SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.10 número4Goodbye politics, hello lifestyle. Changing news topics in tabloid, quality and local newspaper websites in the U.K. and Sweden from 2002 to 2012Uma proposta de um modelo taxonómico para a classificação de fontes de informação índice de autoresíndice de assuntosPesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO

Compartilhar


Observatorio (OBS*)

versão On-line ISSN 1646-5954

OBS* vol.10 no.4 Lisboa dez. 2016

 

On Medium Theory and the Third Person Effect

 

Frederic Guerrero-Solé*

* Professor and director of MSc in Strategic Communication and PR at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain (frederic.guerrero@upf.edu)

 

ABSTRACT

Although in the last three decades many works have been devoted to the study of Davison’s (1983) Third-Person Effect (TPE) for a great variety of media contents, as far as we know none of them has explored the presumed impact of media type on the magnitude of the effect. The objective of this study is to compare the magnitude of the TPE for news, advertising, violence and pornography on TV and the Internet, and its behavioral consequences for controversial contents. The study shows that media type has an impact on the TPE for news, advertising and pornography, but not for violent content. On the contrary, it shows that there is not a clear relationship between media type and people’s willingness to support the limitation of controversial contents, such as violence and pornography.

Keywords: third-person effect, medium theory, violence, pornography, Internet, television, censorship

 

Introduction

Scholars have been questioning the hegemony of contents on media effects, suggesting, as Marshall McLuhan (1964) did, that the medium has also its influence. From this point of view, the focus on the content of a message does not recognize the effects of the means through which it is made available to the audience. Cantril and Allport’s (1935) were the pioneers of the media comparison experiments, who considered media type as a moderating variable in the process of influence of messages. Lazarsfeld, Berelson & Gaudet (1948) also compared the influence of radio and newspapers in presidential campaigns, concluding that radio played a stronger role than newspaper. This kind of research has been continued by other authors that have compared the effects of print versus network news (McClure & Patterson 1976), or radio versus television (Katz, Adoni, & Parness 1977; DeFleur, Davenport, Cronin, & DeFleur 1992). In his analysis of agenda-setting, Wanta (1997) concluded that television news had more immediate effects on public opinion, but the effects of print media appeared to have more duration. Other works (Tewksbury & Althaus 2000; Eveland & Dunwoody 2002) have compared the effects of the same information content (online vs. traditional print), concluding that learning was greater in traditional newspapers; similarly, Eveland, Seo & Marton (2002) found several differences in learning across media conditions (television, print and the Internet).

Beyond information and news, other disciplines like marketing studies have also analysed the variance in the processing of information by customers in ads across different media platforms (Buchholz, & Smith 1991). Dijkstra, Buijtels & van Raaij (2005) have argued that media planners should focus not only on the minimization of the costs of a campaign, but also on the effectiveness of a certain message across media types. We can find in the work of Farrelly, Hussin & Bauer (2007) an example of the effectiveness of advertisements promoting smokers’ Quitline in TV, radio and print. They concluded that there was a strong evidence of the effectiveness of television and radio ads, but a weaker evidence of the effectiveness of newspaper ads. Recently, using electromyography and skin conductance measurements, Peacock, Purvis and Hazlett (2011) analysed the differences in the way television and radio affect consumers emotionally and communicate brand messages. All these works bear witness to the interest of marketers to elucidate the different effects of advertisements across media types in order to optimize their investment on campaigns.

Meyrowitz has called this perspective ‘Medium Theory’ (MT) (1985; 1994). He stated that each medium is an environment that influences communication regardless of the content (Meyrowitz 1998), and that the same cultural content can have different influences if placed in different media (Meyrowitz 2008). Eveland (2003) claims that communication studies cannot focus solely on content effects. He argues that content interacts with other media attributes to produce effects and requires to take into consideration these attributes. However, there are some studies that have not found suitable the MT in order to explain variations in the media effects. Strömbäck & Kiosius (2010) did not find any evidence of differences related to media channel (TV, print and radio), and Bell & Dittmar (2011) proved that the type of media did not have any effect on girl’s body and appearance dissatisfaction.

