Complaints about media coverage of presidential elections have raised concerns that the public may support restrictions on election campaign messages. This study, based on a nationwide telephone survey (N = 549), investigated perceptions of media influence and support for campaign message restrictions during the 1996 presidential campaign. The study was theoretically grounded in the third-person effect approach. The results confirmed the perceptual component hypothesis for individuals to perceive greater media influence on people other than themselves. They also confirmed the behavioral component hypothesis for third-person perception to lead to support for restrictions on election messages. The implications of the results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ansolabehere, S.
, & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
2.
Ansolabehere, S.
, Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demoralize the electorate?American Political Science Review, 88, 829-838.
3.
Atwood, L. E.
(1994). Illusions of media power: The third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 269-281.
4.
Baughman, J. L.
(1989). “The world is ruled by those who holler the loudest”: The third-person effect in American journalism history. Journalism History, 16(½), 12-19.
5.
Bennett, S. E.
(1989). Trends in Americans' political information. American Politics Quarterly, 17, 422-435.
6.
Benton, M.
, & Frazier, P. J. (1976). The agenda-setting function of mass media at three levels of “information holding.”Communication Research, 3, 261-274.
7.
Bereck, S. R.
, & Glynn, C. J. (1993, May). Interpersonal interaction and the third-person effect in potential first-time presidential election voters. Paper presented to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Charles, IL.
8.
Berelson, B.
(1952). Democratic theory and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16, 313-330.
9.
Blasi, V.
(1985). The pathological perspective and the first amendment. Columbia Law Review, 85, 449-514.
10.
Brosius, H.-B.
(1989). Influence of presentation features and news content on learning from television news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 36, 5-23.
11.
Brosius, H.-B.
, & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized negative attitudes towards media influence?International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 142-162.
12.
Brown, J. D.
(1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353-376.
13.
Budiansky, S.
(1995, January 9). The media's message. U.S. News and World Report, 119(1), 45-47.
14.
Canel, M. J.
, & Semetko, H. A. (Eds.). (1997). Perspectives on journalism, power, and citizenship [Special issue]. Political Communication, 14.
15.
Cappella, J.
, & Jamieson, K. H. (1994). Broadcast adwatch effects. Communication Research, 21, 342-365.
16.
Clendinen, D.
(1997). Politics, journalism and the scandal glut. Media Studies Journal, 11(1), 89-96.
17.
Cohen, J.
, & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 680-688.
18.
Cohen, J.
, Mutz, D. C., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161-173.
19.
Columbia Journalism Review. (1997, March/April). Punishing the press [Special issue], 36(2).
20.
Conners, J. L.
(1994, August). The third-person effect and social distance: Exploring who are the “others.” Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta, GA.
21.
Conners, J. L.
(1996, May). Social distance vs. cognitive distance and the third-person effect. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Chicago.
22.
Dalton, R. J.
(Ed.). (1993). Citizens, protest, and democracy [Special issue]. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528.
23.
Dautrich, K.
(1998). American attitudes about the first amendment. Storrs: Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut.
24.
Davison, W. P.
(1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
25.
Davison, W. P.
(1996). The third-person effect revisited. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 113-119.
26.
Dority, B.
(1991, January/February). Profile of a censor. Humanist, 51, 43-44.
27.
Driscoll, P. D.
, & Salwen, M. B. (1997). Self-perceived knowledge of the O. J. Simpson trial: Third-person perception and perceptions of guilt. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 541-556.
28.
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, 195-215.
29.
Duck, J. M.
, & Mullin, B. (1995). The perceived impact of mass media: Reconsidering the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77-93.
30.
Duck, J. M.
, Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: The third-person effect in the context of positive media content. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 117-140.
31.
Erskine, H.
(1970). The polls: Freedom of speech. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 483-496.
32.
Garneau, G.
(1996, September 14). Scandalous dilemma. Editor and Publisher, 129, 14-16, 24-25.
33.
Geimann, S.
(1997, March). It's fair to ask whether the ends justify the means. Quill, 85(2), 43.
34.
Glynn, C. J
. (1989). Perceptions of others' opinions as a component of public opinion. Social Science Research, 18, 53-69.
35.
Glynn, C. J.
, & Ostman, R. E. (1988). Public opinion about public opinion. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 299-306.
36.
Goldstein, M. L.
(1996). Guide to the 1996 presidential election. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
37.
Griswold, W. F.
(1992, August). Third-person effect and voting intentions in a presidential primary election. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Montreal, Canada.
38.
Gunther, A. C.
(1991a, August). The third-person effect and support for restrictions on pornography. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
39.
