Using survey data with a national representative of U.S. adult women, the current study tested both the perceptual and behavioral hypotheses for the third-person effect of online advertising of cosmetic surgery (OACS) in a theoretical process model. A strong third-person perception (TPP) was observed in assessing the influence of OACS. The results of a path analysis revealed that the self–other exposure gap and social undesirability were positive predictors of the TPP. TPP had a direct impact on support for regulation (SFR) of OACS and an indirect effect on corrective actions. Both SFR and online political self-efficacy (OPSE) were the good predictors for corrective actions.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
3.
BanningS. A. (2006). Third-person effects on political participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 785-800.
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, 135-156. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edt032
5.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
7.
BernhardU.DohleM. (2015). Corrective or confirmative actions? Political online participation as a consequence of presumed media influences in election campaigns. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 285-302. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1048918
8.
BunkerC.GriffithsT. (2012). Non-surgical invasive procedures such as dermal fillers should also be regulated. British Medical Journal, 345, Article e7996. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7996
9.
CapraraG. V.VecchioneM.CapannaC.MebaneM. (2009). Perceived political self-efficacy: Theory, assessment, and applications. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1002-1020. doi:10.1002/ejsp.604
10.
ChiaS. C. (2007). Third-person perceptions about idealized body image and weight-loss behavior. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 677-694. doi:10.1177/107769900708400402
11.
ChiaS. C.LuK.-H.McLeodD. M. (2004). Sex, lies, and video compact disc: A case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship. Communication Research, 31, 109-130. doi:10.1177/0093650203260204
12.
DavidP.JohnsonM. A. (1998). The role of self in third-person effects about body image. Journal of Communication, 48, 37-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02769.x
13.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15. doi:10.1086/268763
14.
DohleM.BernhardU. (2014). Presumed online media influence and support for censorship: Results from a survey among German parliamentarians. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 256-268. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edt027
15.
EastinM. S.LaRoseR. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x
16.
EvelandW. P.Jr.McLeodD. M. (1999). The effect of social desirability on perceived media impact: Implications for third-person perceptions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11, 315-333. doi:10.1093/ijpor/11.4.315
17.
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. doi:10.1177/009365099026003001
18.
FeldmanL.HartP. S.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC. (2015). Do hostile media perceptions lead to action? The role of hostile media perceptions, political efficacy, and ideology in predicting climate change activism. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650214565914
19.
FengG. C.GuoS. Z. (2012). Support for censorship: A multilevel meta-analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Reports, 25, 40-50. doi:10.1080/08934215.2012.661019
20.
FolkmanS.LazarusR. S.Dunkel-SchetterC.DeLongisA.GruenR. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992
21.
FrederickD. A.LeverJ.PeplauL. A. (2007). Interest in cosmetic surgery and body image: Views of men and women across the lifespan. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 120, 1407-1415. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000279375.26157.64
22.
GolanG. J.LimJ. S. (2016). Third-person effect of ISIS’s recruitment propaganda: Online political self-efficacy and social media activism. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4681-4701.
GuntherA. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27-38. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00712.x
25.
GuntherA. C.MundyP. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 70, 58-87. doi:10.1177/107769909307000107
26.
GuntherA. C.ThorsonE. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements. Communication Research, 19, 574-596. doi:10.1177/009365092019005002
27.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new Millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360
28.
HenriksenL.FloraJ. A. (1999). Third-person perception and children: Perceived impact of pro- and anti-smoking ads. Communication Research, 26, 643-665. doi:10.1177/009365099026006001
29.
HolbertR. L.GrillC. (2015). Clarifying and expanding the use of confirmatory factor analysis in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 292-319. doi:10.1177/1077699015583718
30.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
31.
HuhJ.DelormeD. E.ReidL. N. (2004). The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context. Communication Research, 31, 568-599. doi:10.1177/0093650204267934
32.
JensenJ. D.HurleyR. J. (2005). Third-person effects and the environment: Social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior. Journal of Communication, 55, 242-256. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02670.x
KimH. (2016). The role of emotions and culture in the third-person effect process of news coverage of election poll results. Communication Research, 43, 109-130. doi:10.1177/0093650214558252
35.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
LambeJ. L.McLeodD. M. (2005). Understanding third-person perception processes: Predicting perceived impact on self and others for multiple expressive contexts. Journal of Communication, 55, 277-291. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02672.x
37.
LeeB.TamboriniR. (2005). Third-Person effect and Internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55, 292-310. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02673.x
38.
LeungW. C.LoV.-H. (2015). Perceived harm of online drug-encouraging messages: Third-person effect and adolescents’ support for rectifying measures. Youth & Society, 47, 850-872. doi:10.1177/0044118x14565622
39.
LiaoL.-M.TaghinejadiN.CreightonS. M. (2012). An analysis of the content and clinical implications of online advertisements for female genital cosmetic surgery. BMJ Open, 2(6), Article e001908. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001908
40.
LimJ. S.GolanG. J. (2011). Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on YouTube. Communication Research, 38, 710-727. doi:10.1177/0093650211405649
41.
