Cover of book: Third-Person-Effekt
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Educational Book No access

Third-Person-Effekt

Authors:
Publisher:
 2017

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2017
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-4590-6
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-8838-3
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Konzepte. Ansätze der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft
Volume
8
Language
German
Pages
122
Product type
Educational Book

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 10
      1. Erste Grundannahme: Wahrnehmungsdifferenz No access
    2. 2 Zweite Grundannahme: Folgen der Wahrnehmung(sdifferenz) No access
    3. 3 Der Third-Person-Effekt als Theorie indirekter Medienwirkungen No access
      1. Einflussvariablen No access
      2. Theoretische Erklärungen No access
    5. Differenzierung der Folgen No access
      1. Thomas-Theorem No access
      2. Annahmen über die Macht der Medien No access
    2. 3 Wahrnehmung der Öffentlichkeit und Pluralistic Ignorance No access
    3. Von der Entdeckung der Third-Person-Perception hin zur Erforschung ihrer Ursachen No access
    4. Prüfung der Folgen: Von den Wahrnehmungsdifferenzen hin zu den Einflüssen auf andere No access
    1. Bestandteile einer typischen Untersuchung des Third- Person-Effekts No access
    2. Messung der Einflusswahrnehmungen und der Wahrnehmungsdifferenzen No access
    3. Messung der Folgen No access
    4. Methodenstudien: Third-Person-Perceptions als Abfrageeffekt? No access
    1. Wahrnehmungsdifferenzen und Gründe ihrer Entstehung No access
    2. „Gefährliche“ Medieninhalte: Wirkungsbefürchtungen und Zensurforderungen No access
    3. Gesundheitsverhalten und Schönheitsideale: Intendierte und nicht-intendierte Wirkungen auf dem Umweg über dritte Personen No access
    4. Politische Medieninhalte: Einflussvermutungen und deren Konsequenzen No access
    5. Journalisten, Politiker, Wissenschaftler: Wahrgenommene Medieneinflüsse bei spezifischen Befragtengruppen No access
    1. Wer, wie und wo sind überhaupt „die anderen“? Zum (unklaren) Konzept der Distanz No access
    2. Jenseits von Zensurforderungen: Die Suche nach (weiteren) Folgen unterstellter Einflüsse No access
    3. Integration mit anderen theoretischen Ansätzen No access
    4. Third-Person-Effekte und Online-Medien No access
    1. Optimistic Bias No access
    2. Attributionstheorien No access
    3. Schweigespirale No access
    4. Hostile-Media-Effekt No access
    5. Verknüpfung der Wahrnehmungsphänomene No access
  8. „Top Ten“ der Forschungsliteratur No access 101 - 102
  9. Literaturverzeichnis No access 103 - 119
  10. Bildnachweise No access 120 - 122

Bibliography (209)

  1. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2. Aufl.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Open Google Scholar
  2. Andsager, J. L. & White H. A. (2007). Self versus others: Media, messages, and the third person effect. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar
  3. Atwood, L. E. (1994). Illusions of media power: the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 269–281. Open Google Scholar
  4. Banning, S. A. (2006). Third-person effects on political participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 785–800. Open Google Scholar
  5. Banning, S. A. & Sweetser, K. D. (2007). How much do they think it affects them and whom do they believe?: Comparing the third-person effect and credibility of blogs and traditional media. Communication Quarterly, 55, 451–466. Open Google Scholar
  6. Barnidge, M. & Rojas, H. (2014). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and political talk: Expanding the corrective action hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 135–156. Open Google Scholar
  7. Bernhard, U. & Dohle, M. (2015a). Corrective or confirmative actions? Political online participation as a consequence of presumed media influences in election campaigns. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 285–302. Open Google Scholar
  8. Bernhard, U. & Dohle, M. (2015b). Local politics online: The influence of presumed influence on local politicians’ online communication activities in Germany. Local Government Studies, 41, 755–773. Open Google Scholar
  9. Bernhard, U. & Dohle, M. (2016). Constructive or repressive? Journalists’ reactions to the presumed political influences of online media. Studies in Communication ǀ Media, 5, 31–51. Open Google Scholar
  10. Bernhard, U., Dohle, M. & Vowe, G. (2014). Wie werden Medien zur politischen Information genutzt und wahrgenommen? Online- und Offlinemedien im Vergleich. Media Perspektiven, o. Jg., 159–168. Open Google Scholar
  11. 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. Open Google Scholar
  12. Brosius, H.-B. & Esser, F. (1998). Mythen in der Wirkungsforschung: Auf der Suche nach dem Stimulus-Response-Modell. Publizistik, 43, 341–361. Open Google Scholar
  13. Bryant, J. & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54, 662–704. Open Google Scholar
  14. 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. Open Google Scholar
  15. Chambers, J. R. (2008). Explaining false uniqueness: Why we are both better and worse than others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 878–894. Open Google Scholar
