The primary objective of this research was to investigate whether the principles of Expectancy Violations Theory could be applied to the study of emotional appeals so as to gain an alternative interpretation of the persuasive efficacy of affective messages in the social influence process. Central to this approach is the assumption that certain culturally-based norms guiding the expression of emotion exist at a societal level, and that the violations of these expectancy norms carry implications for the efficacy of persuasive attempts. Specifically, the tenets of EVT suggest that when these violations occur, message recipients will look to the perceived rewardingness of the source of the message, and then interpret the violations as positive or negative. It was posited that these evaluations, in turn, would either facilitate (in the case of positive violations) or inhibit (negative violations) the persuasion process. However, due to a number of methodological confounds in the design of the emotional messages used in this research, this study could not provide a fair test of the predictions suggested by EVT. A significant confederate by actor sex interaction described an experimental situation wherein expectancy violation or confirmation was idiosyncratic to the confederates, which is inconsistent both with the premises of EVT as well as the hypotheses stated in this research. Instead, a series of secondary analyses within confederates was undertaken in an attempt to explore the relationships between source rewardingness and message expectedness on attitude change. However, no significant relationships were found to exist. The discussion section focuses heavily on an analysis of the confounds that existed in this research, and suggestions are made for providing a remedy for similar situations in future research. Finally, directions for future research using expectancy violations theory and emotion are discussed.

A study of people's opinions about deception was conducted. Social scientists believe that people use different types of deception in response to differing situational variables. Individuals perceptions of the different types of deception were studied within a proposed theoretical perspective based on a deceptive adaptation of Language Expectancy Theory and Attribution Theory. The model posits that people develop expectations about deceptive acts that will affect their acceptance of those acts. Deceptive acts that meet or positively violate expectations will be viewed as more acceptable. People make attributions about the causes of behavior when developing normative expectations and will find deceptive acts attributed to situational constraints more acceptable than acts attributed to personal characteristics. A large scale survey of people's repertoires of deceptive strategies and their acceptance as a useful strategy was conducted. Three examples each of six common strategies were used in the survey. The three types of examples involving deceptive acts included two interpersonal situations, one of self-benefit and one of other-benefit, and a medical situation where the deceptive act benefitted the deceiver. The strategies included Ambiguities, Concealments, Exaggerations, Half-truths, Lies and White lies. Three hypotheses examining the theoretical model and two research questions, one examining self-benefit/other-benefit difference and one examining demographic variables, were tested. Results indicate that people do not make major distinctions about deceptive acts, viewing most as Lies, Concealments and Half-truths. Less than 50% of the 3504 examples were correctly identified, and their chosen identifier was a better predictor of their response about use and acceptability than the deceptive act itself. People do admit using deceptive acts, but see others as more deceptive than themselves. Their perceptions of acceptability are more closely linked to their perceptions of their own use of deceptive acts rather than to their perceptions of normative use. Self-benefit/other-benefit results were mixed and demographic differences were non-existent. Implications of the study are discussed and future directions are suggested.

The traditional model of medicine involves recognizing symptoms, undergoing diagnostic tests to find the cause of the symptoms, and provide treatment to relieve or cure the underlying disease. However, with the advent of genetic testing and the ability to diagnose asymptomatic individuals, the traditional model of diagnostic testing and treatment no longer applies. By employing the Extended Parallel Processing Model, EPPM, and utilizing messages similar to fear appeals, this study examined participants' perceptions of testing and treatment efficacy, behavioral intentions to undergo testing, and attitudes towards traditional and genetically-based diagnostic testing. Results indicated that the type of diagnostic test and the temporal proximity of the treatment with respect to the diagnostic test is important in determining the perceived efficacy of testing, treatment, and intent to undergo testing. Practical as well as theoretical implications are discussed as well as directions for future research.

This study proposed and tested a model of relational development in mediated environments. Burgoon and colleagues' principle of inter-activity (Burgoon, Bonito, Bengtsson, Ramirez, Dunbar, & Miczo, 1999), Sunnafrank's (1986) Predicted Outcome Value theory, and Walther's (1996; Walther & Burgoon, 1992) Social Information Processing theory were reviewed and each incorporated into a model for understanding how decisions to pursue relationships in mediated environments occur. The present study examined the role of media and information richness and mediation within the model's framework. Dyads conducted two socially-oriented interactions via one of four conditions (text-only, audioconferencing, videoconferencing, or face-to-face). Results indicated experiential properties were strongly associated with initial predicted outcome values and the certainty with which they are held, which in turn were associated with various relational and communicative factors. Initial predicted outcome values also distinguished relationships which developed from those that did not. Implications for each theoretical perspective are discussed.

This is a 30-slide presentation sponsored by the University of Arizona, School of Information Resources & Library Science, Library Student Organization (LSO) on Sept. 26, 2005 from 6 - 7:30 pm. This is essentially the story of DLIST from inception in 2002 and includes the establishment of an advisory board, the open access aggregator DL-Harvest in 2005, the unfolding of the goals, objectives and vision, and the people who have been involved including internships. The context of the Open Access movement is briefly explored. References and notes help increase understanding of the importance of open access and DLIST to LIS.