Despite of being of interest for scholars and media companies, the analysis of the influence of media channel is still a poorly developed area of communication research. Although investigated on its own, the MT still needs to find its place within the media effects context, and more importantly, to be confronted and validated in relation to other effect theories. The aim of this work is to explore the interaction of the Medium Theory and the Third-Person Effect (TPE) theory, and specifically to examine if the MT has an influence on predicting people’s behaviour regarding controversial content, one of the fundamental corollaries of the TPE. It completes a preliminary research on the impact of MT on the perceived influence of media contents on people (Guerrero-Solé & López-González, 2016)

Conceived by Davison (1983), the TPE states that people tend to perceive that media exert a stronger influence on others than on themselves. TPE has two main hypotheses: people tend to perceive a greater media influence on others than on themselves (perceptual component), and it leads them to take rectifying actions (behavioral component). Many studies have given support to both hypotheses. Research has found evidence of the perceptual component in several contexts: sexual contents (Gunther 1995), violence (Rojas, Shah & Faber 1996; Scharrer 2002), news (Price, Tewksbury, & Huang 1998; Rauch, 2010), cigarette ads (Henriksen & Flora 1999), controversial advertising (Shah, Faber, & Youn 1999), political advertising (Meirick 2004), public service advertising (Duck 1995), gambling advertising (Youn, Faber and Shah 2000), violent video games (Boyle, McLeod, & Rojas 2008), reality shows (Cohen & Weimann 2008), social networking (Zhang & Daugherty 2009) and trash talk shows (Guerrero-Solé, Besalú, & Lopez-Gonzalez 2014). As far as we know, no research until now has been devoted to the study of the influence of media type on TPE. Thus, drawing on previous literature, the first hypothesis was to ascertain the relationship between MT and TPE:

H1: People will tend to perceive media and media messages to have greater influence on others than on themselves.

In particular, TPE shows up with undesirable media messages, and reverses or vanishes with messages considered socially desirable (Brosius & Engel 1996, Day 2008; Duck 1995; Eveland & McLeod 1999; Gunther & Mundy 1993). This characteristic has been called the negative influence corollary (Gunther and Storey 2003). Social distance is another factor that may have an influence on the TPP gap, as it magnifies the self-other discrepancy (Brosius & Engel, 1996; Eveland & McLeod 1999). Research on TPE has also found that one of the factors related to the TPE discrepancy is people’s perceived exposure. McLeod et al. (1997) proposed that the perceived exposure to media contents may predict the perceived influence of these contents on others, arguing that people use exposition as a measure to determine media impact. This cognitive factor is related to Perloff’s (1996) media schema: people use a magic bullet-like approach to guide the perceptions of media messages’ influence on others. In consequence, the more we perceive people to be exposed to a content, the more we perceive this content will have an effect on them. Thus, our second hypothesis was:

H2: The perceived effect of media and media messages will be correlated to the perceived exposure to media and media messages.

Other cognitive factors that can explain self-other discrepancies are: ego involvement (Perloff, 1989) or self-perceived knowledge (Atwood 1994; Peiser & Peter 2000. Age, gender and group identity (Hoffner & Rehkoff 2011) or education (Paul, Salwen, & Dupagne 2000), can also be good predictor variables of TPE. On the other hand, TPE has been linked to psychological theories such as ego-enhancement and optimistic bias (Brosius & Engel 1996; Gunther & Mundy 1993; Henrikson & Flora 1999), cognitive adaptation theory (Atwood 1994), attribution theory (Rojas et al. 1996), or the theory of reasoned action (Golan & Banning 2008). Most of these explanations have an analogous logic based on the thought that individuals tend to see themselves as more invulnerable than the rest of the people (Lee & Tamborini 2005). However, as we have already mentioned, media type has not been considered a factor that mediate the discrepancies between the effects on others and on the self. Thus, drawing on works on MT, our third hypothesis was as follows:

H3: The type of media will have an influence on the perceived effects of media messages.

