Cover des Buchs: Third-Person-Effekt
Im Shop erwerben
, um zu prüfen, ob Sie einen Vollzugriff auf diese Publikation haben.
Lehrbuch Kein Zugriff

Third-Person-Effekt

Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2013

Zusammenfassung

Warum glauben wir, dass andere Menschen stärker von Medien beeinflusst werden als wir selbst? Und welche Folgen hat diese Vermutung für unsere eigenen Einstellungen und unser eigenes Verhalten? Mit diesen Fragen befasst sich die Forschung zum Third-Person-Effekt, der mittlerweile als eines der zentralen Konzepte der kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Rezeptions- und Wirkungsforschung gilt.

Das Buch bietet eine systematische und verständliche Einführung in diesen Ansatz. Ein Schwerpunkt liegt in der Vermittlung der Kernannahmen des Third-Person-Effekts. Zudem werden die Ergebnisse der Forschung zum Ansatz ausführlich vorgestellt. In Ergänzung dazu wird anschaulich erläutert, wie in Third-Person-Studien methodisch vorgegangen wird, und es werden Bezüge zu verwandten Theorien und Konzepten herausgearbeitet.

Das Werk eignet sich als Lehrbuch für Studierende der Kommunikationswissenschaft und angrenzender Fächer, aber auch als Einstiegslektüre und Nachschlagewerk für weitere Interessierte.

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr
2013
ISBN-Print
978-3-8329-6801-4
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-6028-0
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Konzepte. Ansätze der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft
Band
8
Sprache
Deutsch
Seiten
114
Produkttyp
Lehrbuch

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Kein Zugriff 1 - 10
  2. Grundzüge der Theorie Kein Zugriff 11 - 28
  3. Entwicklungsgeschichte des Ansatzes Kein Zugriff 29 - 40
  4. Forschungslogik Kein Zugriff 41 - 55
  5. Empirische Befunde Kein Zugriff 56 - 74
  6. Kritik und Weiterentwicklungen Kein Zugriff 75 - 86
  7. Verwandte und konkurrierende Ansätze Kein Zugriff 87 - 96
  8. „Top Ten“ der Forschungsliteratur Kein Zugriff 97 - 98
  9. Literaturverzeichnis Kein Zugriff 99 - 111
  10. Bildnachweise Kein Zugriff 112 - 112
  11. Bisher in der Reihe erschienene Bände Kein Zugriff 113 - 114

Literaturverzeichnis (162)

  1. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2. Aufl.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  2. Andsager, J. L. & White H. A. (2007). Self versus others: Media, messages, and the third person effect. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen
  3. Atwood, L. E. (1994). Illusions of media power: the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 269-281. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/107769909407100202
  4. Brosius, H.-B. & Engel, D. (1997). „Die Medien beeinflussen vielleicht die anderen, aber mich doch nicht“: Zu den Ursachen des Third-Person-Effekts. Publizistik, 42, 325-345. Google Scholar öffnen
  5. Brosius, H.-B. & Esser, F. (1998). Mythen in der Wirkungsforschung: Auf der Suche nach dem Stimulus-Response-Modell. Publizistik, 43, 341-361. Google Scholar öffnen
  6. Bryant, J. & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54, 662-704. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02650.x
  7. Carolus, A. & Schwab, F. (2008). Third Person Effect. In N. C. Krämer, S. Schwan, D. Unz & M. Suckfüll (Hrsg.), Medienpsychologie. Schlüsselbegriffe und Konzepte (S. 269-272). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Google Scholar öffnen
  8. Chambers, J. R. (2008). Explaining false uniqueness: Why we are both better and worse than others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 878-894. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00076.x
  9. Chapin, J. (2000). Third-person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority at-risk youth. Communication Research, 27, 51-81. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365000027001003
  10. Cheng, H. & Riffe, D. (2008). Attention, perception, and perceived effects: Negative political advertising in a battleground state of the 2004 presidential election. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 177-196. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/15205430701592859
  11. Chia, S. C. (2006). How peers mediate media influence on adolescents’ sexual attitudes and sexual behaviour. Journal of Communication, 56, 585-606. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00302.x
  12. Chia, S. C. (2007). Third-person perceptions about idealized body image and weight-loss behavior. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 677-694. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400402
  13. Choi, Y. Y., Leshner, G. & Choi, J. (2008). Third-person effects of idealized body image in magazine advertisements. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 147-164. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0002764208321348
  14. Choi, J., Yang, M. & Chang, J. J. C. (2009). Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon. The roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate. Communication Research, 36, 54-75. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650208326462
  15. Cohen, J., Mutz, D. C., Price, V. & Gunther, A. C. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161-173. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/269092
  16. Cohen, J. & Tsfati, Y. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence on strategic voting. Communication Research, 36, 359-378. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333026
