This study explores the perceived effects of political ads that appeared on social media in the 2012 presidential campaign from a third-person effect perspective. Results of a survey using a probability sample of 496 college students indicated that the respondents tend to believe that political ads on social media have a greater influence on others than on themselves. However, the more desirable they viewed such ads, the more they admitted the ads to having influenced themselves. Finally, third-person perception of political ads on social media was found to be a positive predictor of engagement in promotional social media behavior after the influences of demographics, social media use, and political attitudes were taken into consideration.
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. NewYork, NY: The Free Press.
2.
AncuM.CozmaR. (2009). MySpace politics: Uses and gratifications of befriending candidates. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 567–583.
3.
ArringtonM. (2005). 85% of college students use Facebook. TechCrunch, 7, 2005.
4.
AustinE. W.PinkletonB. E. (1995). Positive and negative effects of political disaffection on the less experienced voter. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39, 1–21.
5.
BalchG. I. (1974). Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept “Sense of Political Efficacy”. Political Methodology, 1–43.
6.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and actions: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7.
BanningS. A. (2007). Third-person perceptions and political participation. Journalism & Mass CommunicationQuarterly, 83, 785–800.
CappellaJ. N.JamiesonK. H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 71–84.
10.
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.
11.
CohenJ.DavisR. T. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 680–688.
12.
CohenJ.MutzD. C.PriceV.GuntherA. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: an experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161–173.
13.
CohenJ.TsfatiY. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence on strategic voting. Communication Research, 36, 359–378.
14.
ConverseP. E. (1979). Rejoinder to Abramson. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 97.
15.
DuckJ. M.HoggM. A.Terry D. J. (1999). Social identity and perceptions of media persuasion: Are we always less influenced than others?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1879–1899.
16.
DuckJ. M.MullinB. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77–93.
17.
EsserF.de VreeseC. H. (2007). Comparing young voters’ political engagement in the United States and Europe. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1195–1213.
18.
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, 315–333.
19.
FernandesJ.GiurcanuM.BowersK.NeelyJ. (2010). The writing on the wall: A content analysis of college students’ Facebook groups for the 2008 Presidential election. MassCommunication and Society, 13, 653–675.
Gil de ZunigaH.PuigE.RojasH. (2009). Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: An assessment of how the Internet is changing the political environment. New Media & Society, 11, 553–574.
22.
GolanG. J.BanningS. A. (2008). Exploring a link between the third-person effect and the theory of reasoned action beneficial ads and social expectations. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 208–224.
23.
GolanG. J.BanningS. A.LundyL. (2008). Likelihood to vote, candidate choice, and the third-person effect behavioral implications of political advertising in the 2004 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 278–290.
24.
GolanG. J.DayA. G. (2008). The first-person effect and its behavioral consequences: A new trend in the twenty-five year history of third-person effect research. Mass Communication and Society, 11(4), 539–556.
25.
GuntherA. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27–38.
26.
GuntherA. C.MundyP. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 58–67.
27.
GuntherA. C.StoreyJ. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199–215.
28.
GuntherA. C.ThorsonE. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574–596.
29.
HansonG.HaridakisP. M.CunninghamA. W.SharmaR.PonderJ. D. (2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication & Society, 13, 584–607.
30.
HoffnerC.BuchananM. (2002). Parents’ responses to television violence: The third-person perception, parental mediation, and support for censorship. Media Psychology, 4, 231–252.
31.
HoffnerC.BuchananM.AndersonJ. D.HubbsL. A.KamigakiS. K.KowalczykL. (1999). Support for censorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect and news exposure. Communication Research, 26, 726–742.
32.
HoffnerC.RehkoffR. A. (2011). Young voters’ responses to the 2004 U.S. presidential election: Social identity, perceived media influence, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Communication, 61, 732–757.
33.
HuhJ.DeLormeD.ReidL. N. (2004). The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context: The case of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Communication Research, 31, 568–599.
34.
InnesJ. M.ZeitzH. (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.
35.
JenningsB.MironD. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54, 662–704.
36.
JensenJ. D.HurleyR. J. (2005). Third-person effects and the environment: Social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior. Journal of Communication, 55, 242–256.
37.
JohnsonT. J.PerlmutterD. D. (2010). Introduction: The Facebook election. Mass Communication & Society, 13, 554–559.
38.
KaufholdK.ValenzuelaS.De ZünigaH. (2010). Citizen journalism and democracy: How user-generated news use relates to political knowledge and participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87, 515–529.
39.
KenskiK.StroudN.J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–92.
40.
KushinM. J.YamamotoM. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students' use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 608–630.
41.
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.
42.
LauR.SigelmanLRovnerI. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69, 1176–1209.
43.
Lawson-BordersG.KirkR. (2005). Blogs in campaign communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 548–559.
44.
LariscyR. W.TinkhamS. F.SweetserK. D. (2011). Kids these days: Examining differences in political uses and gratifications, internet political participation, political information efficacy, and cynicism on the basis of age. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 749–764.
45.
LeeN. J.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M. (2012). Processes of political socialization: A communication mediation approach to youth civic engagement. Communication Research 40(5) 669–697.