We may note that in our research we will only consider two types of media, television and the Internet, and four different media contents: news, commercial advertising, violence and pornography. These contents have been analysed in a great majority of the researches on TPE.

More recently, scholars have oriented their efforts toward the behavioural outcomes of TPE. The research has been mainly focused on the support to censor controversial contents, such as pornography (Chia, Lu and McLeod 2004; Gunther 1995; Sun, Shen, & Pan 2008), misogynistic songs (McLeod et al. 1997), violence (Gunther & Hwa 1996; Hoffner et al. 1999), negative political advertising (Salwen & Dupagne 1999), unfair and misleading political messages (Hoffner & Rehkoff 2011) or trash talk shows (Guerrero-Solé, Besalú, & López-González 2014). Besides the support for censorship, other behavioural responses studied have been: political decision making (Perloff 1996); parental mediation (Hoffner & Buchanan 2002); residential mobility (Tsfati & Cohen 2003); likelihood to vote (Golan, Banning, & Lundy 2008); or the support for the regulation of alcohol product placement in films (Shin & Kim 2011).

One of the most controversial questions in relation to TPE is the relationship between behavioural and perceptual components, a fact that was already mentioned by Davison (1983) in his seminal work. However, research results have often been contradictory, and while in some cases scholars have found a weak or non-existent relationship between both components (Atwood 1994), in other cases the linkage has been found as being strong (Gunther & Storey 2003; McLeod et al. 1997; Wan & Youn 2004). Considering that a significant majority of the research about the behavioural component of TPE has analysed people’s support to censor or restrict controversial contents, in our work we also asked about this linkage in the case of violence and pornography on TV and the Internet. Since the research about the linkage produced divergent results, we posited the following research question instead of hypotheses:

RQ1: Do the discrepancies in the perceived effects of violent and pornographic contents have an influence on the willingness to approve the limitations of these contents,?

And, finally, considering that the research was devoted to the role of media type in the TPE, our last research question took the following form: 

RQ2: Does media type have an impact on the willingness to approve the limitation of violent and pornographic contents?

 

Method and measurement

123 undergraduate students (79 males and 44 females) that were taking a course of Communication in a major University in Spain participated a the survey. We asked them to answer two questionnaires about the perceived influence on the self and on others of media and media contents (news, advertising, violence and pornography). We also asked participants for their willingness to approve limitations to controversial contents, such as violence and pornography.. Ages ranged from 17 to 31 years old, with mean age of 20.89 (2.47). To measure the magnitude of the TPE on media type and contents, students were asked about:

  • Perceived influence of TV/Internet. Respondents had to answer about their perceived influence of the media (TV/Internet) in general on the others and on the self.
  • Perceived influence of news, advertising, pornography and violence on TV/Internet. Respondents were asked about the influence they perceived of media contents on TV/Internet on the others and on the self.
  • As exposure has been found to be strongly correlated to the perceived influence, we also asked respondents for their perceived exposure of people to media (TV/Internet) and media contents (news, advertising, violence and pornography) across media.

Participants were asked to rate the perceived influences and exposures using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (no influence/exposition) to 5 (strong influence/exposition). Similarly, participants were asked for their readiness to support the restriction of violent and pornographic contents on media. Item were also rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (no support) to 5 (strong support).

 

Results

As already confirmed in previous studies, we found that participants perceived media, in general, and media contents across media platforms, in particular, to have a greater influence on the others than on themselves (Table 1). However, we performed paired samples t-tests that showed that the all differences were significant, except in the case of the influence of news on the Internet. We also may note that the media, in general, were considered as having more influence than media contents, both for TV and for the Internet. Our results show that participants perceived themselves as being far more invulnerable to TV influence than the others, while they consider that they are as invulnerable as the others to the influence of the Internet.

