Perceived Influence of Partisan News and Online News Participation: Third-person Effect,Hostile Media Phenomenon,and Cognitive Elaboration

Abstract

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.

Keywords

third-person effect hostile media phenomenon elaboration news sharing news commenting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrams

Hogg

M. A.

(1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1(1), 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779108401862

Arpan

L. M.

Raney

A. 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

Asch

S. E.

(1948). The doctrine of suggestion, prestige and imitation in social psychology. Psychological Review, 55(5), 250–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057270

Barnidge

Rojas

(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

Bobkowski

P. 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

Brown

J. 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

Burgoon

J. 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

Chen

Chaiken

(1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In Chaiken

Trope

(Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). The Guilford Press.

Chung

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(2), 312–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12078

10.

Cohen

G. 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.

Cohen

Davis

R. 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.

Davison

W. P.

(1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763

13.

Delli Carpini

M. X.

Cook

F. L.

Jacobs

L. 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.

Dilliplane

Goldman

S. K.

Mutz

D. 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.

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(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250206

16.

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(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_2

17.

Eveland

W. 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.

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(4), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/11.4.315

19.

Fiske

S. T.

Taylor

S. E.

(2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

20.

Gunther

A. 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.

Gunther

A. C.

Edgerly

Akin

Broesch

J. A.

(2012). Partisan evaluation of partisan information. Communication Research, 39(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212441794

22.

Gunther

A. C.

McLaughlin

Gotlieb

M. R.

Wise

(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

23.

Gunther

A. C.

Storey

J. D.

(2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x

24.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

25.

Hewstone

Rubin

Willis

(2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109

26.

Hogg

M. A.

Reid

S. A.

(2006). Social identity, self-categorization and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x

27.

Iyengar

Sood

Lelkes

(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.

Jang

S. M.

Kim

J. 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.

Kahneman

(2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrer, Straus and Giroux.

30.

Kim

(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.

Kim

Baek

Y. M.

Kim

(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.

Lee

Paik

J. 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.

Lim

J. 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.

V.-H.

Wei

H.-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.

McLeod

D. M.

Eveland

W. P.

Nathanson

A. 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.

McLeod

D. M.

Wise

Perryman

(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.

Meirick

P. 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.

Mutz

D. C.

(2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.

39.

Perloff

R. 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.

Perloff

R. M.

(2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), Media effects: Advanced in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 252–268). Routledge.

41.

Petty

R. E.

Brinõl

Priester

J. R.

(2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), Media effects: Advanced in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 125–164). Routledge.

42.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Leonard

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 124–181). Academic Press.

43.

Pew Research Center. (2019, September 11). Key findings about the online news landscape in America. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/11/key-findings-about-the-online-news-landscape-in-america/

44.

Price

Tewksbury

Huang

L.-N.

(1998). Third-person effects on publication of a Holocaust-denial advertisement. Journal of Communication, 48(2), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02745.x

45.

Reid

S. A.

(2012). A self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01647.x

46.

Reid

S. A.

Byrne

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(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00294.x

47.

Reid

S. A.

Hogg

M. A.

(2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31(1), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00867.x

48.

Rojas

(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.

Ross

(1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Academy Press.

50.

Sun

(2013). When presumed influence turns real: An indirect route of media influence. In Dillard

J. P.

Shen

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 371–387). SAGE Publications.

51.

Sun

Shen

Pan

(2008). On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 35(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207313167

52.

Tewksbury

Moy

Weis

D. 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.

Thompson

Wang

Daya

(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.

Trilling

Tolochko

Burscher

(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.

Tsfati

(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.

Turner

(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.

Valenzuela

Piña

Ramírez

(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.

Vallone

R. P.

Ross

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(3), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577

59.

Weber

(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.

Wei

Chia

S. C.

V.-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.

White

H. 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.

0.00 MB

1.12 MB