  16. Chapin, J. (2000). Third-person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority at-risk youth. Communication Research, 27, 51–81. Open Google Scholar
  17. Chen, G. M. & Ng, Y. M. M. (2017). Nasty online comments anger you more than me, but nice ones make me as happy as you. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 181–188. Open Google Scholar
  18. 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. Open Google Scholar
  19. Chia, S. C. (2006). How peers mediate media influence on adolescents’ sexual attitudes and sexual behaviour. Journal of Communication, 56, 585–606. Open Google Scholar
  20. Chia, S. C. (2007). Third-person perceptions about idealized body image and weight-loss behavior. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 677–694. Open Google Scholar
  21. Cho, H. & Han, M. (2004). Perceived effect of the mass media on self vs. other. A cross cultural investigation of the third person effect hypothesis. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14, 299–318. Open Google Scholar
  22. Choi, Y. Y., Leshner, G. & Choi, J. (2008). Third-person effects of idealized body image in magazine advertisements. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 147–164. Open Google Scholar
  23. 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. Open Google Scholar
  24. Chung, M., Munno, G. J. & Moritz, B. (2015). Triggering participation: Exploring the effects of third-person and hostile media perceptions on online participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 452–461. Open Google Scholar
  25. Chung, S. & Moon, S.-I. (2016). Is the third-person effect real? A critical examination of rationales, testing methods, and previous findings of the third-person effect on censorship attitudes. Human Communication Research, 42, 312–337. Open Google Scholar
  26. 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. Open Google Scholar
  27. Cohen, J. & Tsfati, Y. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence on strategic voting. Communication Research, 36, 359–378. Open Google Scholar
  28. 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. Open Google Scholar
  29. 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. Open Google Scholar
  30. 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. Open Google Scholar
  31. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15. Open Google Scholar
  32. Davison, W. P. (1996). The third-person effect revisited. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 113–119. Open Google Scholar
  33. 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. Open Google Scholar
  34. Dewberry, D. R. (2014). The third-person effect goes to Congress. Southern Communication Journal, 79, 279–292. Open Google Scholar
  35. Dohle, M. (2011). Third-Person-Effekte bei der Wahrnehmung von Schönheitsidealen durch Frauen und Männer. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59, 180–198. Open Google Scholar
  36. Dohle, M. (2016). The Third Person-Effect in Communication von W. Phillips Davison. In M. Potthoff (Hrsg.), Schlüsselwerke der Medienwirkungsforschung (S. 195–204). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  37. Dohle, M. & Bernhard, U. (2014). Presumed online media influence and support for censorship: Results from a survey among German parliamentarians. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 256–268. Open Google Scholar
  38. Dohle, M. & Bernhard, U. (2016). Third-person effect and influence of presumed media influence approach revisited. In G. Vowe & P. Henn (Hrsg.), Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs (S. 103–117). New York, NY: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  39. Dohle, M., Bernhard, U. & Kelm, O. (2017). Presumed media influences and demands for restrictions: Using panel data to examine the causal direction. Mass Communication and Society, 20, 595–613. Open Google Scholar
  40. 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. Open Google Scholar
  41. 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. Open Google Scholar
  42. 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. Open Google Scholar
  43. 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. Open Google Scholar
  44. 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. Open Google Scholar
  45. 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. Open Google Scholar
  46. 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. Open Google Scholar
  47. Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising. The mediating role of perceptions of susceptibility. Journal of Advertising, 37, 33–40. Open Google Scholar
  48. 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. Open Google Scholar
  49. 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. Open Google Scholar
  50. 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. Open Google Scholar
  51. Feng, G. C. & Guo S. Z. (2012). Support for censorship: A multilevel meta-analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Reports, 25, 40–50. Open Google Scholar
  52. Fields, J. M. & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 427–448. Open Google Scholar
  53. Filak, V. F. (2012). A concurrent examination of self-versus-others perceptual bias and the willingness to self-censor: A study of college newspaper editors and advisers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 299–314. Open Google Scholar