This is the text of a proposal (unfunded) submitted by Cheryl Knott Malone and Anita Coleman, School of Information Resources and Library Science, University of Arizona, Tucson to the IMLS National Leadership Grants 2005. To what extent does open access improve the impact of an article? This is the deceptively simple question that we will investigate. Our question is an important one if a clear understanding about the open access archive (OAA) phenomenon and what it means for our discipline, Library and Information Science (LIS) is ever to be achieved. We will use DLIST as the testbed for answering our key research question. DLIST is the Digital Library for Information Science and Technology <http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu>, an OAA, where scholars can self-register and deposit research, education, and practice publications that center on cultural heritage institutions such as libraries, archives, and museums. DLIST was established in the summer of 2002 as a disciplinary repository for LIS. DLIST runs on open source software, Eprints, and is compliant with Open Archives Initiative-Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). Thus DLIST is an interoperable data provider in the global chain of OAI repository services. Currently DLIST has about 500 users and 400 documents. Usage of DLIST has grown from 41,156 hits in February 2004 to 112,728 hits in January 2005. To answer the research question we will undertake the following activities over a period of three years. In the first year we will 1) digitize articles from the back issues of the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS), the premier journal for all matters related to library education; 1) conduct a citation study of JELIS articles to benchmark their research impact prior to deposit in DLIST, 2) deposit and create the metadata for digitized JELIS articles in DLIST; and 3) complete the writing of a DLIST User Guide and Self-Archiving Workshops manual. In the second year of the project, we will 1) survey LIS faculty to determine a baseline of copyright awareness and scholarly communication behaviors related to self-archiving in the LIS education community, and 2) offer DLIST self-archiving workshops at four selected conferences. The workshops will introduce scholars to OAA and how to self-archive using DLIST. In the third year of the project, 1) participants who completed the DLIST workshops and surveys will be surveyed again, 2) a follow-up citation study to document citation rates and patterns of the digitized and deposited JELIS articles will be conducted, and 3) will be analyzed with usage of JELIS articles in DLIST to understand the impact of open access. The goal of the second survey is to determine how behaviors may have changed and find out how the JELIS articles in DLIST, were used in ways that may not be revealed through mere citation data. This will contribute a richer understanding of impact than if we had only quantitative data from DLIST usage logs and citation rates and patterns (traditional research impact factors only) for JELIS. Current experience with DLIST has given us tantalizing evidence that open access to the JELIS articles will have an impact and that the nature of the impact will be diverse and rich, not just limited to research citations. For example, informally gathered DLIST usage â nuggetsâ are often about the usefulness of DLIST materials for classroom teaching (sometimes in a global context, as when we learned that it is used in a LIS school in Czechoslovakia) and networking among LIS teachers, researchers and practitioners.

A qualitative approach to the concept of journal quality is explored.

This article is the fourth in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). It describes an analysis of 80 scholarly journal publishers' copyright agreements with a particular view to their effect on author self-archiving. 90% of agreements asked for copyright transfer and 69% asked for it prior to refereeing the paper. 75% asked authors to warrant that their work had not been previously published although only two explicitly stated that they viewed self-archiving as prior publication. 28.5% of agreements provided authors with no usage rights over their own paper. Although 42.5% allowed self-archiving in some format, there was no consensus on the conditions under which self-archiving could take place. The article concludes that author-publisher copyright agreements should be reconsidered by a working party representing the needs of both parties. This article has been accepted for publication in Learned Publishing, 16 (4) October 2003.

These are the preliminary results about the greening of LIS reported at the World Library and Information Congress (WLIC) 2005, Oslo, Norway, Aug. 14-18, 2005, in the poster sessions (Tues. and Wed. August 16 and 17). Materials presented at the poster session correspond to call-outs in flowchart and include the following. 1) â Greenâ and â Goldâ Approaches to Open Access for LIS (A DLIST Study) â 1-page narrative of research study (analysis of LIS CTAs) 2) Self-Archiving in DLIST - 32â x 52â poster, the flowchart showing the two steps scholars take to self-archive (and some choices they have) 3) About DLIST â http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/915/ 4) Copyright Research & Deposit Services - http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/forms/DlistServices.pdf 5) Permission to deposit in DLIST â http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/forms/DlistPDA.pdf 6) Is Self-Archiving legal â a 1-page flyer excerpted from the Eprints Self-archiving FAQ. However, only the first two of these are deposited as part of this document as the others are available separately (see urls below).

This paper briefly describes the rapidly changing research evaluation and funding landscape in Australian universities, specifically in relation to open access and institutional repositories. Recent announcements indicate that funding and evaluation bodies are becoming increasingly concerned that publicly funded research be made publicly available. The paper then reports a survey of all levels of academic staff plus research students at one Australian university conducted in May 2006, prior to the introduction of an institutional repository. The survey, in line with previously reported surveys, found that while there was a high level of engagement with scholarly publishing, there was a low level of awareness of, or concern with, either open access ("green" or "gold") or the roles repositories can play in increasing accessibility of research. Practically, this indicates that much work needs to be done within this university to increase knowledge of, and change behaviours with regard to, open access and repositories if the university and its academics are to make the most of new funding requirements and research evaluation processes.