 

 

We also calculated the correlations between perceived influence and perceived exposure (Table 2), confirming the target corollary: there was a strong correlation between perceived influence and perceived exposure for media in general and media contents, except in the case of TV for others and the Internet for the self. Consequently, hypothesis 2 was confirmed except for these two cases.

 

 

Its across media to confirm our third hypothesis. The perceived influence of media contents depends on media in the case of news (t=-3.809, p<.01 for the self, and t=3.009, p<.01 for others), advertising (t=2.357, p<.05 for the self, and t=6.170, p<.01 for others) and pornography (t=-6.253, p<.01 for the self, and t=−9.234, p<.01 for others), confirming our third hypothesis. However, we found that media type had no impact on participants’ perceived effect on themselves nor on the others. Thus, news, advertising and pornography are perceived as having a greater impact on the Internet than on TV, while violence is perceived as being equally influential no matter the media type.

Besides the analysis of the perceived influence of media contents across media types, we also analysed participants’ willingness to support the limitation of controversial contents across media types. As we have already mentioned, TPE research has been traditionally focused on people’s willingness to support the restriction or censorship of controversial contents, mainly pornography (Chia et al. 2004; Sun, Shen, & Pan 2008) and violence (Hoffner et al. 1999; Hoffner et al., 2001). In this sense, we have examined people’s support to restrict violence and pornography on TV and the Internet. Our results show that people are not particularly willing to support the restriction of controversial contents on these media (Table 3), in particular pornography on the Internet.

 

 

We also calculated the correlations between the support to limit contents and the exposure to these contents. Our results showed significant correlations only between the support to the limitation of Internet violence and the perceived exposure to Internet violence of the self (=-.44, p<0.001), and between the support to limit pornography on the Internet and the perceived exposure to this content of the others (r=-.27, p<0.001) and of oneself (r=-.45, p<0.001).

Our RQ1 was about the linkage between the perceptual and the behavioral components of the TPE. We performed a multiple regression analysis We found that people’s willingness to restrict violence on TV and the Internet ()to be positively related to the perceived influence of TV violence on others (B= .300* for TV and B=.229* for Internet), and to be negatively related to the perceived influence of Internet violence on the self (B=-.302* for TV and B=-.239*). Thus, the perceived impact of the TV violence on others increases people's likelihood to support the limitation of violence, while the perceived impact on Internet violence on the self decreases (and, practically in the same proportion) people's likelihood to support this limitation. In the case of TV pornography, we did not observe any linkage between both components, and in Internet pornography people's likelihood to support limitations was negatively related to the perceived impact of pornography on the self (B=-.295, p<.05). The values of R2 were .180*, for TV violence, .143* for Internet violence and .165* for Internet pornography (* p<0.05).

Finally, to answer RQ2, we performed two paired t-tests to the influence of media type on the magnitude of the support to the limitation of violence and pornography (Table 4). Results show that MT can explain those discrepancies on the support to restrict pornographic contents, and to a lesser extent, on the support to restrict violence.

 

 

Discussion and conclusions

The aim of this research was to analyze the discrepancies in people’s perception and behavior of media contents’ impact across different media types. The objective was to examine the intersection between Medium Theory and Third-Person Effect and assess how the research on MT can improve scholars’ knowledge of the TPE, complementing a past research on the topic (Guerrero-Solé & Lopez-Gonzalez, 2016). Our research has showed that the perceptual component of the TPE shows up in different media contents and across media types (TV and the Internet). We found that the variable media type had an impact on participants’ perception of the influence of media contents. The influence is not homogeneous across different media contents: media type has an influence in the cases of advertising and pornography, but it has no influence for violent contents. In consequence, media type ought to be considered as a mediating factor of the TPE, as it can have an impact on the magnitude of the differences observed between the perceived effects on others and on the self.