  54. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Believe, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Open Google Scholar
  55. 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. Open Google Scholar
  56. 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. Open Google Scholar
  57. 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. Open Google Scholar
  58. Golan, G. J. & Lim, J. S. (2016). Third-person effect of ISIS’s recruitment propaganda: Online political self-efficacy and social media activism. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4681–4701. Open Google Scholar
  59. Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think. Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355–372. Open Google Scholar
  60. Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the x-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27–38. Open Google Scholar
  61. Gunther, A. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communications Research, 25, 486–504. Open Google Scholar
  62. 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. Open Google Scholar
  63. 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. Open Google Scholar
  64. Gunther, A. C. & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449–466. Open Google Scholar
  65. Gunther, A. C. & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 78, 58–67. Open Google Scholar
  66. 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. Open Google Scholar
  67. Gunther, A. C. & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55–70. Open Google Scholar
  68. Gunther, A. C. & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199–215. Open Google Scholar
  69. 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. Open Google Scholar
  70. Haim, M., Kümpel, A. S. & Brosius, H.-B. (2017). Popularity cues in online media. A review of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and general effects. Paper präsentiert auf der Jahrestagung der International Communication Association, San Diego, USA. Open Google Scholar
  71. Hartmann, T. & Dohle, M. (2005). Publikumsvorstellungen im Rezeptionsprozess. Publizistik, 50, 287–303. Open Google Scholar
  72. Hautzer, L., Lünich, M. & Rössler, P. (2012). Social Navigation. Neue Orientierungsmuster bei der Mediennutzung im Internet. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  73. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Open Google Scholar
  74. Henriksen, L. & Flora, J. A. (1999). Third-person perception and children. Perceived impact of pro- and anti-smoking ads. Communication Research, 26, 643–665. Open Google Scholar
  75. Ho, S. S., Poorisat, T., Neo, R. L. & Detenber, B. H. (2014). Examining how presumed media influence affects social norms and adolescents’ attitudes and drinking behavior intentions in rural Thailand. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 282–302. Open Google Scholar
  76. 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. Open Google Scholar
  77. 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. Open Google Scholar
  78. 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. Open Google Scholar
  79. 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. Open Google Scholar
  80. Hollander, S. (1979). On the strength of a newspaper endorsement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 405–407. Open Google Scholar
  81. Hoorens, V. & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: beyond the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 599–610. Open Google Scholar
  82. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W. (1947). Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente. Amsterdam: Querido. Open Google Scholar
  83. Houston, B., Hansen, G. J. & Nisbett, G. S. (2011). Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News, 5, 79–92. Open Google Scholar
  84. Huck, I. (2009). Wahrnehmungen und Wahrnehmungsphänomene in Agenda-Setting-Prozessen. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  85. Huck, I. & Brosius, H.-B. (2007). Der Third-Person-Effekt – Über den vermuteten Einfluss der Massenmedien. Publizistik, 52, 355–374. Open Google Scholar
  86. Huck, I., Quiring, O. & Brosius, H. B. (2009). Perceptual phenomena in the agenda setting process. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21, 139–164. Open Google Scholar
  87. 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. Open Google Scholar
  88. Huh, J. & Langteau, R. (2007a). Presumed influence of DTC prescription drug advertising. Do experts and novices think differently? Communication Research, 34, 25–52. Open Google Scholar
  89. 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. Open Google Scholar
  90. 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. Open Google Scholar
  91. 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. Open Google Scholar
  92. Joslyn, M. R. (2003). Framing the Lewinsky affair: Third-person judgments by scandal frame. Political Psychology, 24, 829–844. Open Google Scholar
  93. Katz, D. & Allport, F. H. (1931). Students’ attitudes. Syracuse, NY: Craftsman Press. Open Google Scholar
  94. Kelm, O., Dohle, M. & Bernhard, U. (2017). Social media activities of political communication practitioners: The impact of strategic orientation and in-group orientation. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11, 306–323. Open Google Scholar
