Stereotyping of Muslims in Germany: How the Presumed Influence of Media Stereotypes on Others Influences Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions Toward Muslims
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2021
Stereotyping of Muslims in Germany: How the Presumed Influence of Media Stereotypes on Others Influences Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions Toward Muslims
The study investigates the influence of media stereotypes on the degree of presumed media influence on others and the resulting effects for people’s own attitudes toward a minority. We examine how the presumption of negative effects of media stereotypes on others can lead to a correction of one’s own attitude toward Muslims. In an online experiment, we test the relationship among media stereotyping, presumed media effects, and attitudinal and behavioral consequences. The results show that one’s own attitude toward Muslims is corrected when people presume a negative influence of media stereotypes about Muslims on other people.
AlwinD. F. (1997). Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales: Which are better?Sociological Methods & Research, 25(3), 318–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124197025003003
2.
AronsonJ.McGloneM. S. (2009). Stereotype and social identity threat. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 153–178). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
3.
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
4.
BentlerP. M.YuanK.-H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mb340203
5.
BodenhausenG. V.MacraeC. N.HugenbergK. (2003). Social cognition. In MillonT.LernerM. J.WeinerI. B. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 257–282). John Wiley.
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.
CananC.ForoutanN. (2016). Changing perceptions? Effects of multiple social categorisation on German population’s perception of Muslims. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(12), 1905–1924. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2016.1164591
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, 312–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12078
10.
CohenJ.MutzD.PriceV.GuntherA. (1988). Perceived impact on defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1086/269092
11.
CohenJ.TsfatiY. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence on strategic voting. Communication Research, 36(3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333026
DavidP.MorrisonG.JohnsonM. A.RossF. (2002). Body image, race, and fashion models: Social distance and social identification in third-person effects. Communication Research, 29(3), 270–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029003003
14.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763
15.
DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 3–28). SAGE.
DuckJ. M.HoggM. A.TerryD. J. (1999). Social identity and perceptions of media persuasion: Are we always less influenced than others?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(9), 1879–1899. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00156.x
18.
DuckJ. M.MullinB. A. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250107
19.
EntmanR. M.MatthesJ.PellicanoL. (2009). Nature, sources, and effects of news framing. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 175–190). Routledge.
20.
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
21.
EvelandW. P.NathansonA. I.DetenberB. H.McLeodD. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary. Communication Research, 26(3), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003001
22.
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, 44(8), 1099–1124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565914
23.
GuntherA. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research, 18(3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365091018003004
24.
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
25.
GuntherA. C.StoreyJ. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/53.2.199
26.
HoffnerC.BuchananM. (2002). Parents’ responses to television violence: The third-person perception, parental mediation, and support for censorship. Media Psychology, 4(3), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0403_02
27.
HoffnerC.BuchananM.AndersonJ. D.HubbsL. A.KamigakiS. K.KowalczykL.PlotkinR. S. (1999). Support for censorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect and news exposure. Communication Research, 26(6), 726–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026006004
28.
HoggM. A.ShermanD. K.DierselhuisJ.MaitnerA. T.MoffittG. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 135–142.
29.
HoltzP.DahindenJ.WagnerW. (2013). German Muslims and the ‘integration debate’: Negotiating identities in the face of discrimination. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-012-9227-6
30.
JuddC. M.ParkB.RyanC. S.BrauerM.KrausS. (1995). Stereotypes and ethnocentrism: Diverging interethnic perceptions of African American and White American youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 460–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.460
KundaZ. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
33.
LeeB. K.TamboriniR. (2005). Third-person effect and Internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55(2), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02673.x
34.
LeeS. A.GibbonsJ. A.ThompsonJ. M.TimaniH. S. (2009). The Islamophobia Scale: Instrument development and initial validation. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19(2), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610802711137
35.
LeiP.-W.WuQ. (2012). Estimation in structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. H. (Eds.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 172–180). Guilford Press.
36.
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
37.
LimJ. S.GolanG. J. (2011). Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on YouTube. Communication Research, 38(5), 710–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211405649
38.
LivingstonR. W. (2002). The role of perceived negativity in the moderation of African Americans’ implicit and explicit racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(4), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00002-1
39.
McCaslinM. J.PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (2010). Self-enhancement and theory-based correction processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 830–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.002
40.
McLeodD. M.DetenberB. H.EvelandW. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51(4), 678–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02902.x
41.
McLeodD. M.EvelandW. P.NathansonA. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024002003
42.
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
43.
MeirickP. C. (2005a). Rethinking the target corollary: The effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research, 32(6), 822–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205281059
44.
MeirickP. C. (2005b). Self-enhancement motivation as a third variable in the relationship between first- and third-person effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(4), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh077
45.
MeirickP. C. (2008). Targeted audiences in anti-drug ads: Message cues, perceived exposure, perceived effects, and support for funding. Media Psychology, 11(2), 283–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260801893059
PenningJ. M. (2009). Americans’ views of Muslims and Mormons: A social identity theory approach. Politics and Religion, 2(2), 277–302.
48.
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(2), 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1007
RichardsonJ. E. (2004). (Mis)representing Islam: The racism and rhetoric of British broadsheet newspapers. John Benjamins Publishing.
51.
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
52.
RojasH.BarnidgeM.AbrilE. P. (2016). Egocentric publics and corrective action. Communication and the Public, 1(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047315619421
53.
RojasH.ShahD. V.FaberR. F. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/8.2.163
54.
SaleemM.YangG. S.RamasubramanianS. (2016). Reliance on direct and mediated contact and public policies supporting outgroup harm. Journal of Communication, 66, 604–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12234
55.
SalwenM. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25(3), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365098025003001
56.
SavelkoulM.ScheepersP.TolsmaJ.HagendoornL. (2010). Anti-Muslim attitudes in the Netherlands: Tests of contradictory hypotheses derived from ethnic competition theory and intergroup contact theory. European Sociological Review, 27(6), 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq035
57.
ScharrerE. (2002). Third-person perception and television violence: The role of out-group stereotyping in perceptions of susceptibility to effects. Communication Research, 29(6), 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002237832
58.
ShahD. V.FaberR. F.YounS. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26(2), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026002006
59.
ShenL.PalmerJ.KollarL. M. M.ComerS. (2015). A social comparison explanation for the third-person perception. Communication Research, 42(2), 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212467644
60.
ShraugerJ. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076791
61.
StrabacZ.ListhaugO. (2008). Anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe: A multilevel analysis of survey data from 30 countries. Social Science Research, 37(1), 268–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.02.004
62.
SunY.ShenL. J.PanZ. D. (2008). On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 35(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207313167
63.
TajfelH. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In TajfelH. (Ed.), European monographs in social psychology: Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (Vol. 14, pp. 61–76). Academic Press.
64.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), The Nelson-Hall series in psychology: Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 276–293). Nelson-Hall.
65.
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). SAGE.
66.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
67.
Velasco GonzálezK.VerkuytenM.WeesieJ.PoppeE. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608x284443
68.
VerkuytenM.ThijsJ. (2010). Religious group relations among Christian, Muslim and nonreligious early adolescents in the Netherlands. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609342984
VorländerH.HeroldM.SchällerS. (2018). PEGIDA and new right-wing populism in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan.
71.
WegenerD. T.PettyR. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.36
72.
WegenerD. T.PettyR. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 141–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60017-9
73.
YsseldykR.MathesonK.AnismanH. (2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309349693
74.
ZhongZ.-J. (2009). Third-person perceptions and online games: A comparison of perceived antisocial and prosocial game effects. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01441.x