We also observed that TPE only shows up on TV, but vanishes on the Internet. Media type, then, does not only have an influence on the measure of the TPE, but it can also be a condition for it to occur. Works on TPE have confirmed Gunther & Storey’s (2003) negative influence corollary: TPE appears for contents that are perceived by people as being socially undesirable; on the contrary, first-person effect appears for contents with positive social values. Besides the already commented linkage between the perceived influence and the perceived exposure, these results make us reflect on whether media type can have also an impact on what people perceive as desirable contents or not. In our case, we could hypothesize that some media characteristics could lead young people to perceive TV news as having a negative influence: the perceived obsolescence of TV as a mass media among young people in contrast to digital media, TV news’ mainstream character, media credibility or TV audience passivity, among others. On the contrary, they may perceive the process of consumption of Internet news as an active process that demands high levels of people’s selection due to Internet’s interactive nature, thus the impression that less protection is required against it.

Besides this, people also differ in their willingness to support the banning of controversial contents depending on the media showing them. Our findings show that people tend to support the limitation of pornography on TV more than on the Internet, despite the discrepancy is not that strong in the case of violent contents. The multiple regression analysis we performed showed that the support to limit violent content on TV and on the Internet followed a similar pattern: the perceived influence of TV violence on others positively contributes to explain this support, while also in both cases the perceived influence of Internet violence on the self contributes negatively to explain this support. For pornographic contents, only the perceived influence of Internet pornography contributes negatively to explain the support to limit Internet pornography.

We may note that our work is not free of limitations. Firstly, our sample was skewed to undergraduate students. Although some studies have proven that the differences between undergraduate students’ and non-students’ judgments are insignificant (Guerrero-Solé et al. 2014), age and gender distributions can have an influence on the results obtained. Secondly, our work lacks of measurements of other variables that could better explain the differences observed on the perceived influence and the behavioral outcomes, such as socio-demographic variables or other variables traditionally related to the TPE. Since one of the most controversial questions about TPE is the linkage between the perceptual and the behavioral components, the addition of other variables could remove any track of this linkage and lead scholars to different conclusions. And thirdly, the respondents that participated on the research were not exposed to any stimuli, and had to answer general questions about the influence of media contents, exposition and willingness to support the limitation of controversial contents. In this sense, Jensen and Hurley (2005) had already manifested their concerns about the use of general question because they do not necessarily reveal what people really thinks about media and media contents.

Finally, another limitation is linked to the distinction between media types in the context of technological hybridity (Hay & Couldry, 2011) and media convergence (Jenkins, 2004; Jenkins, 2006). Since we can access any kind of content from the Internet —in particular those contents broadcasted by TV and radio, that can be accessed on a cell phone (Hay & Couldry, 2011), and the so-called transmedia contents and storytelling (Scolari, 2009)—, the distinction between media types should move to the distinction between types of devices or situations in which the content is finally consumed. It is also an unexplored field in the theory of the third-person effect that ought to be analyzed in the future. However, our work confirms that despite current technological changes that affect the distinctions between media types, people still have different perceptions about the influence of contents in different media.

It is evident that more research is needed to find out what specific characteristics of the medium can have an impact on the perceived influence of certain contents. In this sense, scholars who investigate direct and indirect effects of media on people have to consider media type and media content as an inseparable pair, and study the interaction between them as both elements contribute to the magnitude of the effect. In this regard, some authors have suggested that attributes of the Internet, such as the global scale, the use and access, the limits to control it (Lee & Tamborini 2005) or the interactive nature of the Internet (Li 2008) could have an influence on the magnitude of the TPE. Our future research should be focused on experimental researches that could be able to modify media and content characteristics to find out to what extent they have an influence on people’s perceived influence. And as we already pointed out, devices and situations should play a role in the identification of the cause that lead people to perceive a different influence of contents in what we still call media types. Finally, future research will also have to explore to what extent these different perceptions are rooted in our culture, or whether they fade away or live on in a scenario of vanishing frontiers and divergences between media types.

 

Bibliographical References

Atwood, L. E. 1994. “Illusions of Media Power: The Third-Person Effect.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. doi:10.1177/107769909407100202.