MartinezC. (2014). An argument for states to outlaw “revenge porn” and for congress to amend 47 USC § 230: How our current laws do little to protect victims. Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 14, 236-351.
42.
McLeodD. M.DetenberB. H.EvelandW. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51, 678-695. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02902.x
43.
McLeodD. M.EvelandW. P.Jr.NathansonA. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153-174. doi:10.1177/009365097024002003
44.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
45.
NathansonA. I.EvelandW. P.Jr.ParkH.-S.PaulB. (2002). Perceived media influence and efficacy as predictors of caregivers’ protective behaviors. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 385-410. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4603_5
46.
PaekH.-J. (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. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01423.x
47.
PaulB.SalwenM. B.DupagneM. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 57-85. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04
48.
PerloffR. M. (1999). The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353-378. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0104_4
49.
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, 343-363. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq018
50.
RojasH.ShahD. V.FaberR. J. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 163-186. doi:10.1093/ijpor/8.2.163
51.
RosemanI. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 161-200. doi:10.1080/02699939108411034
52.
RosemanI. J. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions: Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10, 241-278. doi:10.1080/026999396380240
53.
RosenthalS.DetenberB. H.RojasH. (2015). Efficacy beliefs in third-person effects. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650215570657
54.
SalwenM. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25, 259-285. doi:10.1177/009365098025003001
55.
SchererK. R. (1999). Appraisal theory. In DalgleishT.PowerM. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 637-663). New York, NY: John Wiley.
56.
SchmierbachM.BoyleM. P.XuQ.McLeodD. M. (2011). Exploring third-person differences between gamers and non-gamers. Journal of Communication, 61, 307-327. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01541.x
57.
ShahD. V.FaberR. J.YounS. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26, 240-267. doi:10.1177/009365099026002006
58.
ShenL.HugginsC. (2013). Testing the model of influence of presumed influence in a boundary condition: The impact of question order. Human Communication Research, 39, 470-491. doi:10.1111/hcre.12013
59.
ShenL.PalmerJ.Mercer KollarL. M.ComerS. (2015). A social comparison explanation for the third-person perception. Communication Research, 42, 260-280. doi:10.1177/0093650212467644
60.
ShinD.-H.KimJ. K. (2011). Alcohol product placements and the third-person effect. Television & New Media, 12, 412-440. doi:10.1177/1527476410385477
61.
SpilsonS. V.ChungK. C.GreenfieldM. L. V.WaltersM. (2002). Are plastic surgery advertisements conforming to the ethical codes of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons?Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 109, 1181-1186.
62.
StephensD. L.HillR. P.HansonC. (1994). The beauty myth and female consumers: The controversial role of advertising. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28, 137-153. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.1994.tb00819.x
63.
StevensR. J. (2014). Social media use and impact on plastic surgery practice. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 133(2), 228e-229e.
64.
SunY.PanZ.ShenL. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58, 280-300. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00385.x
65.
SunY.ShenL.PanZ. (2008). On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 35, 257-278. doi:10.1177/0093650207313167
66.
TaberS. (2012). Should all advertising of cosmetic surgery be banned? No. British Medical Journal, 345, Article e7508. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7508
67.
Tal-OrN.CohenJ.TsfatiY.GuntherA. C. (2010). Testing causal direction in the influence of presumed media influence. Communication Research, 37, 801-824. doi:10.1177/0093650210362684
68.
VelasquezA.LaRoseR. (2015a). Social media for social change: Social media political efficacy and activism in student activist groups. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59, 456-474. doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1054998
69.
VelasquezA.LaRoseR. (2015b). Youth collective activism through social media: The role of collective efficacy. New Media & Society, 17, 899-918. doi:10.1177/1461444813518391
70.
WanF.FaberR. J.FungA. (2003). Perceived impact of thin female models in advertising: A cross-cultural examination of third person perception and its impact on behaviors. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 15, 51-73.
71.
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, 169-190. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq044
72.
WenN.ChiaS. C.HaoX. (2014). What do social media say about makeovers? A content analysis of cosmetic surgery videos and viewers’ responses on YouTube. Health Communication, 30(9), 1-10. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.913220
73.
WheelerC. K.SaidH.PruczR.RodrichR. J.MathesD. W. (2011). Social media in plastic surgery practices: Emerging trends in North America. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 31, 435-441. doi:10.1177/1090820x11407483
74.
WongW. W.CampM. C.CampJ. S.GuptaS. C. (2010). The quality of Internet advertising in aesthetic surgery: An in-depth analysis. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 30, 735-743. doi:10.1177/1090820x10381987
75.
YounS.FaberR. J.ShahD. V. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 633-649. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200007)17:7
76.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206.
77.
ZhongZ.-J. (2009). Third-person perceptions and online games: A comparison of perceived antisocial and prosocial game effects. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 286-306. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01441.x
78.
ZipurskyB. C. (2010). Snyder v. Phelps, outrageousness, and the open texture of tort law. DePaul Law Review, 60, 473-520.
79.
ZuJ.GonzenbachW. J. (2008). Does a perceptual discrepancy lead to action? A meta-analysis of the behavioral component of the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 375-385. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn031