Gunther, A. C.
(1991b). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355-372.
40.
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.
41.
Gunther, A. C.
(1997, August). Effects of news slants and base rate information on public opinion inferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
42.
Gunther, A. C.
, & Hwa, A. P. (1996). Public perceptions of television influence and opinions about censorship in Singapore. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 248-265.
43.
Gunther, A. C.
, & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 58-67.
44.
Gunther, A. C.
, & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of commercials and public service announcements: The third-person effect in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574-596.
45.
Hand, L.
(1959). The spirit of liberty: Papers and addresses of Learned Hand. New York: Vintage.
46.
Hartley, T.
, & Dautrich, K. (1997, May). Voter evaluations of news media coverage of the 1996 presidential campaign. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Norfolk, VA.
47.
Hill, R. P.
(1989). An exploration of voter response to political advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 18(4), 14-22.
48.
Hoffner, C.
, Plotkin, R. S., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Schneider, S., Ricciotti, L. A., Kowalczyk, L., Silberg, K., & Pastorek, A. (1997, May). The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of television violence. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
49.
Howitt, E. B.
, Driscoll, P. D., & Salwen, M. B. (1998, February). The role of self-esteem, body satisfaction, and body image on female college students' third-person perceptions: An examination of the “thin ideal” myth. Paper presented at the Intercultural Communication Conference, Miami, FL.
50.
Hu, Y. W.
, & Wu, Y. C. (1996, August). Testing a theoretical model on the third person effect: Perceived impacts of election polls. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Anaheim, CA.
51.
Hu, Y. W.
, & Wu, Y. C. (1997, August). The third-person effect of election news: The synthesis of contingent factors into a causal model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
52.
Innes, J. M.
, & Zeitz, H. (1988). The public's view of the impact of the mass media: A test of the `third person' effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 457-463.
53.
Kaid, L. L.
(1996). Political communication. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 443-457). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
Kim, Y.
, Ahn, J., & Song, J. (1991, May). Perceived media influence on self and others on a controversial issue. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
55.
Lang, A.
(1995, May). The third person effect and political advertising: Truth, effectiveness, regulation and usefulness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM.
56.
Lasorsa, D. L.
(1989). Real and perceived effects of “Amerika.”Journalism Quarterly, 66, 373-378, 529.
57.
Lasorsa, D. L.
(1992). How media affect policy-makers: The third-person effect. In J. D. Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press and public policy (pp. 163-175). New York: Praeger.
58.
Lee, C.
, & Yang, S. (1996, August). Third-person perception and support for censorship of sexually explicit visual content: A Korean case. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Anaheim, CA.
59.
Manheim, J. B.
(1976). Setting the political agenda: Can democracy survive television?Journal of Communication, 26(2), 84-90.
60.
Marshall, T. R.
(1988). Public opinion, representation, and the modern Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 293-316.
61.
Matera, F.
, & Salwen, M. B. (1997, August). Issue salience and the third-person effect: Perceptions of illegal immigration in a Southwestern region. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
62.
McClure, R. D.
, & Patterson, T. E. (1976). Setting the political agenda: Print vs. network news. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 23-28.
63.
McCombs, M. E.
(1977). Newspapers vs. television: Mass communication effects across time. In D. L. Shaw & M. E. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press (pp. 89-105). St. Paul, MN: West.
64.
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.
65.
McMasters, P.
(1997). It didn't have to come to this. Quill, 85(2), 18-21.
66.
Mishler, W.
, & Sheehan, R. S. (1993). The Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution? The impact of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions. American Political Science Review, 87, 87-101.
67.
Mullins, L. E.
(1977). Agenda-setting and the young voter. In D. L. Shaw & M. E. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press (pp. 133-148). St. Paul, MN: West.
68.
Mutz, D. C.
(1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence: Third person effects and the public expression of opinions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1, 2-23.
69.
Nunn, C. Z.
, Crockett, J. J. Jr., & Williams, J. A. Jr. (1978). Tolerance for non-conformity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
70.
Ognianova, E.
, Meeds, R., Thorson, E., & Coyle, J. (1996, August). Political adwatches and the third-person effect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Anaheim, CA.
71.
Park, E.
(1997, August). Individualism/collectivism, cultural variations in self-concept and their implications for the false-uniqueness hypothesis: The cases of the third-person effect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
72.
Paxton, M. A. (1995). The third-person effect and attitudes toward expression. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee.
73.
Paxton, M.
(1997, March). Media use, “experts” and the third-person effect. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Southeast Colloquium, Knoxville, TN.
74.
Perloff, R. M.
(1993). Third-person effect research, 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167-184.
75.
Perloff, R. M.
(1996). Perceptions and conceptions of political media impact: The third-person effect and beyond. In A. N. Crigler (Ed.), The psychology of political communication (pp. 177-197). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
76.
Perloff, R. M.
, Neuendorf, K., Giles, D., Chang, T.-K., & Jeffres, L. W. (1992). Perceptions of “Amerika.”Mass Communication Review, 19(3), 42-47.
77.
Price, V.
, Huang, L.-N., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations toward media. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 525-540.
78.
Price, V.
, Tewksbury, D., & Huang, L.-N. (1996, May). Denying the Holocaust: Third-person effects and decisions to publish a controversial advertisement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Opinion Research, Salt Lake City, UT.
79.
ProCD.
(1996). Select Phone. Danvers, MA.
80.
Prothro, J. W.
, & Grigg, C. W. (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement. Journal of Politics, 22, 276-294.
81.
Rayburn, J. D. II.
(1996). Uses and gratifications. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 145-163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
82.
Riffe, D.
, & Aust, C. F. (1991, August). Freedom of expression: How much will the public tolerate? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
83.
Rojas, H.
, Shah, D. V., & Faber, R. J. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 163-186.
84.
Rosen, J.
, & Merritt, D. Jr. (1994). Public journalism: Theory and practice. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.
85.
Rucinski, D.
(1990, May). Two forms of political knowledge: Structural and media antecedents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.
86.
Rucinski, D.
, & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The “other” as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person effect in the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 345-368.
87.
Salmon, C. T.
(1989). Campaigns for social “improvement”: An overview of values, rationales, and impacts. In C. T. Salmon (Ed.), Information campaigns: Balancing social values and social change (pp. 19-53). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
88.
Salwen, M. B.
, & Driscoll, P. D. (1995). Feeling informed? The “assurance function” of the mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7, 270-275.
89.
Salwen, M. B.
, & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47(2), 60-78.
90.
Schoenbach, K.
, & Becker, L. B. (1995). Origins and consequences of mediated public opinion. In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 323-347). New York: Guilford.
91.
Seigenthaler, J.
(1991, February). The first amendment: The first 200 years. Presstime, 13(2), 24-30.
92.
Seigenthaler, J.
, & Hudson, D. L. Jr. (1997). Going undercover. Quill, 85(2), 17.
93.
Shah, D. V.
, Faber, R. J., Hanyoun, S. H., & Rojas, H., (1997, August). Censorship of political advertising: A third-person effect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
94.
Smith, H. H. III.
(1986). Newspaper readership as a determinant of political knowledge and activity. Newspaper Research Journal, 7(2), 47-54.
95.
Soruco, G.
(1996). Cubans and the mass media in South Florida. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
96.
Stempel, G. H. III.
(1991, August). Public attitudes about the first amendment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
97.
Stenbjerre, M.
, & Leets, L. (1997, August). On the anatomy of the third-person effect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
98.
Stouffer, S.
(1963). Communism, conformity and civil liberties. New York: Peter Smith.
99.
Thomas Jefferson Center for Protection of Free Expression
. (1990). Public attitudes toward censorship and free expression. Charlottesville, VA: National Research Corporation.
100.
Thorson, E.
, & Coyle, J. (1994). The third-person effect in three genres of commercials: Product and greening ads, and public service announcements. In K. W. King (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1993 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 103-111). Athens: University of Georgia.
101.
Tiedge, J. T.
, Silverblatt, A., Havice, M. J., & Rosenfield, R. (1991). Discrepancy between perceived first-person and perceived third-person mass media effects. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 141-154.
102.
Tipton, L. P.
, Haney, R. D., & Basehart, J. R. (1975). Media agenda-setting in city and state election campaigns. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 15-22.
103.
Weaver, D. H.
(1977). Political issues and voter need for orientation. In D. L. Shaw & M. E. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press (pp. 107-119). St. Paul, MN: West.
104.
West, D. M.
(1993). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952-1992. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
105.
Willnat, L.
(1996). Mass media and political outspokenness in Hong Kong: Linking the third-person effect and the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 187-211.
106.
Zalkind, S. S.
(Ed.). (1975). Civil liberties [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 31(2).
107.
Zalkind, S. S.
, Gaugler, E. A., & Schwartz, R. M. (1975). Civil liberties attitudes and personality measures: Some exploratory research. Journal of Social Issues, 31(2), 77-91.
108.
Zellman, G. L.
(1975). Antidemocratic beliefs: A survey and some explanations. Journal of Social Issues, 31(2), 31-52.
