 3.0 (Felton et al., 2005). 4 The authors scripted a lecture on the topic of nutrition and trans fats to be presented by the fourth author. The first and second authors coached the fourth author to incorporate influential instructor behaviors at a moderate level. Additionally, the video stimulus was subjected to a manipulation check employing 26 advanced undergraduate students asked to rate the instructor and the lecture as ‘‘above average,’’ ‘‘average,’’ or ‘‘below average.’’ Almost all rated the instructor and lecture as average. References About Us. (n.d.). RateMyProfessor.com homepage. Retrieved October 27, 2008, from http://www.ratemyprofessors.com. Acquisition Establishes mtvU as Number Two General Interest Online Destination for College Students. (2007). PRNewswire. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-172007/0004507644&EDATE. Ahluwalia, R. (2002). How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments? Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 270–279. Anderson, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.) Communication yearbook vol. 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 291–295. Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Rinehart & Winston. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Beecher, H. K. (1966). Pain: One mystery solved. Science, 151, 840–841. Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 31–40. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green. Borgida, E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1977). The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 258–271. Braun, C. (1976). Teacher expectation: Sociopsychological dynamics. Review of Educational Research, 46, 185–213. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 385 Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (1994). Social psychology. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing Company. Brophy, J. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 631–661. Brophy, J. E. (1986). On motivating students. In D. Berliner & B. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 201–245). New York: Random House. Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word: Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 123–138. Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy and student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453–475. Burzynski, M. H., & Bayer, D. J. (1977). The effect of positive and negative prior information on motion picture appreciation. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 215–218. Bytwerk, R. L. (2005). The argument for genocide in Nazi propaganda. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 91, 37–62. Carl, W. J. (2006). What’s all the buzz about? Everyday communication and the relational basis of word-of-mouth and buzz marketing practices. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 601–634. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59–68. Cheung, M., Anitsal, M. M., & Anitsal, I. (2007). Revisiting word-of-mouth communications: A cross-national exploration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14, 235–279. Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82–90. Christophel, D. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. Clow, K. E., Kurtz, D. L., Ozment, J., & Ong, B. S. (1997). The antecedents of consumer expectations of services: An empirical study across four industries. The Journal of Services Marketing, 11, 230–248. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Coladarci, T., & Kornfield, I. (2007). RateMyProfessors.com versus formal in-class student evaluations of teaching. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 1–15. Compton, J. A., & Pfau, M. (2004). Use of inoculation to foster resistance to credit card marketing targeting college students. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 343–364. Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251–266. Cooper, H. M., & Good, T. L. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in the expectation communication process. New York: Longman. 386 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association Day, G. S. (1971). Attitude change, media, and word of mouth. Journal of Advertising Research, 11, 31–40. DeCarlo, T. W., Laczniak, R. N., Motley, C. M., & Ramaswami, S. (2007). Influence of image and familiarity on consumer response to negative word-of-mouth communication about retail entities. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15, 41–51. Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49, 1407–1424. Dusek, J. B. (Ed.). (1985). Teacher expectancies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Qing, Q., & Wahl, S. (2007). The influence of computer- mediated word-of-mouth communication on student perceptions of instructor credibility and attractiveness. Communication Education, 56, 255–277. Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communication Research, 26, 264–291. Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1–20. Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1997). Positive-affect improves creative problem solving and influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 285–299. Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1055–1067. Feldman, R. S., & Prohaska, T. (1979). The student as Pygmalion: Effect on student expectation on the teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 485–593. Feldman, R. S., Saletsky, R. D., Sullivan, J., & Theiss, A. J. (1983). Student locus of control and response to expectations about self and teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 27–32. Felton, J., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2004). Web-based student evaluations of professors: The relations between perceived quality, easiness and sexiness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 91–108. Felton, J., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2005). Cultural differences in student evaluations of professors. Academy of Business Education Conference Proceedings. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://www.abe.villanova.edu/proc2004/felton2.pdf. Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906. Fries, S., Horz, H., & Haimerl, C. (2006). Pygmalion in media-based learning: Effects of quality expectancies on learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 16, 339–349. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1999). The revised learning indicators scale. Communication Studies, 50, 1–12. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. Gilroy, M. (2003). Rate-a-prof systems: Here to stay; venting, or valuable consumer feedback? The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 13, 10–12. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 387 Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46–62. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Grönroos, C. (1990). Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: The marketing and organizational behavior interface. Journal of Business Research, 20, 3–11. Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediated of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363–386. Harrison-Walker, J. L. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4, 60–75. Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 454–462. Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 87–96. Holmes, J. H., & Lett, J. D., Jr. (1977). Product sampling and word of mouth. Journal of Advertising, 17, 35–40. Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. (2001). Emotional contagion effects on product attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 189–201. Isen, A. M. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dagleish & M. Powers (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521–540). Sussex, England: Wiley. Jamieson, D. W., Lydon, J. E., Stewart, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1987). Pygmalion revisited: New evidence for student expectancy effect in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 461–466. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Kearney, P. (1994). Affective learning. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 81–85). New York: Guilford Publications. Kerlinger, F., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College. Kindred, J., & Mohammed, S. N. (2005). He will crush you like an academic ninja: Exploring teacher ratings on RateMyProfessors.com. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/ kindred.html. Kuh, G. D. (1999). Setting the bar high to promote student learning. In G.. S. Blimling, E. J. Whitt, & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 67–89). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Leventhal, L., Perry, R. P., & Abrami, P. C. (1977). Effects of lecturer quality and student perception of lecturer’s experience on teacher ratings and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 360–374. 388 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70, 74–89. Mangold, W. G., Miller, F., & Brockway, G. R. (1999). Word-of-mouth communication in the service marketplace. Journal of Services Marketing, 13, 73–89. McCroskey, J. C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.), 1994 SCA summer conference proceedings and prepared remarks: Assessing college student competence in speech communication. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Bennett, V. E. (2006). The relationship of student end-of-class motivation with teacher communication behaviors and instructional outcomes. Communication Education, 55, 403–414. McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200–211. Mizerski, R.W. (1982). An attributional explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 301–310. Mottet, T., P., Parker-Raley, J., Beebe, S. A., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Instructors who resist ‘‘College Lite’’: The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’ course-workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective learning. Communication Education, 56, 145–167. Myers, S. A. (2002). Perceived aggressive instructor communication and student state motivation, learning, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 15, 113–121. Otto, J., Sanford, D. A., & Ross, D. N. (2008). Does ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 355–368. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Perry, R. P., Abrami, P. C., Leventhal, L., & Check, J. (1979). Instructor reputation: An expectancy relationship involving student ratings and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 776–787. Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral marketing or electronic world-of-mouth advertising: Examining consumer responses and motivations to pass along email. Journal of Advertising Research, 45, 333–348. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43–55. Pogue, L. L., & AhYun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55, 331–344. Raffini, J. (1993). Winners without losers: Structures and strategies for increasing student motivation to learn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 362952). Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. A. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 70 (pp. 574–590). Newbury Park, CA:Sage. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 389 Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G.. (1987). Power in the classroom VII: Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36, 1–12. Rodriguez, J., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293–305. Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185–193. Rosenthal, R., & Fode, K. L. (1961). The problem of experimenter outcome-bias. In D. P. Ray (Ed.), Series research in social psychology, symposia studies series, no. 8 (pp. 9–14). Washington: National Institute of Social and Behavioral Science. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 377–386. Sanders, J., & Wiseman, R. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning, in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341–353. Serlin, R. C., & Levin, J. R. (1985). Teaching how to derive directly interpretable coding schemes for multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 223–238. Sheth, J. N. (1971). Word-of-mouth in low-risk innovations. Journal of Advertising Research, 11, 15–18. Shrum, L. J., & Bischak, V. D. (2001). Mainstreaming, resonance, and impersonal impact: Testing moderators of the cultivation effect for estimates of crime risk. Human Communication Research, 27, 187–215. Silva, K. M., Silva, F. J., Quinn, M. A., Draper, J. N., Cover, K. R., & Munoff, A. A. (2008). Rate my professor: Online evaluations of psychology instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 71–80. Singhal, A., Rogers, E., & Mahajan, M. (1999). The Gods are drinking milk! Asian Journal of Communication, 9, 86–107. Smith, A. E., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1999). Do self-fulfilling prophecies accumulate, dissipate, or remain stable over time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 548–565. Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive,motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303. Sultan, F., Farley, J. U., & Lehmann, D. R. (1990). A meta-analysis of applications of diffusion models. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 70–77. Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G., & Kuntaraporn, M. (2006). Online word-of-mouth (or mouse): An exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/ issue4/sun.html. Taylor, S. E., & Aspinwall, L. G. (1996). Mediating and moderating processes in psychological stress: Appraisal, coping, resistance, and vulnerability. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial 390 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association stress: Perspectives on structure, theory, life-course, and methods (pp. 71–110). Sand Diego, CA: Academic Press. Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9. Titsworth, B. S. (2001). An experiment testing the effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and students’ note taking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 283–297. Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2005). The influence of instructional technology use on students’ affect: Do course designs and biological sex make a difference? Communication Studies, 56, 109–129. Wallace, B., & Truelove, J. (2006). Monitoring student cognitive-affective processing through reflection to promote learning in high-anxiety contexts. Journal of Cognitive Affective Learning, 3, 22–27. Wangenheim, F. V., & Bayón, T. (2004). Satisfaction, loyalty and word of mouth within the customer base of a utility provider: Differences between stayers, switchers and referral switchers. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3, 211–220. Wangenheim, F. V., & Bayón, T. (2007). The chain from customer satisfaction via word-of-mouth referrals to new customer acquisition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 233–249. Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 1–24. Wendorf, C. A. (2004). Primer on multiple regression coding: Common forms and the additional case of repeated contrasts. Understanding Statistics, 3, 47–57. Wilhelm, W. B., & Comegys, C. (2004). Course selection decisions by students on campuses with and without published teaching evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v =9&n=16. Witt, P. L., & Schrodt, P. (2006). The influence of instructional technology use and teacher immediacy on student affect for teacher and course. Communication Reports, 19, 1–15. Zanna, M. P., Sheraf, P. L., & Cooper, J. (1975). Pygmalion and Galatea: The interactiveeffect of teacher and student expectancies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 279–287. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 1–12. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. Zinkhan, G. M., Kwak, H., Morrison, M., & Peters, C. O. (2003). Web-based chatting: Consumer communication in cyberspace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 17–27. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association 391 About the Authors Autumn Edwards (Ph.D. Ohio University) is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at Western Michigan University. Her research in instructional communication explores the influences of peer interaction and student-teacher relationships on educational experience. Address: 1903 W. Michigan Ave., 300 Sprau Tower, Kalamazoo, MI, 490085318, USA. Chad Edwards (Ph.D. University of Kansas) is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at Western Michigan University. His research focuses on student/student and teacher/student relationships in the classroom. Address: 1903 W. Michigan Ave., 300 Sprau Tower, Kalamazoo, MI 490085318, USA. Carrie Shaver is a recent M.A. graduate of Western Michigan University’s School of Communication. Her research focuses primarily on American popular culture of the 1950s and 1960s and its relationship to the queer community. Address: Indiana University, 21st Century Scholars Program, Eigenmann Hall 612, 1900 East Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47406, USA. Mark Oaks is an M.A. student in the School of Communication at Western Michigan University. His research focuses on the study of leadership. Address: 330 New Hampshire Drive, Portage, MI 49024, USA. 392 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009) 368–392 © 2009 International Communication Association