  17. Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y. & Sheafer, T. (2008). The influence of presumed media influence in politics. Do politicians’ perceptions of media power matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 331-344. Google Scholar öffnen
  18. Cohen, J. & Weimann, G. (2008). Who’s afraid of reality shows? Exploring the effects of perceived influence of reality shows and the concern over their social effects on willingness to censor. Communication Research, 35, 382-397. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650208315964
  19. David, P., Liu, K. & Myser, M. (2004). Methodological artifact or persistant bias? Testing the robustness of the third-person and reverse third-person effects for alcohol messages. Communication Research, 31, 206-233. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650203261513
  20. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/268763
  21. Davison, W. P. (1996). The third-person effect revisited. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 113-119. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/8.2.113
  22. Davison, W. P. (2006). A personal history of world war II. How a pacifist draftee accidentally became a military government official in postwar Germany. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. Google Scholar öffnen
  23. Dohle, M. (2011). Third-Person-Effekte bei der Wahrnehmung von Schönheitsidealen durch Frauen und Männer. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59, 180-198. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2011-2-180
  24. Dohle, M. & Hartmann, T. (2008). Alles eine Frage hoher Reichweite? Eine experimentelle Untersuchung zur Ursache der Entstehung von Hostile-Media-Effekten. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 56, 21-41. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2008-1-21
  25. Dohle, M. & Vowe, G. (2010). Wahrnehmung der politischen Einflüsse von Medienangeboten. Third-Person-Effekte bei Bürgern, Journalisten und Politikern im Vergleich. In C. Schemer, W. Wirth & C. Wünsch (Hrsg.), Politische Kommunikation. Wahrnehmung, Verarbeitung, Wirkung (S. 11-29). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
  26. Dohle, M. & Vowe, G. (2012). Mediatisierung aus subjektiver Sicht. Die Einschätzung der politischen Relevanz von Medien in Deutschland 2008 bis 2010. In J. Hagenah & H. Meulemann (Hrsg.), Mediatisierung der Gesellschaft? (S. 277-295). Münster: LIT Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
  27. Dohle, M. & Vowe, G. (2013). Indirekte Medienwirkungen in neuen Medienumgebungen. In O. Jandura, A. Fahr & H.-B. Brosius (Hrsg.), Theorieanpassungen in der digitalen Medienwelt (S. 105-121). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
  28. Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. (1995). Me, us and them: political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195-215. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250206
  29. Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1999). Social identity and perceptions of media persuasion: Are we always less influenced than others? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1879-1899. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00156.x
  30. Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J. & Hogg, M. G. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 305-325. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_2
  31. Dupagne, M., Salwen, M. B. & Paul, B. (1999). Impact of question order on the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11, 334-345. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/11.4.334
  32. Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising. The mediating role of perceptions of susceptibility. Journal of Advertising, 37, 33-40. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370303
  33. Eveland, W. P. (2002). The impact of news and entertainment media on perceptions of social reality. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Hrsg.), The persuasion handbook. Developments in theory and practice (S. 691-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen
  34. Eveland, W. P. & McLeod, D. M. (1999). The effect of social desirability on perceived media impact: Implications for third-person perceptions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11, 315-333. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/11.4.315
  35. Eveland, W. P., Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H. & McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary. Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception. Communication Research, 26, 275-302. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003001
  36. Feng, G. C. & Guo S. Z. (2012). Support for censorship: A multilevel meta-analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Reports, 25, 40-50. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2012.661019
  37. Fields, J. M. & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 427-448. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/268330
  38. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Believe, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar öffnen