  95. Kepplinger, H. M. (2007). Reciprocal effects: Toward a theory of mass media effects on decision makers. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12, 3–23. Open Google Scholar
  96. Kepplinger, H. M. & Zerback, T. (2012). Direct and indirect effects of media coverage. Exploring the effects of presumed media influence on judges, prosecutors, and defendants. Studies in Communication ǀ Media, 1, 473–492. Open Google Scholar
  97. Kim, H. (2015). Perception and emotion: The indirect effect of reported election poll results on political participation intention and support for restrictions. Mass Communication and Society, 18, 303–324. Open Google Scholar
  98. 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. Open Google Scholar
  99. 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. Open Google Scholar
  100. 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. Open Google Scholar
  101. Lee, F. L. F. (2010). The prevention effect of third-person perception: A study on the perceived and actual influence of polls. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 87–110. Open Google Scholar
  102. 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. Open Google Scholar
  103. Li, X. G. (2008). Third-person effect, optimistic bias, and sufficiency resource in Internet use. Journal of Communication, 58, 568–587. Open Google Scholar
  104. 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. Open Google Scholar
  105. Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 330–345. Open Google Scholar
  106. Liu, X. & Lo, V.-H. (2014). Media exposure, perceived personal impact, and third-person effect. Media Psychology, 17, 378–396. Open Google Scholar
  107. 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. Open Google Scholar
  108. Lo, V. H., Wei, R. & Wu, H. (2010). Examining the first, second and third-person effects of Internet pornography on Taiwanese adolescents: implications for the restriction of pornography. Asian Journal of Communication, 20, 90–103. Open Google Scholar
  109. Marcinkowski, F. (2006). Warum täuscht sich die Öffentlichkeit über ihre eigene Meinung? Kommunikative und soziokulturelle Ursachen der Fehleinschätzung politischer Mehrheiten. Publizistik, 51, 313–332. Open Google Scholar
  110. Maurer, M. (2010). Agenda-Setting. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  111. McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187. Open Google Scholar
  112. 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. Open Google Scholar
  113. 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. Open Google Scholar
  114. 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. Open Google Scholar
  115. 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. Open Google Scholar
  116. 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. Open Google Scholar
  117. 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. Open Google Scholar
  118. Meirick, P. C. (2006). Media schemas, perceived effects, and person perceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 632–649. Open Google Scholar
  119. 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. Open Google Scholar
  120. 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. Open Google Scholar
  121. Moser, K. & Leitl, J. (2006). Der Dritte-Person-Effekt, Thema der Werbung und Distanz der „dritten Person“. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 18, 2–8. Open Google Scholar
  122. Müller, P. (2013). National identity building through patterns of an international third-person perception in news coverage. International Communication Gazette, 75, 732–749. Open Google Scholar
  123. Müller, P. & Hohlfeld, R. (2013). Journalistische Vorstellungen von Medienwirkungen. Dimensionen – Entstehungsbedingungen – Folgen. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61, 166–182. Open Google Scholar
  124. 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. Open Google Scholar
  125. 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. Open Google Scholar
  126. Mutz, D. C. (1994). The political effects of perceptions of mass opinion. Research in Micropolitics, 4, 143–167. Open Google Scholar
  127. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  128. Neuwirth, K. & Frederick, E. (2002). Extending the framework of third-, first-, and second-person effects. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 113–140. Open Google Scholar
  129. Nix, J. & Pickett, J. T. (2017). Third-person perceptions, hostile media effects, and policing: Developing a theoretical framework for assessing the Ferguson effect. Journal of Criminal Justice, 51, 24–33. Open Google Scholar
  130. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1980). Die Schweigespirale. Öffentliche Meinung – unsere soziale Haut. München: Piper. Open Google Scholar
  131. Noguti, V. & Russell, C. A. (2014). Normative influences on product placement effects: Alcohol brands in television series and the influence of presumed influence. Journal of Advertising, 43, 46–62. Open Google Scholar
  132. O’Gorman, H. J. & Garry, S. L. (1976). Pluralistic ignorance – a replication and extension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 449–458. Open Google Scholar
  133. 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. Open Google Scholar
  134. Paek, H., Gunther, A. C., McLeod, D. M. & Hove, T. (2011). How adolescents’ perceived media influence on peers affects smoking decisions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45, 123–146. Open Google Scholar