46.
LimJ. S.GolanG. J. (2011). Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on YouTube. Communication Research, 38, 710–727.
47.
LoV. H.PaddonA. R. (2001). Third-person effect, gender differences, pornography exposure and support for restriction of pornography. Asian Journal of Communication, 11, 120–142.
48.
LoV. H.WeiR. (2002). Third-person effect, gender, and pornography on the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 13–33.
49.
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.
50.
McLeodD. M.EvelandW. P.JrNathansonA. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153–174.
51.
MeirickP. (2004). Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: Political advertising and first- and third-person effects. Communication Research, 31, 234–255.
52.
MeirickP.Nisbett G.Kim H. (2010). Who says what to whom with what effect: Third-person perception and political participation. Paper presented at the Communication Theory and Methodology Division 2010 AEJMC Conference, Denver, CO.
53.
MeirickP. C. (2005). Rethinking the target corollary the effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research, 32, 822–843.
54.
NivenD. (2006). A field experiment on the effects of negative campaign mail on voter turnout in a municipal election. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 203–210.
55.
PaekH.-J.PanZ.SunY.AbisaidJ.HoudenD. (2005). The third-person perception as social judgment an exploration of social distance and uncertainty in perceived effects of political attack ads. Communication Research, 32, 143–170.
56.
PaulB.SalwenM. B.DupagneM. (2000). The third-person effect: Ameta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 57–85.
PerloffR. M. (1993). Third-person effect research, 1983–1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167–184.
59.
PerloffR. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353–378.
60.
PorterL.GolanG. J. (2006). From subservient chickens to brawny men: A comparison of viral advertising to television advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6. Retrieved January 21, 2013, fromhttp://jiad.org/vol6/no2/porter/index.htm
61.
PriceV.TewksburyD.HuangL.-N. (1998). Third-person effects on publication of a holocaust-denial advertisement. Journal of Communication, 48, 3–26.
62.
RojasH. (2010). ‘‘Corrective’’ actions in the public sphere: how perceptions of media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 343–363.
63.
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.
64.
RucinskiD.SalmonC. 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.
65.
SalwenM. B.DupagneM. (2001). Third-person perception of television violence: The role of self-perceived knowledge. Media Psychology, 3, 211–236.
66.
ScharrerE. (2002). Third-person perception and television violence the role of out-group stereotyping in perceptions of susceptibility to effects. Communication Research, 29, 681–704.
67.
ScharrerE.LeoneR. (2008). First-person shooters and the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 34, 210–U215.
68.
SchweisbergerV.BillinsonJ.ChockM. (in press). Facebook, the third-person-effect and the differential impact hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
69.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.NahS.GotliebM. R.HwangH.LeeN.,…McLeod D. M. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676–703.
70.
ShahD. V.FaberR. J.YounS. (1999). Susceptibility and severity perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26, 240–267.
71.
ShenF.DardisF. E.EdwardsH. H. (2011). Advertising exposure and message type: Exploring the perceived effects of soft-money television political ads. Journal of Political Marketing, 10, 215–229.
72.
StramaM. (1998). Overcoming cynicism: Youth participation and electoral politics. National Civic Review, 87(1) 71–78.
73.
SunY.PanZ.ShenL. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58, 280–300.
74.
SweetserK. D.Weaver-LariscyR. (2007). Candidates make good friends: An analysis ofcandidates’ use of Facebook. Chicago, IL: National Communication Association.
75.
TewksburyD. (2002). The role of comparison group size in the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 247–263.
76.
TrammellK. D. (2007). ‘Candidate campaign blogs: Directly reaching out to the youth vote. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1255–1263.
77.
TrammellK. D.WilliamsA. P.PostelnicuM.LandrevilleK. D. (2006). Evolution of online campaigning: Increasing interactivity in candidate Web sites and blogs through text and technical features. Mass Communication and Society, 9, 21–44.
78.
TsfatiY.CohenJ. (2003). On the effect of the “third-person effect”: Perceived influence of media coverage and residential mobility intentions. Journal of Communication, 53, 711–727.
79.
WeiR.LoV. H. (2007The third-person effects of political attack ads in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Media Psychology, 9, 367–388.
80.
ValenzuelaS.ParkN.KeeK. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875–901.
81.
VreeseC. H. D.SemetkoH. A. (2002). Cynical and engaged strategic campaign coverage, public opinion, and mobilization in a referendum. Communication Research, 29, 615–641.
82.
WoolleyJ.LimperosA.OliverM. (2010). The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: A content analysis of user-generated political Facebook groups. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 631–652.
83.
XuJ.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.
84.
YounS.FaberR. J.ShahD. V. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 633–649.
85.
ZhangJ.DaughertyT. (2009). Third-person effect and social networking: Implications for online marketing and word-of-mouth communication. American Journal of Business, 24, 53–63.
86.
ZhangW.JohnsonT. J.SeltzerT.BichardS. (2010). The revolution will be networked: The influence of social network sites on political attitudes and behaviors. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 75–92.
87.
ZhongZ. (2009). Third-person perceptions and online games: A comparison of perceived antisocial and prosocial game effects. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 286–306.