  39. Golan, G. J. & Banning, S. A. (2008). Exploring a link between the third-person effect and the theory of reasoned action: beneficial ads and social expectations. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 208-224. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0002764208321352
  40. Golan, G. J., Banning, S. A. & Lundy, L. (2008). Likelihood to vote, candidate choice, and the third-person effect: Behavioral implications of political advertising in the 2004 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 278-290. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0002764208321356
  41. Golan, G. J. & Day, A. G. (2008). The first-person effect and its behavioral consequences: A new trend in the twenty-five year history of third-person effect research. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 539-556. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/15205430802368621
  42. Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think. Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355-372. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365091018003004
  43. Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the x-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27-38. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00712.x
  44. Gunther, A. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communications Research, 25, 486-504. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365098025005002
  45. Gunther, A. C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D. L. G., Liebhart, J. L. & Dillard, J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52-68. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x
  46. Gunther, A. C. & Chia, S. C.-Y. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 688-701. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800405
  47. Gunther, A. C. & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449-466. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00295.x
  48. Gunther, A. C. & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 78, 58-67. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/107769909307000107
  49. Gunther, A. C., Perloff, R. M. & Tsfati, Y. (2007). Public opinion and the third-person effect. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (S. 184-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen
  50. Gunther, A. C. & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55-70. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02613.x
  51. Gunther, A. C. & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199-215. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x
  52. Gunther, A. C. & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574-596. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365092019005002
  53. Hartmann, T. & Dohle, M. (2005). Publikumsvorstellungen im Rezeptionsprozess. Publizistik, 50, 287-303. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s11616-005-0133-5
  54. Hautzer, L., Lünich, M. & Rössler, P. (2012). Social Navigation. Neue Orientierungsmuster bei der Mediennutzung im Internet. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783845243191
  55. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
  56. Henriksen, L. & Flora, J. A. (1999). Third-person perception and children. Perceived impact of pro- and anti-smoking ads. Communication Research, 26, 643-665. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365099026006001
  57. Hofer, M. & Sommer, K. (2013). Seeing the others … Der Einfluss von Kommentaren zu redaktionellen Inhalten auf den Third-Person-Effekt. In O. Jandura, A. Fahr & H.-B. Brosius (Hrsg.), Theorieanpassungen in der digitalen Medienwelt (S. 159-174). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
  58. Hoffner, C. & Buchanan, M. (2002). Parents’ responses to television violence: The third-person perception, parental mediation, and support for censorship. Media Psychology, 4, 231-252. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_02
  59. Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Hubbs, L. A., Kamigaki, S. K., Kowalczyk, L., Pastorek, A., Plotkin, R. S. (1999). Support for censorship of television violence. The role of the third-person effect and news exposure. Communication Research, 26, 726-742. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365099026006004
  60. Hoffner, C., Plotkin, R. S., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Kamigaki, S. K., Hubbs, L. A., Kowalczyk, L., Silberg, K. & Pastorek, A. (2001). The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of television violence. Journal of Communication, 51, 283-299. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02881.x
  61. Hohlfeld, R. (2005). „Der missachtete Leser revisited“. Zum Wandel von Publikumsbild und Publikumsorientierung im Journalismus. In M. Behmer, B. Blöbaum, A. Scholl & R. Stöber (Hrsg.), Journalismus im Wandel. Analysedimensionen, Konzepte, Fallstudien (S. 195-224). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
  62. Hollander, S. (1979). On the strength of a newspaper endorsement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 405-407. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/268532
  63. Hoorens, V. & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: beyond the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 599-610. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199607)26:4<599::AID-EJSP773>3.0.CO;2-7
  64. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W. (1947). Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente. Amsterdam: Querido. Google Scholar öffnen