  135. 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. Open Google Scholar
  136. Paradise, A. & Sullivan, M. (2012). (In)visible threats? The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 55–60. Open Google Scholar
  137. Park, H. S., Lee, H. E., Choi, H. J., Lee, D. W., Ahn, J. & Park, H. (2014). Perceived similarity and third-person effect: Media coverage of the shooting incident at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 42, 539–550. Open Google Scholar
  138. Park, S. Y. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on woman’s desire to be thin. Communication Research, 32, 594–614. Open Google Scholar
  139. 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. Open Google Scholar
  140. Peiser, W. & Peter, J. (2000). Third-person perception of television-viewing behavior. Journal of Communication, 50, 25–45. Open Google Scholar
  141. Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-Person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167–184. Open Google Scholar
  142. 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. Open Google Scholar
  143. 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. Open Google Scholar
  144. Perloff, R. M. (2015). A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect. Mass Communication and Society, 18, 701–729. Open Google Scholar
  145. Price, V., Huang, L.-N. & Tewksbury, D. (1997). Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations toward media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74, 525–540. Open Google Scholar
  146. 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. Open Google Scholar
  147. Post, S. (2015). Incivility in controversies: The influence of presumed media influence and perceived media hostility on the antagonists in the German conflict over aircraft noise. Communication Research, online first. Open Google Scholar
  148. 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. Open Google Scholar
  149. 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. Open Google Scholar
  150. Reid, S. A. & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31, 129–161. Open Google Scholar
  151. Roessing, T. (2011). Schweigespirale. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  152. 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. Open Google Scholar
  153. 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. Open Google Scholar
  154. 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. Open Google Scholar
  155. 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. Open Google Scholar
  156. 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. Open Google Scholar
  157. Rossmann, C. (2011). Theory of Reasoned Action – Theory of Planned Behavior. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  158. 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. Open Google Scholar
  159. 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. Open Google Scholar
  160. 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. Open Google Scholar
  161. 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. Open Google Scholar
  162. 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. Open Google Scholar
  163. Scharrer, E. & Leone, R. (2008). First-person shooters and the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 34, 210–233. Open Google Scholar
  164. Scherr, S. & Müller, P. (2017). How perceived persuasive intent and reactance contribute to third-person perceptions: Evidence from two experiments. Mass Communication and Society, 23, 315–335. Open Google Scholar
  165. 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. Open Google Scholar
  166. Schütz, A. & Luckmann, T. (2003). Strukturen der Lebenswelt. Konstanz: UVK. Open Google Scholar
  167. 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. Open Google Scholar
  168. Schweiger, W. (2007). Theorien der Mediennutzung. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  169. Shen, L. & Huggins, C. (2013). Testing the model of influence of presumed influence in a boundary condition: The impact of question order. Human Communication Research, 39, 470–491. Open Google Scholar
  170. Shen, L., Palmer, J., Kollar, L. M. M. & Comer, S. (2015). A social comparison explanation for the third-person perception. Communication Research, 42, 260–280. Open Google Scholar
  171. Sommer, K. (2013). Wirkung von Wirtschaftsberichterstattung – eine Systematisierung. In W. Schweiger & A. Fahr (Hrsg.), Handbuch Medienwirkungsforschung (S.369–384). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  172. Sommer, K., & Hofer, M. (2011, May). Influence of online comments on the perceptual and behavioral component of the third-person effect. Paper präsentiert auf der Jahrestagung der International Communication Association, Boston, USA. Open Google Scholar
  173. Speier, H. & Davison, W. P. (1957). (Hrsg.). West German leadership and foreign policy. Evanston, IL: Row, Person and Company. Open Google Scholar
  174. Stavrositu, C. D. & Kim, J. (2014). Social media metrics: Third-person perceptions of health information. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 61–67. Open Google Scholar
  175. 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. Open Google Scholar
  176. Sun, Y. (2013). When presumed influence turns real: An indirect route of media influence. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion. Developments in theory and practice (2. Aufl., S. 371–387). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar
  177. 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. Open Google Scholar
  178. 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. Open Google Scholar
  179. Tal-Or, N. & Drukman, D. (2010). Third-person perception as an impression management tactic. Media Psychology, 13, 301–322. Open Google Scholar
  180. 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. Open Google Scholar
  181. Tal-Or, N. & Tsfati, Y. (2007). On the substitutability of the third-person perception. Media Psychology, 10, 231–249. Open Google Scholar
  182. 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. Open Google Scholar
  183. Tewksbury, D. (2002). The role of comparison group size in the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 247–263. Open Google Scholar
  184. 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. Open Google Scholar
  185. Thomas, W. I. & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf. Open Google Scholar
  186. 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. Open Google Scholar
  187. Tsay-Vogel, M. (2016). Me versus them: Third-person effects among Facebook users. New Media & Society, 18, 1956–1972. Open Google Scholar
  188. Tsfati, Y. (2007). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and minority alienation: The case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57, 632–651. Open Google Scholar
  189. 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. Open Google Scholar
  190. Tsfati, Y. & Cohen, J. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy. The case of Gaza settlers. Communication Research, 32, 794–821. Open Google Scholar
  191. Tsfati, Y. & Cohen, J. (2013). Perceptions of media and media effects: The third-person effect, trust in media and hostile media perceptions. In A. N. Valdivia & E. Scharrer (Hrsg.), The international encyclopedia of media studies: Media effects/Media psychology (S. 5–19). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. Open Google Scholar
  192. 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. Open Google Scholar
  193. Tsfati, Y. & Livio, O. (2008). Exploring journalists’ perception of media impact. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 113–130. Open Google Scholar
  194. 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. Open Google Scholar
  195. Vester, H.-G. (2009). Kompendium der Soziologie I: Grundbegriffe. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  196. 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. Open Google Scholar
  197. Watson, B. R. & Riffe, D. (2013). Perceived threat, immigration policy support, and media coverage: Hostile media and presumed influence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25, 459–479. Open Google Scholar
  198. 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. Open Google Scholar
  199. Wei, R., Lo, V. H. & Golan, G. (2017). Examining the relationship between presumed influence of U.S. news about China and the support for the Chinese government’s global public relation campaign. International Journal of Communication, 11, 2964–2981. Open Google Scholar
  200. 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. Open Google Scholar
  201. Wei, R., Lo, V.-H., & Lu, H.-Y. (2011). Examining the perceptual gap and behavioral intention in the perceived effects of polling news in the 2008 Taiwan presidential election. Communication Research, 38, 206–277. Open Google Scholar
  202. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806–820. Open Google Scholar
  203. 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. Open Google Scholar
  204. Wolf, S. (2008). Medienwirkungen aus Rezipientensicht. Third-Person-Wahrnehmungen in sozialen Netzwerken. München: Verlag Reinhard Fischer. Open Google Scholar
  205. 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. Open Google Scholar
  206. Yoo, W., Yang, J. & Cho, E. (2016). How social media influence college students’ smoking attitudes and intentions. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 173–182. Open Google Scholar
  207. Youn, S., Faber, R. J. & Shah, D. V. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 633–649. Open Google Scholar
  208. 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. Open Google Scholar
  209. 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. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "Media Science, Communication Research", "Theories and Methods of Communication Science"
Cover of book: Konstruktiver Journalismus
Book Titles Full access
Julia Faltermeier
Konstruktiver Journalismus
Cover of book: Spotlights on Media Borders / Perspektiven auf Mediengrenzen
Edited Book Full access
Nora Benterbusch
Spotlights on Media Borders / Perspektiven auf Mediengrenzen
Cover of book: Partizipative Kommunikation im interkulturell-doppeltblickenden Kontext
Edited Book No access
Akila Ahouli, Constant Kpao Sarè, Gesine Lenore Schiewer
Partizipative Kommunikation im interkulturell-doppeltblickenden Kontext
Cover of book: Ist neu auch besser?
Book Titles No access
Korbinian Klinghardt
Ist neu auch besser?
Cover of book: Diffusionstheorie
Educational Book No access
Veronika Karnowski
Diffusionstheorie

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex