| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1996 World Association for Public Opinion Research
MEASURING THE THIRD-PERSON EFFECT OF NEWS: THE IMPACT OF QUESTION ORDER, CONTRAST AND KNOWLEDGE
Abstract
This study investigated the extent to which the third-person effect—the tendency of people to estimate greater impact of media messages on ‘other people’ than on themselves—might depend upon question-contrast effects (i.e. self-serving comparisons triggered by back-to-back questions dealing with effect on others and oneself), the order of questions, and respondents' levels of background political knowledge. Two hundred and eighty-seven subjects participated in two experimental studies involving questions about media coverage of President Clinton's possible role in the ‘Whitewater Affair’, his alleged frequent policy reversals, the O. J. Simpson murder trial, and child molestation charges against Michael Jackson. Both experiments resulted in significant third-person effects that did not depend upon having the same respondents answer both questions; means for single-question (no contrast) conditions did not differ significantly from comparable means in two-question (contrast) conditions. No significant main effects of question order were observed. In Experiment 1 a significant interaction between political knowledge and question order was found, such that a negative relationship between knowledge and perceived impact on oneself emerged when the ‘self’ question followed a question about perceived effects on others. Experiment 2 replicated the interaction for two of three news stimuli, and indicated that it was not a product of differences in the personal importance of issues. Implications of these results for understanding the third-person effect are discussed.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Cho and F. J. Boster First and Third Person Perceptions on Anti-Drug Ads Among Adolescents Communication Research, April 1, 2008; 35(2): 169 - 189. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ye Sun, Lijiang Shen, and Zhongdang Pan On the Behavioral Component of the Third-Person Effect Communication Research, April 1, 2008; 35(2): 257 - 278. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Chock, J. R. Fox, J. R. Angelini, S. Lee, and A. Lang Telling Me Quickly: How Arousing Fast-Paced PSAs Decrease Self-Other Differences Communication Research, December 1, 2007; 34(6): 618 - 636. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Price and N. J. Stroud Public Attitudes toward Polls: Evidence from the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Int. J. Public Opin. Res., December 1, 2006; 18(4): 393 - 421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. David, K. Liu, and M. Myser Methodological Artifact or Persistent Bias?: Testing the Robustness of the Third-Person and Reverse Third-Person Effects for Alcohol Messages Communication Research, April 1, 2004; 31(2): 206 - 233. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. PEISER and J. PETER Explaining Individual Differences in Third-Person Perception: A Limits / Possibilities Perspective Communication Research, April 1, 2001; 28(2): 156 - 180. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. CHAPIN Third-Person Perception and Optimistic Bias Among Urban Minority At-Risk Youth Communication Research, February 1, 2000; 27(1): 51 - 81. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. HENRIKSEN and J. A. FLORA Third-Person Perception and Children: Perceived Impact of Pro- and Anti-Smoking Ads Communication Research, December 1, 1999; 26(6): 643 - 665. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. B. SALWEN and M. DUPAGNE The Third-Person Effect: Perceptions of the Media's Influence and Immoral Consequences Communication Research, October 1, 1999; 26(5): 523 - 549. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. V. SHAH, R. J. FABER, and S. YOUN Susceptibility and Severity: Perceptual Dimensions Underlying the Third-Person Effect Communication Research, April 1, 1999; 26(2): 240 - 267. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|