  65. Huck, I. (2009). Wahrnehmungen und Wahrnehmungsphänomene in Agenda-Setting-Prozessen. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783845220451
  66. Huck, I. & Brosius, H.-B. (2007). Der Third-Person-Effekt – Über den vermuteten Einfluss der Massenmedien. Publizistik, 52, 355-374. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s11616-007-0171-2
  67. Huck, I., Quiring, O. & Brosius, H. B. (2009). Perceptual phenomena in the agenda setting process. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21, 139-164. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edp019
  68. Huh, J., DeLorme, D. E. & Reid, L. N. (2004). The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context: The case of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Communication Research, 31, 568-599. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650204267934
  69. Huh, J. & Langteau, R. (2007a). Presumed influence of DTC prescription drug advertising. Do experts and novices think differently? Communication Research, 34, 25-52. Google Scholar öffnen
  70. Huh, J. & Langteau, R. (2007b). Presumed influences of direct-to consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising on patients. The physicians’ perspective. Journal of Advertising, 36, 151-172. Google Scholar öffnen
  71. Innes, J. M. & Zeitz, H. (1988). The public’s view of the impact of mass media: a test of the ‚third person‘ effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 457-463. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180507
  72. Jeffres, L. W., Neuendorf, K., Bracken, C. C. & Atkin, D. (2008). Integrating theoretical traditions in media effects: Using third-person effects to link agenda-setting and cultivation. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 470-291. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/15205430802375303
  73. Joslyn, M. R. (2003). Framing the Lewinsky affair: Third-person judgments by scandal frame. Political Psychology, 24, 829-844. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9221.2003.00356.x
  74. Katz, D. & Allport, F. H. (1931). Students’ attitudes. Syracuse, NY: Craftsman Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  75. Lambe, J. L. & McLeod, D. M. (2005). Understanding third-person perception processes: Predicting perceived impact on self and others for multiple expressive contexts. Journal of Communication, 55, 277-291. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02672.x
  76. LaPrelle, J., Hoyle, R. H., Insko, C. A. & Bernthal, P. (1990). Interpersonal attraction and descriptions of the traits of others: Ideal similarity, self similarity, and liking. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 216-240. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(90)90018-2
  77. Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Merton, R. K. (1948). Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action. In L. Bryson (Hrsg.), The communication of ideas (S. 95-118). New York, London: Harper & Brothers. Google Scholar öffnen
  78. Lee, B. K. & Tamborini, R. (2005). Third-person effect and Internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55, 292-310. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02673.x
  79. Li, X. G. (2008). Third-person effect, optimistic bias, and sufficiency resource in Internet use. Journal of Communication, 58, 568-587. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00400.x
  80. Lim, J. S. & Golan, G. J. (2011). Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on YouTube. Communication Research, 38, 710-727. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650211405649
  81. Lo, V. & Paddon, A. R. (2000). Third-person perception and support for pornography restrictions: Some methodological problems. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 80-89. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/12.1.80
  82. Marcinkowski, F. (2006). Warum täuscht sich die Öffentlichkeit über ihre eigene Meinung? Kommunikative und soziokulturelle Ursachen der Fehleinschätzung politischer Mehrheiten. Publizistik, 51, 313-332. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s11616-006-0109-0
  83. Maurer, M. (2010). Agenda-Setting. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
  84. McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/267990
  85. McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophiliy. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1-31. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/01463370500270322
  86. McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H. & Eveland, W. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51, 678-695. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02902.x
  87. McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P. & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics. An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153-174. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365097024002003
  88. Meirick, P. C. (2004). Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance. Political advertising and first- and third-person effects. Communication Research, 31, 234-255. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650203261514
  89. Meirick, P. C. (2005a). Self-enhancement motivation as a third variable in the relationship between first- and third-person effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 473-483. Google Scholar öffnen