Bell, Beth Teresa, and Helga Dittmar. 2011. “Does Media Type Matter? The Role of Identification in Adolescent Girls’ Media Consumption and the Impact of Different Thin-Ideal Media on Body Image.” Sex Roles 65: 478–490. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9964-x.

Boyle, M. P., D. M. McLeod, and H. Rojas. 2008. “The Role of Ego Enhancement and Perceived Message Exposure in Third-Person Judgments Concerning Violent Video Games.” American Behavioral Scientist. doi:10.1177/0002764208321349.

Brosius, Hans-Bernd, and Dirk Engel. 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. doi:10.1093/ijpor/8.2.142.

Buchholz, Laura M, and Robert E Smith. 1991. “The Role of Consumer Involvement in Determining Cognitive Response to Broadcast Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 20: 4–17.

Cantril, Hadley, and Gordon W. Allport. 1935. The psychology of radio. New York: Arno.         [ Links ]

Chia, Stella C., Kerr-Hsin Lu, and Douglas M. McLeod. 2004. “Sex, Lies, and Video Compact Disc: A Case Study on Third-Person Perception and Motivations for Media Censorship.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650203260204.

Cohen, J., and G. Weimann. 2008. “Who’s Afraid of Reality Shows?: Exploring the Effects of Perceived Influence of Reality Shows and the Concern Over Their Social Effects on Willingness to Censor.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650208315964.

Davison, W. Phillips. 1983. “The Third-Person Effect in Communication.” Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 1. doi:10.1086/268763. http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/1/1.short.

Day, A. G. 2008. “Out of the Living Room and Into the Voting Booth: An Analysis of Corporate Public Affairs Advertising Under the Third-Person Effect.” American Behavioral Scientist. doi:10.1177/0002764208321354.

DeFleur, M. L., L. Davenport, M. Cronin, and M. DeFleur. 1992. “Audience Recall of News Stories Presented by Newspaper, Computer, Television and Radio.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. doi:10.1177/107769909206900419.

Dijkstra, Majorie, H. E J J M Buijtels, and W. Fred van Raaij. 2005. “Separate and Joint Effects of Medium Type on Consumer Responses: A Comparison of Television, Print, and the Internet.” Journal of Business Research 58: 377–386. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00105-X.

Duck, J M. 1995. “The Perceived Impact of the Mass Media: Reconsidering the Third Person Effect.” European Journal of Social Psychology 25: 77–93. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250107.

Eveland, William P., Mihye Seo, and Krisztina Marton. 2002. “Learning From the News in Campaign 2000: An Experimental Comparison of TV News, Newspapers, and Online News.” Media Psychology. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0404_03.

Eveland, William P. 2003. “A ‘Mix of Attributes’ Approach to the Study of Media Effects and New Communication Technologies.” Journal of Communication 53: 395–410. doi:10.1093/joc/53.3.395.

Eveland, W. P., and S. Dunwoody. 2001. “User Control and Structural Isomorphism or Disorientation and Cognitive Load?: Learning From the Web Versus Print.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/009365001028001002.

Eveland, William P., and Douglas M. McLeod. 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.

Farrelly, Matthew C, Altijani Hussin, and Ursula E Bauer. 2007. “Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Television, Radio and Print Advertisements in Promoting the New York Smokers’ Quitline.” Tobacco Control 16 Suppl 1: i21–i23. doi:10.1136/tc.2007.019984.

Golan, G. J., and S. A. Banning. 2008. “Exploring a Link Between the Third-Person Effect and the Theory of Reasoned Action: Beneficial Ads and Social Expectations.” American Behavioral Scientist. doi:10.1177/0002764208321352.

Golan, G. J., S. A. Banning, and L. Lundy. 2008. “Likelihood to Vote, Candidate Choice, and the Third-Person Effect: Behavioral Implications of Political Advertising in the 2004 Presidential Election.” American Behavioral Scientist. doi:10.1177/0002764208321356.

Guerrero-Solé, Frederic, Reinald Besalú, and Hibai Lopez-Gonzalez. 2014. “Save me, save them! Trash Talk Shows and the Third-Person Effect.” Communications, The European Journal of Communication Research: 193–214.

Guerrero-Solé, Frederic, and Hibai Lopez-Gonzalez. 2016. “The Influence of Media Type on the Perceived Influence of Media Contents and on the Support to Restrict Controversial Messages.”. Communication Research Reports 33, 68-73.

Gunther, A. C., and P. Mundy. 1993. “Biased Optimism and the Third-Person Effect.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. doi:10.1177/107769909307000107.

Gunther, Albert 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. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00712.x.

Gunther, A C, and A P Hwa. 1996. “Public Perceptions of Television Influence and Opinions about Censorship in Singapore.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8: 248–265. doi:10.1093/ijpor/8.3.248.

Gunther, Albert C., and J. Douglas Storey. 2003. “The Influence of Presumed Influence.” Journal of Communication 53: 199–215. doi:10.1093/joc/53.2.199.

Hay, J., & Couldry, N. (2011). Rethinking convergence / culture. Cultural Studies, 25(4–5), 473–486. http://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2013.801579

Henriksen, Lisa, and June A. Flora. 1999. “Third-Person Perception and Children.” Communication Research 26: 643 –665. doi:10.1177/009365099026006001.

Hoffner, C., M. Buchanan, J. D. Anderson, L. A. Hubbs, S. K. Kamigaki, L. Kowalczyk, A. Pastorek, R. S. Plotkin, and K. J. Silberg. 1999. “Support for Censorship of Television Violence: The Role of the Third-Person Effect and News Exposure.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/009365099026006004.

Hoffner, Cynthia, Richard S. Plotkin, Martha Buchanan, Joel David Anderson, Stacy K. Kamigaki, Lisa A. Hubbs, Laura Kowalczyk, Kelsey Silberg, and Angela Pastorek. 2001. “The Third-Person Effect in Perceptions of the Influence of Television Violence.” Journal of Communication 51: 283–299. doi:10.1093/joc/51.2.283.

Hoffner, Cynthia, and Martha Buchanan. 2002. “Parents’ Responses to Television Violence: The Third-Person Perception, Parental Mediation, and Support for Censorship.” Media Psychology. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_02.

Hoffner, Cynthia, and Raiza A. Rehkoff. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01565.x.

Jenkins, H. (2004). The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(1), 33–43. http://doi.org/10.1177/1367877904040603

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. Click Nothing, 1–25. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Katz, E., H. Adoni, and P. Parness. 1977. “Remembering the News: What the Picture Adds to Recall.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. doi:10.1177/107769907705400201.

Lazarsfeld, P.F., B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet. 1948. “The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign.” In The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign, 1–9; 73–104.

Lee, Byoungkwan, and Ron Tamborini. 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. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02673.x.

Li, Xigen. 2008. “Third-Person Effect, Optimistic Bias, and Sufficiency Resource in Internet Use.” Journal of Communication 58: 568–587. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00400.x. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00400.x.

McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. American Quarterly. Vol. 16. doi:10.2307/2711172.

McClure, Robert., and Thomas Patterson. 1976. “Print vs. Networks News.” Journal of Communication 26: 23–28.

Meirick, Patrick C. 2004. “Topic-Relevant Reference Groups and Dimensions of Distance: Political Advertising and First- and Third-Person Effects.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650203261514.

Meyrowitz, Joshua. 1985. No Sense of Place. The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Meyrowitz, Joshua. 1994. Medium theory. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Communication theory today (pp. 50–77). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Meyrowitz, J. 1998. “Multiple Media Literacies.” Journal of Communication 48: 96–108. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02740.x.

Meyrowitz, Joshua. 2008. “Power, Pleasure, Patterns: Intersecting Narratives of Media Influence.” Journal of Communication 58: 641–663. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00406.x.

Paul, Bryant, Michael B. Salwen, and Michel Dupagne. 2000. “The Third-Person Effect: A Meta-Analysis of the Perceptual Hypothesis.” Mass Communication and Society 3: 57–85. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04.

