This study suggests a unified framework to examine the third-person perception (TPP) in the context of partisan news use. By amalgamating social identity theories with the elaboration likelihood model or the heuristic-systematic model, Study 1 investigates the role of message features (source cues and content slant), targets (in-group vs. out-group), and audience characteristics (political identity and elaboration) on TPP. Two online experiments conducted in the US and South Korea show that differences between pro- and counter-attitudinal content are larger when the target is an out-group member. TPP is also amplified when audiences have high elaboration. Study 2 explores the interplay between TPP and the hostile media phenomenon (HMP) on news sharing and commenting online. The result reveals that TPP reduces news sharing/commenting intention by decreasing perceptions of news quality. In addition, HMP strengthens the indirect effect of TPP on news sharing/commenting for out-group members, but mitigates it for in-group members.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1(1), 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779108401862
2.
ArpanL. M.RaneyA. A. (2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900308000203
3.
AschS. E. (1948). The doctrine of suggestion, prestige and imitation in social psychology. Psychological Review, 55(5), 250–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057270
4.
BarnidgeM.RojasH. (2014). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and political talk: Expanding the corrective action hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt032
5.
BobkowskiP. S. (2015). Sharing the news: Effects of information utility and opinion leadership on online news sharing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(2), 320–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015573194
6.
BrownJ. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4(4), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1986.4.4.353
7.
BurgoonJ. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x
8.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). The Guilford Press.
9.
ChungS.MoonS.-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(2), 312–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12078
10.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
11.
CohenJ.DavisR. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 680–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909106800409
12.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763
13.
Delli CarpiniM. X.CookF. L.JacobsL. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
14.
DilliplaneS.GoldmanS. K.MutzD. C. (2013). Televised exposure to politics: New measures for a fragmented media environment. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00600.x
15.
DuckJ. M.HoggM. A.TerryD. 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(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250206
16.
DuckJ. M.TerryD. J.HoggM. A. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_2
17.
EvelandW. P. (2002). News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900207900103
18.
EvelandW. P.McLeodD. M. (1999). The effect of social desirability on perceived media impact: Implications for third-person perceptions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11(4), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/11.4.315
19.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
20.
GuntherA. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00712.x
21.
GuntherA. C.EdgerlyS.AkinH.BroeschJ. A. (2012). Partisan evaluation of partisan information. Communication Research, 39(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212441794
22.
GuntherA. C.McLaughlinB.GotliebM. R.WiseD. (2017). Who says what to whom: Content versus source in the hostile media effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw009
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
28.
JangS. M.KimJ. K. (2018). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.034
29.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrer, Straus and Giroux.
30.
KimH. (2015). Perception and emotion: The indirect effect of reported election poll results on political participation intention and support for restrictions. Mass Communication & Society, 18(3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.945650
31.
KimK.BaekY. M.KimN. (2015). Online news diffusion dynamics and public opinion formation: A case study of the controversy over judges’ personal opinion expression on SNS in Korea. The Social Science Journal, 52(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.02.001
32.
LeeS.PaikJ. E. (2017). How partisan newspapers represented a pandemic: The case of the Middle East respiratory syndrome in South Korea. Asian Journal of Communication, 27(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2016.1235592
33.
LimJ. S. (2017). The third-person effect of online advertising of cosmetic surgery: A path model for predicting restrictive versus corrective actions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(4), 972–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016687722
34.
LoV.-H.WeiR.LuH.-Y. (2017). Issue importance, third-person effects of protest news, and participation in Taiwan’s sunflower movement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 682–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016670122
35.
McLeodD. M.EvelandW. P.NathansonA. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024002003
36.
McLeodD. M.WiseD.PerrymanM. (2017). Thinking about the media: A review of theory and research on media perceptions, media effects perceptions, and their consequences. Review of Communication Research, 5, 35–83. https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2017.05.01.013
37.
MeirickP. C. (2004). Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: Political advertising and first- and third-person effects. Communication Research, 31(2), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203261514
38.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
39.
PerloffR. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16(2), 236–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365089016002004
40.
PerloffR. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advanced in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 252–268). Routledge.
41.
PettyR. E.BrinõlP.PriesterJ. R. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advanced in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 125–164). Routledge.
42.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In LeonardB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 124–181). Academic Press.
ReidS. A.ByrneS.BrundidgeJ. S.ShohamM. D.MarlowM. L. (2007). A critical test of self-enhancement, exposure, and self-categorization explanations for first- and third-person perceptions. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00294.x
RojasH. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq018
49.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Academy Press.
50.
SunY. (2013). When presumed influence turns real: An indirect route of media influence. In DillardJ. P.ShenL. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 371–387). SAGE Publications.
51.
SunY.ShenL.PanZ. (2008). On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 35(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207313167
52.
TewksburyD.MoyP.WeisD. S. (2004). Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02618.x
53.
ThompsonN.WangX.DayaP. (2020). Determinants of news sharing behavior on social media. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 60(6), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2019.1566803
54.
TrillingD.TolochkoP.BurscherB. (2017). From newsworthiness to shareworthiness: How to predict news sharing based on article characteristics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016654682
55.
TsfatiY. (2007). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and minority alienation: The case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 632–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00361.x
56.
TurnerJ. (2007). The messenger overwhelming the message: Ideological cues and perceptions of bias in television news. Political Behavior, 29, 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9031-z
57.
ValenzuelaS.PiñaM.RamírezJ. (2017). Behavioral effects of framing on social media users: How conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12325
58.
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. 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(3), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
59.
WeberP. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941–957. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813495165
60.
WeiR.ChiaS. C.LoV.-H. (2011). Third-person effect and hostile media perception influences on voter attitudes toward polls in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq044
61.
WhiteH. A. (1997). Considering interacting factors in the third-person effect: Argument strength and social distance. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(3), 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909707400309
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