  90. Meirick, P. C. (2005b). Rethinking the target corollary: The effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research, 32, 822-843. Google Scholar öffnen
  91. Meirick, P. C. (2006). Media schemas, perceived effects, and person perceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 632-649. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300310
  92. Milkie, M. A. (1999). Social comparisons, reflected appraisals, and mass media: The impact of pervasive beauty images on black and white girls’ self concepts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 190-210. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2695857
  93. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S. & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
  94. Moser, K. & Leitl, J. (2006). Der Dritte-Person-Effekt, Thema der Werbung und Distanz der „dritten Person“. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 18, 2-8. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1026/1617-6383.18.1.2
  95. Müller, P. (2010). Der Third-Person-Effekt als Darstellungsphänomen. Münster: LIT Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
  96. Mullen, B., Atkins, J. L., Champion, D. S., Edwards, C., Hardy, D., Story, J. E. & Vanderklok, M. (1985). The false consensus effect: A meta-analysis of 115 hypothesis tests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 262-283. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90020-4
  97. Mutz, D. C. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence: Third person effects and the public expression of opinions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1, 4-23. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/1.1.3
  98. Mutz, D. C. (1994). The political effects of perceptions of mass opinion. Research in Micropolitics, 4, 143-167. Google Scholar öffnen
  99. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175074
  100. Neuwirth, K. & Frederick, E. (2002). Extending the framework of third-, first-, and second-person effects. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 113-140. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0502_2
  101. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1980). Die Schweigespirale. Öffentliche Meinung – unsere soziale Haut. München: Piper. Google Scholar öffnen
  102. O’Gorman, H. J. & Garry, S. L. (1976). Pluralistic ignorance – a replication and extension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 449-458. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/268331
  103. Oliver, M. B., Yang, H., Ramasubramanian, S., Kim, J. & Lee, S. (2008). Exploring implications of perceived media reinforcement on third-person perceptions. Communication Research, 35, 745-769. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650208324267
  104. Pan, Z. D., Abisaid, J. L., Paek, H. J., Sun, Y. & Houden, D. (2005). Exploring the perceptual gap in perceived effects of media reports of opinion polls. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 340-350. Google Scholar öffnen
  105. Park, S. Y. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on woman’s desire to be thin. Communication Research, 32, 594-614. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279350
  106. Paul, B., Salwen, M. B. & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 57-85. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04
  107. Peiser, W. & Peter, J. (2000). Third-person perception of television-viewing behavior. Journal of Communication, 50, 25-45. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02832.x
  108. Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-Person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167-184. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/5.2.167
  109. Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Hrsg.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2. Aufl., S. 489-506). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen
  110. Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Hrsg.), Media effects. Advances in theory and research (3. Aufl., S. 252-268). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
  111. Price, V., Huang, L.-N. & Tewksbury, D. (1997). Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations toward media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74, 525-540. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/107769909707400307
  112. Price, V. & Tewksbury, D. (1996). Measuring the third-person effect of news: The impact of question order, contrast and knowledge. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 120-141. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/8.2.120
  113. Rauch, J. (2010). Superiority and susceptibility: How activist audiences imagine the influence of mainstream news messages on self and others. Discourse & Communication, 4, 263-277. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/1750481310373216
  114. Reid, S. A., Byrne, S., Brundidge, J. S., Shoham, M. D. & Marlow, M. L. (2007). A critical test of self-enhancement, exposure, and self-categorization explanations for first- and third-person perceptions. Human Communication Research, 33, 143-162. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00294.x
  115. Reid, S. A. & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31, 129-161. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00867.x