 Peacock, James, Scott Purvis, and Richard L. Hazlett. 2011. “Which Broadcast Medium Better Drives Engagement? Measuring the Powers of Radio and Television with Electromyography and Skin-Conductance Measurements.” Journal of Advertising Research 51: 578–585. doi:10.2501/JAR-51-4-578-585.

Peiser, W, and J Peter. 2000. “Third-Person Perception of Television-Viewing Behavior.” Journal of Communication 50: 25–45. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02832.x.

Perloff, R. M. 1989. “Ego-Involvement and the Third Person Effect of Televised News Coverage.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/009365089016002004.

Perloff, Richard M. 1993. “Third-Person Effect Research 1983-1992: A Review and Synthesis.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 5: 167–184. doi:10.1093/ijpor/5.2.167.

Perloff, Richard 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 (177-197). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Price, V., D. Tewksbury, and L. Huang. 1988. “Third-Person Effects on Publication of a Holocaust-Denial Advertisement.” Journal of Communication 48: 3–26. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02745.x.

Rauch, J. 2010. “Superiority and Susceptibility: How Activist Audiences Imagine the Influence of Mainstream News Messages on Self and Others.” Discourse & Communication. doi:10.1177/1750481310373216.

Rojas, Hernando, Dhavan V Shah, and Ronald J Faber. 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. http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/2/163.full.pdf+html.

Salwen, M. B., and M. Dupagne. 1999. “The Third-Person Effect: Perceptions of the Media’s Influence and Immoral Consequences.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/009365099026005001.

Scharrer, E. 2002. “Third-Person Perception and Television Violence: The Role of Out-Group Stereotyping in Perceptions of Susceptibility to Effects.” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/009365002237832.

Scolari, C. A. (2009). Transmedia Storytelling: Implicit Consumers, Narrative Worlds, and Branding in Contemporary Media Production. International Journal of Communication, 3, 21. http://doi.org/1932-8036/20090586        [ Links ]

Shah, Dhavan V., Ronald J. Faber, and Seounmi Youn. 1999. “Susceptibility and Severity.” Communication Research 26: 240 –267. doi:10.1177/009365099026002006.

Shin, D.-H., and J. K. Kim. 2011. “Alcohol Product Placements and the Third-Person Effect.” Television & New Media. doi:10.1177/1527476410385477.

Strömbäck, Jesper, and Spiro Kiousis. 2010. “A New Look at Agenda-Setting Effects - Comparing the Predictive Power of Overall Political News Consumption and Specific News Media Consumption across Different Media Channels and Media Types.” Journal of Communication 60: 271–292. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01482.x.

Sun, Y., L. Shen, and Z. Pan. 2008. “On the Behavioral Component of the Third-Person Effect .” Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650207313167.

Tewksbury, D., and S. L. Althaus. 2000. “Differences in Knowledge Acquisition among Readers of the Paper and Online Versions of a National Newspaper.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. doi:10.1177/107769900007700301.

Tsfati, Yariv, and Jonathan Cohen. 2003. “On the Effect of the ‘Third-Person Effect’: Perceived Influence of Media Coverage and Residential Mobility Intentions.” Journal of Communication 53: 711–727. doi:10.1093/joc/53.4.711.

Wan, F., and S. Youn. 2004. “Motivations to Regulate Online Gambling and Violent Game Sites.” Journal of Interactive Advertising. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2004.10722093

Wanta, W. 1997. “The messenger and the message: Differences across news media”. In M.McCombs, D. L.Shaw & D.Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers of agenda-setting theory (pp. 137–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Youn, S., R. J. Faber, and D. V. Shah. 2000. “Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect.” Psychology Marketing. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200007)17:7.

Zhang, Jie, and Terry Daugherty. 2009. “Third-Person Effect and Social Networking: Implications for Online Marketing and Word-of-Mouth Communication.” American Journal of Business. doi:10.1108/19355181200900011.

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons