Journalism 614:
Opinion and Perception I:
Third-person effects
Concerns about the Media
 Various categories of media spark concern:
– Political Advertising
– Pornography
– Misogynistic Music/Videos
– Violent Television
– What else?
– What is the nature of the concern?
Basic Third Person Concepts
 The Third Person Perception (3pp)
– “Others more affected by media messages than I am”
– First defined as Third Person Effect by Davison (1983)
 The Third Person Effect (3pe)
–
–
–
–
Cognitive and behavioral consequences of the 3pp
E.g., willingness to accept media censorship
E.g., willingness to engage in “corrective action”
First observed by Gunther (1995) and Rojas et al (1996)
Theoretical Underpinnings
 Why do we see others as being more
affected by media messages than ourselves?
– Ego-enhancing motivational bias
• “I am less affected by negative media messages”
• “I am not as easy to manipulate as you”
– Pluralistic ignorance, a general unawareness of
what others really think and feel
Nature of Media Perceptions
 Perceive others will be more affected by
negative media content than will oneself:
– Powerful Media: People tend to believe that
media are persuasive and effects are common
– Personal Immunity: People also tend to feel
immune to these effects
Past Research on 3pp
 Perloff reports that 15/16 studies reviewed found
support for 3pp for range of negative content:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
TV violence (Innes and Zeitz, 1988)
Pornography (Gunther, 1995)
Libelous news stories (Cohen et al., 1988; Gunther, 1991)
Product advertisements (Thorson & Coyle, 1994; Shah et al. 1999)
Negative political ads (Cohen & Davis, 1991)
Holocaust-denial advertisements (Price et al., 1998)
Media images of slimness (David & Johnson, 1998)
– Several other forms of potentially harmful media content
Past Research on 3pe
 The Third Person Effect (3pe)
– Most common effect: desire for censorship
– Also on efforts to engage in “corrective action”
• Buying goods in a food shortage
• Posting comments online to respond
 Results supporting the 3pe:
– Gunther (1995): greater 3pp associated with greater
support for restrictions on pornography
– Rojas et al (1996): 3pp associated with desire to censor
TV violence, pornography and general media content
Antecedents and Consequences
of Third-person Perceptions
 McLeod, Eveland & Nathanson (1997). “Support for censorship of
violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person
effect” Communication Research
 Research Questions:
– Does the 3pp occur for violent and misogynistic music?
– Is there a connection between 3pp and 3pe?
– Is the link related to Paternalism?
• “Holier than thou--You are affected, I must protect you”
• Ego-enhancing orientation
Study 1: Methods
 202 Participants in 2 anti-social conditions
 Measures:
– Third-person differentials (self vs. others)
• Three 3pp comparison groups (in order of increasing
social distance):
– Other Delaware students
– People your age in cities like New York and Los Angeles
– The average person
– Support for censorship scale
Study 1:
Violent Rap
“Out one night, Yo, just chillin’ with my crew
we were actin’ wild cuz I didn’t have nothing better to do
Got a nine at my waist, Stay out of my face.
You mess with me, Right here’ll be your resting place....”
-South Central Cartel
Study 1: Misogynistic Rap
It’s late one night and I’m ready to dip
Cuz I’m kinda drunk with an ugly chick
Big butt, big chest, and kinda stacked
Six foot two and she’s also fat....
....Be my girl what? It ain’t all that
Got weed in your head, knock-kneed and fat
Get some understanding, you’re just a skeez
I’m out for booty and to be pleased....
....Get an ugly chick.
-Too Live Crew
Study 1: Results for 3pp
Study 1: Results for 3pe
3pp predicts support for censorship
–3pp differential better predictor than overall
perceived negative effects
Study 2: Behind 3pp
 McLeod, Detenber & Eveland (2000). Behind the Third-person
Effect: Differentiating Perceptual Processes for Self and Other”
Journal of Communication
 Do people use a different psych process for
estimating self and other effects?
Study 2: Antecedents of 3pp
 Past research suggest several potential
predictors of perceived effects:
–
–
–
–
Perceived exposure to content
Perceived common sense of content target
Paternalism
Perceived anti-social nature of content
Study 2: Methods
 Participants:
– 359 students (read sample lyrics and answer survey)
 Content referents (combined for the analysis):
– 1. Violent anti-social rap
– 2. Misogynic anti-social rap
– 3. Violent anti-social death metal
– 4. Misogynic anti-social death metal
 Data analysis:
– Separate path analyses for self and other
Study 2: Violent Death Metal
“...Kill the preacher’s only son, watch the infant die.
Bodily dismemberment, drink the purest blood
Unrelenting need to kill, death upon you now.
Anxiously awaiting the next in line.”
-Slayer
Study 2: Misogynistic Death
Metal
“...Shave her head and throw her down.
That’s where she belongs--on the ground.
She’s just an object for him to crush.
Pound her head until it’s mush.”
-Visceral Eviscerations
Study 2: Conclusions
 Significant predictors for self:
– Common sense (reduces perceived effects)
– Anti-social lyrics (reduces perceived effects)
 Significant predictors for others:
– Perceived exposure (increases perceived effects)
– Paternalism (increases perceived effects)
Study 2: More Conclusions
 People use different model of effects to
estimate:
– Conditional effects model for self
• (internal factors mediate effects)
– Direct effects model for others
• (“you are what you eat”)
Big Questions About 3PP & 3PE
 Is the judgment of effect on self based on an
assumption about “dosage” or “potency”?
– Ex. I am not effected because I do not see it
 Is the judgment of effect of other based on
an estimate of a small effect on many
people or a large effect on a few
– Ex. Porn may make sociopaths dangerous