  116. Roessing, T. (2011). Schweigespirale. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
  117. Rössler, P. (2009). Wie Menschen die Wirkungen politischer Medienberichterstattung wahrnehmen – und welche Konsequenzen daraus resultieren. Zum Zusammenhang von politischer Willensbildung, Second- und Third-Person-Effekten. In F. Marcinkowski & B. Pfetsch (Hrsg.), Politik in der Mediendemokratie (= Politische Vierteljahresschrift – Sonderheft 42) (S. 468-495). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
  118. Rojas, H. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 343-363. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq018
  119. Rojas, H., Shah, D. V. & Faber, R. F. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 163-186. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/8.2.163
  120. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 10 (S. 173-220). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  121. Ross, L., Greene, D. & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 133, 279-301. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X
  122. Rossmann, C. (2011). Theory of Reasoned Action – Theory of Planned Behavior. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
  123. Rucinski, D. & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The ‘other’ as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person effect in the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 345-368. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/2.4.345
  124. Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship. The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25, 259-285. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365098025003001
  125. Salwen, M. B. & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47, 60-78. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02706.x
  126. Salwen, M. B. & Dupagne, M. (2003). News of Y2K and experiencing Y2K: Exploring the relationship between the third-person effect and optimistic bias. Media Psychology, 5, 57-82. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0501_3
  127. Scharrer, E. (2002). Third-person perception and television violence. The role of out-group stereotyping in perceptions of susceptibility to effects. Communication Research, 29, 681-704. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/009365002237832
  128. Scharrer, E. & Leone, R. (2008). First-person shooters and the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 34, 210-233. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00319.x
  129. Schmierbach, M., Boyle, M. P. & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Understanding person perceptions: Comparing four common statistical approaches to third-person research. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 492-513. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/15205430802375311
  130. Schütz, A. & Luckmann, T. (2003). Strukturen der Lebenswelt. Konstanz: UVK. Google Scholar öffnen
  131. Schulz, A. & Rössler, P. (2013). Schweigespirale Online. Die Theorie der öffentlichen Meinung und das Internet (unter Mitarbeit von K. Bienhaus, J. Ebert, M. Kling, M. Mewes, K. Ramcke, J. Schade & A. Schorr). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783845244730
  132. Schweiger, W. (2007). Theorien der Mediennutzung. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
  133. Speier, H. & Davison, W. P. (1957). (Hrsg.). West German leadership and foreign policy. Evanston, IL: Row, Person and Company. Google Scholar öffnen
  134. Stiehler, H.-J. (1999). Subjektive Medientheorien – Zum Begriff. In B. Schorb & H.-J. Stiehler (Hrsg.), Idealisten oder Realisten? Die deutschen Kinder- und JugendfernsehmacherInnen und ihre subjektiven Medientheorien (S. 12-25). München: kopaed. Google Scholar öffnen
  135. Sun, Y., Pan, Z. D. & Shen, L. J. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58, 280-300. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00385.x
  136. Tal-Or, N., Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y. & Gunther, A. C. (2010). Testing causal direction in the influence of presumed media influence. Communication Research, 37, 801-824. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362684
  137. Tal-Or, N. & Drukman, D. (2010). Third-person perception as an impression management tactic. Media Psychology, 13, 301-322. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.503516
  138. Tal-Or, N., Lazar, T., Angrest, T., Bloom, R., Ner, A. & Oren, Y. (2012). The first person perception: Exploring its behavioral consequences and the nature of perceived influence. Paper präsentiert auf der Jahrestagung der International Communication Association, Phoenix, USA. Google Scholar öffnen
  139. Tal-Or, N. & Tsfati, Y. (2007). On the substitutability of the third-person perception. Media Psychology, 10, 231-249. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/15213260701375637
  140. Tal-Or, N., Tsfati, Y. & Gunther, A. C. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence. Origins and implications of the third-person perception. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (S. 99-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen
  141. Tewksbury, D. (2002). The role of comparison group size in the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 247-263. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/14.3.247
