Extending the influence of presumed media influence model, this study examined direct and indirect media influences on pro-environmental behavioral intentions. We empirically tested perceived media influence on others as a distinct and independent mediator between perceived media exposure of others and perceived social norms, using a nationally representative sample of 1,144 Singaporeans. Using structural equation modeling, influence of presumed media influence accounted for direct and indirect media effects on attitudes, social norms, and pro-environmental behavioral intentions. Perceived media influence on others was associated with behavioral intentions. Attitudes, descriptive, and subjective norms accounted further for this relationship. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In AlbarracinD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
ArltD.HoppeI.WollingJ. (2011). Climate change and media usage: Effects on problem awareness and behavioural intentions. International Communication Gazette, 73, 45-63.
5.
BambergS.HuneckeM.BlöbaumA. (2007). Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 190-203.
6.
BarrettP. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815-824.
7.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
8.
BollenK. A.LongJ. C. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
ChiaS. C. (2010). How social influence mediates media effects on adolescents’ materialism. Communication Research, 37, 400-419.
10.
ChoH.ChoiJ. (2011). Television, gender norms, and tanning attitudes and intentions of young men and women. Communication Studies, 62, 508-530.
CialdiniR. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109.
13.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
CohenJ.TsfatiY. (2009). The influence of presumed influence on strategic voting. Communication Research, 36, 359-378.
17.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
18.
EvelandW. P.Jr.GlynnC. J. (2008). Theories on the perception of social reality. In DonsbachW.TraugottM. W. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 155-163). London, England: Sage.
19.
EvelandW. P.Jr.NathansonA. I.DetenberB. H.McLeodD. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third person perception. Communication Research, 26, 275-302.
20.
GuntherA. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25, 486-504.
21.
GuntherA. C.BoltD.BorzekowskiD. L. G.LiebhartJ. L.DillardJ. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52-68.
22.
GuntherA. C.ChristenC. T.LiebhartJ. L.ChiaS. C. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 295-320.
23.
GuntherA. C.StoreyJ. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199-215.
24.
GuntherA. C.ThorsonE. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of commercials and public service announcements: The third-person effect in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574-596.
25.
HansenA. (2011). Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. International Communication Gazette, 73, 7-25.
26.
HartP. S. (2010). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33, 28-51.
27.
HayesA. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
HoS. S.DetenberB. H.MalikS.NeoR. L. (2012). The roles of value predispositions, communication, and third person perception on public support for censorship of films with homosexual content. Asian Journal of Communication, 22, 78-97. doi:10.1080/01292986.2011.622775
29.
HoS. S.LeeE. W. J.NgK.LeongG. S. H.ThamT. H. M. (forthcoming). For fit’s sake: A norms-based approach to healthy behaviors though influence of presumed media influence. Health Communication.
30.
HoS. S.LiaoY.RosenthalS. (2015). Applying the theory of planned behavior and media dependency theory: Predictors of public pro-environmental behavioral intentions in Singapore. Environmental Communication, 9, 77-99. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.932819.
31.
HoS. S.PehX.SohV. W. L. (2013). The cognitive mediation model: Factors influencing public knowledge of the H1N1 pandemic and intention to take precautionary behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 18, 773-794.
32.
HoS. S.PoorisatT.NeoR. L.DetenberB. H. (2014). Examining how presumed media influence affects social norms and adolescents’ attitudes and drinking behavior intentions in rural Thailand. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 282-302.
33.
HoffnerC.PlotkinR. S.BuchananM.AndersonJ. D.KamigakiS. K.HubbsL. A.PastroekA. (2001). The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of television violence. Journal of Communication, 51, 283-299.
34.
HolbertR. L.KwakN.ShahD. V. (2003). Environmental concern, patterns of television viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 177-196.
35.
JensenJ. D.HurleyR. J. (2005). Third-person effects and the environment: Social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior. Journal of Communication, 55, 242-256.
36.
JiangR.ChiaS. (2009). The direct and indirect effects of advertising on materialism of college students in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 19, 319-336.
37.
KaiserF. G.DokaG.HofstetterP.RanneyM. A. (2003). Ecological behavior and its environmental consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self-report measure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 11-20.
38.
KellowayE. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40.
LeiserowitzA. A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?Risk Analysis, 25, 1433-1442.
41.
LoweT.BrownK.DessaiS.de França DoriaM.HaynesK.VincentK. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 435-457.
MerendaP. F. (1997). A guide to the proper use of factor analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: Pitfalls to avoid. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 156-164.
NisbetM. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 51(2), 12-23.
47.
OckwellD.WhitmarshL. E.O’NeillS. (2009). Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement?Science Communication, 30, 305-327.
48.
PaekH. (2008). Mechanisms through which adolescents attend and respond to antismoking media campaigns. Journal of Communication, 58, 84-105.
49.
PaekH. (2009). Differential effects of different peers: Further evidence of the peer proximity thesis in perceived peer influence on college students’ smoking. Journal of Communication, 59, 434-455.
50.
PaekH.GuntherA. C. (2007). How peer proximity moderates indirect media influence on adolescent smoking. Communication Research, 34, 407-432.
51.
ParkH. S.SmithS. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms personal descriptive and injunctive norms, societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33, 194-218.
52.
ParkS.-Y. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on women’s desire to be thin. Communication Research, 32, 594-614.
53.
PerloffR. M. (1996). Perceptions and conceptions of political media impact: The third-person effect and beyond. In CriglerA. N. (Ed.), The psychology of political communication (pp. 177-197). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
54.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
SternP. C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
57.
SunY.ShenL.PanZ. (2008). On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 35, 257-278.
58.
Tal-OrN.CohenJ.TsfatiY.GuntherA. C. (2010). Testing causal direction in the influence of presumed media influence. Communication Research, 37, 801-824.
59.
Tal-OrN.TsfatiY.GuntherA. C. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence: Origins and implications of the third-person perception. In NabiR. L.OliverM. B. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 99-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
TsfatiY.CohenJ.GuntherA. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33, 143-166.
61.
VlekC.StegL. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 1-19.
62.
WheatonB.MuthenB.AlwinD. F.SummersG. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84-136.
63.
WhiteK. M.SmithJ. R.TerryD. J.GreensladeJ. H.McKimmieB. M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behavior: The role of descriptive, injunctive and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 135-158.
64.
WuW.KooS. H. (2001). Perceived effects of sexually explicit Internet content: The third-person effect in Singapore. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 260-274.
