The third-person perception as it relates to the issue of television violence is examined here via survey responses of 624 adults from three regions in the United States. Rather than being asked about generally defined groups of “others,” respondents were instructed to specify which social/demographic groups they deemed more susceptible to negative television influence than others. Social categorization and social identity theories as well as the concept of negative out-group stereotyping are used to explain results that provide preliminary support that some social groups (e.g., children and teens, those with less education, and those with less income) are perceived as more likely to be negatively influenced by television violence than others. The relationship between estimates of groups' susceptibility to effects and respondents' thirdperson perception is also tested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice, 25th anniversary edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
3.
Binder, A. (1993). Constructing racial rhetoric: Media depictions of harm in heavy metal and rap music. American Sociological Review, 58, 753-768.
4.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
5.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.
6.
Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact of negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 680-688.
7.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
8.
Devine, F. (1992). Social identities, class identity and political perspectives. Sociological Review, 40, 229-233.
9.
Doise, W. (1988). Individual and social identities in intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 63, 754-763.
10.
Duck, J. M. (1999). Gender identity and the perceived impact of commercial advertising. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
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.
12.
Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). The perceived impact of persuasive messages on “us” and “them.” In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 265-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77-93.
14.
Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (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.
15.
Entman, R. M. (1994). Representation and reality in the portrayal of Blacks on network television news. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 509-520.
16.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H., & McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and third-person perception. Communication Research, 26, 275-302.
17.
Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif & M. O. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. 232-256). New York: Harper.
18.
Gandy, O. H., Jr., Kopp, K., Hands, T., Frazer, K., & Phillips, D. (1997). Race and risk: Factors affecting the framing of stories about inequality, discrimination, and just plain bad luck. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 158-173.
19.
Goshorn, K., & Gandy, O. H., Jr. (1995). Race, risk and responsibility: Editorial constraint in the framing of inequality. Journal of Communication, 45, 133-152.
20.
Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 58-67.
21.
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.
22.
Hamilton, J. T. (1998). Channeling violence: The economic market for violent television programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
24.
Hoffner, C., Plotkin, R. S., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Kamigaki, S. K., Hubbs, L. A., et al. (2001). The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of television violence. Journal of Communication, 51, 283-299.
25.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
26.
Howze, Y., & Weberman, D. (2001). On racial kinship. Social Theory and Practice, 27, 419-436.
27.
Kellstedt, P. M. (2000). Media framing and the dynamics of racial policy preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 245-260.
28.
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1988). Self-other discrimination and social categorization. Revenue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 239-256.
29.
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1993). They all look alike, but so do we...sometimes: Perceptions of in-group and out-group homogeneity as a function of sex and context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 111-124.
30.
Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. R., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66, 37-47.
31.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & 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.
32.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 24, 516-546.
33.
Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 57-85.
34.
Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353-378.
35.
Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (1999). The third-person effect: Perceptions of the media's influence and immoral consequences. Communication Research, 26, 523-549.
36.
Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2001). Third-person perception of television violence: The role of perceived knowledge. Media Psychology, 3, 211-236.
37.
Valk, A., & Karu, K. (2001). Ethnic attitudes in relation to ethnic pride and ethnic differentiation. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 583-602.
38.
White, H. A. (1997). Considering interacting factors in the third-person effect: Argument strength and social distance. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 557-564.