  142. Tewksbury, D., Moy, P. & Weis, D. S. (2004). Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 138-155. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02618.x
  143. Thomas, W. I. & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf. Google Scholar öffnen
  144. Thomsen, S. (2002). Health and beauty magazine reading and body shape concerns among a group of college woman. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 988-1007. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/107769900207900413
  145. Tsfati, Y. (2007). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and minority alienation: The case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57, 632-651. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00361.x
  146. Tsfati, Y. & Cohen, J. (2003). On the effect of the “third-person effect”: Perceived influence of media coverage and residential mobility intentions. Journal of Communication, 53, 711-727. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02919.x
  147. Tsfati, Y. & Cohen, J. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy. The case of Gaza settlers. Communication Research, 32, 794-821. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650205281057
  148. Tsfati, Y. & Cohen, J. (2011). Perceptions of media and media effects: The third person effect, trust in media and hostile media perceptions. Paper präsentiert auf der Jahrestagung der International Communication Association, Boston, USA. Google Scholar öffnen
  149. Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J. & Gunther, A. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33, 143-166. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/1075547010380385
  150. Tsfati, Y. & Livio, O. (2008). Exploring journalists’ perception of media impact. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 113-130. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/107769900808500108
  151. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
  152. Vester, H.-G. (2009). Kompendium der Soziologie I: Grundbegriffe. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91590-6
  153. Vowe, G. (2010). Von der Massengesellschaft zur Mediengesellschaft. Antworten der Kommunikationswissenschaft auf die Frage „Wie ist Gesellschaft möglich?“. In C. Reinemann & R. Stöber (Hrsg.), Wer die Vergangenheit kennt, hat eine Zukunft. Festschrift für Jürgen Wilke (S. 35-61) Köln: Halem. Google Scholar öffnen
  154. Wei, R. & Lo, V. H. (2007). The third-person effects of political attack ads in the 2004 US presidential election. Media Psychology, 9, 367-388. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/15213260701291338
  155. Wei, R., Lo, V. H. & Lu, H. Y. (2007). Reconsidering the relationship between the third-person perception and optimistic bias. Communication Research, 34, 665-684. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0093650207307903
  156. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806
  157. Willnat, L. (1996). Mass media and political outspokenness in Hong Kong: Linking the third-person effect and the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 187-212. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/8.2.187
  158. Wolf, S. (2008). Medienwirkungen aus Rezipientensicht. Third-Person-Wahrnehmungen in sozialen Netzwerken. München: Verlag Reinhard Fischer. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783845214825
  159. Xu, J. & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2008). Does a perceptual discrepancy lead to action? A meta-analysis of the behavioral component of the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 375-385. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn031
  160. Youn, S., Faber, R. J. & Shah, D. V. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 633-649. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200007)17:7<633::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-B
  161. Zhao, X. Q. & Cai, X. M. (2008). From self-enhancement to supporting censorship: The third-person effect process in the case of Internet pornography. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 437-462. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/15205430802071258
  162. Zhong, Z. J. (2009). Third-person perceptions and online games: A comparison of perceived antisocial and prosocial game effects. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 286-306. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01441.x

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus dem Schwerpunkt "Theorien und Methoden der Kommunikationswissenschaft"
Cover des Buchs: Spotlights on Media Borders / Perspektiven auf Mediengrenzen
Sammelband Vollzugriff
Nora Benterbusch
Spotlights on Media Borders / Perspektiven auf Mediengrenzen
Cover des Buchs: Social Media
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Stefan Stumpp, Daniel Michelis, Thomas Schildhauer
Social Media
Cover des Buchs: „Wir wollen Sonne statt Reagan!"
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Manuel Kögelmaier
„Wir wollen Sonne statt Reagan!"
Cover des Buchs: Transkulturelle Medien und Kommunikation
Lehrbuch Kein Zugriff
Nadja-Christina Schneider
Transkulturelle Medien und Kommunikation
Cover des Buchs: Medienrezeption
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Volker Gehrau, Helena Bilandzic, Holger Schramm, Carsten Wünsch
Medienrezeption

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login via Open Athens
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex