This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Political Advertising and the Third Person Effect:
Investigating the Behavioral Consequences of
Negative Political Ads
By
Stephen Banning, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Louisiana State University
Guy Golan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Louisiana State University
Lisa Lundy, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Louisiana State University
Please send all correspondence to:
Stephen A. Banning, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Manship School of Mass Communication
Louisiana State University
Home and Summer Address:
522 Wylie Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Work Phone: 225-578-2098
Home Phone: 225-757-1808
Email: [log in to unmask]
Political Advertising and the Third Person Effect:
Investigating the Behavioral Consequences of
Negative Political Ads
Abstract
Political advertising has emerged as a key component of the modern
presidential campaign. The current study examines the perceived
influence of negative and biographical political advertisements on
potential voters. A judgment task experiment of 340 individuals who
were shown four ads from the 2004 Bush/Kerry campaigns provided some
evidence as to the perceived effects of television presidential
ads. As predicted by third-person effect research, individuals tend
to overestimate the effect that negative political ads have on other
people while underestimating these effect on self when exposed to
biographical or candidate positioning advertisements. Moving beyond
the perceptual component of the third person effect, the study offers
one of the first examinations of the behavioral consequences of
TPE. The study found a significant relationship between perceived
effects of negative advertising and likelihood to go out and vote.
Political Advertising and the Third Person Effect:
Investigating the Behavioral Consequences of
Negative Political Ads
Mass communication scholars have long been interested in the
potential effects of political advertising on public opinion
(Cwalina, Falkowski & Kaid, 2000)
and the overall political process (McKinnon & Kaid, 1999). While the
modern political campaign has grown in cost (Sorauf, 1988), voter
turnouts have shown a declining pattern over the past decades
(Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). There has been some evidence that
political campaigns have become predominantly negative as attack ads
have become more pronounced (Jamieson, 2001; West, 1997). Some
Scholars have suggested that negative political advertising may be
responsible for the reductions in voter participation (Ansolabehere &
Iyengar, 1995). However, such a relationship has been contradicted
by other scholars (Clinton & Lapinski, 2004).
The 2004 United States' presidential campaign has been marked by
wide scale negative campaigning. Political advertisements by third
party groups largely referred to as 527's launched personal attacks
on both candidates by raising questions about their pasts and their
integrity. Thus, this election served as a good case study for the
examination of negative political advertising and its potential
impact on voter participation.
As noted by scholars, political advertising has been found to shape
not only the media news agenda (Boyle, 2001) but also public opinion
of issues saliency (Roberts & McCombs, 1994) and candidate attributes
(McCombs, Llamas, Escobar-Lopez, & Rey, 1997).
The current study attempts to contribute to knowledge of political
advertising by incorporating third-person effect scholarship into the
political advertising research and by presenting one of the first
examinations of the behavioral consequences of third person
perceptions on voting intentions.
Literature Review
Negative political advertising
Negative political advertising seeks to degrade public perceptions of
a political opponent (Merritt, 1984). The political opponent is
identified and references are made to the candidate's general image
or stance on campaign issues. Roddy and Garramone (1988) found that
negative political advertisements that focused on issues received a
more positive evaluation than did negative ads that focused on a
candidate's image. In their experiment, viewers of negative
commercials focusing on issues showed a significantly lesser
likelihood of voting for the candidate attacked in the ads than did
viewers of a commercial focusing on the candidate's image.
While negative political advertising may produce negative attitudes
toward the candidate under attack, negative attitudes may also
develop toward the sponsor of the advertisement (Garramone, 1985;
Merritt, 1984), depending on audience predispositions toward the
candidates or their respective political parties. Garramone and
Atkin (1990) investigated the impact of negative political
advertising on candidate image discrimination, candidate attitude
polarization, involvement in the election, communication behavior
regarding the election, and likelihood of turning out to vote in the
election. While the negative advertisements significantly affected
candidate image discrimination and attitude polarization, no
significant effects were found for involvement in the election,
communication behavior regarding the election, or likelihood of
turning out to vote (Garramone & Atkin, 1990).
In comparative political advertising, candidates are discussed and
often compared directly with regard to their positions on key issues,
experience, or voting records (Pinkleton, 1997). The purpose of
comparative advertising, in general, is to position the sponsoring
candidate as superior to the targeted candidate (Merritt,
1984). Pinkleton (1997) studied negative comparative advertising and
discovered that, in contrast to negative "attack" advertising,
comparative advertising negatively influenced audience attitudes
toward the targeted candidate without negatively influencing audience
attitudes of the sponsoring candidate.
Ansolabehere et al. (1994) investigated the impact of negative
political advertising on voter turnout. Based on their experimental
study, they supposed that as many as five percent of voters could
abandon their intention to vote as a result of negative political
advertising. However, Wattenberg and Brians (1999) used respondent
recall to measure exposure to political advertising. They questioned
the conjecture of Ansolabehere et al. (1994), explaining that an
immediate response to exposure to negative political advertising may
not translate into a decision not to vote on the election
date. According to Goldstein and Freedman (2002), negative political
advertising may actually stimulate, rather than depress, voter
turnout. Kahn and Kenney (1999) argue that the influence of negative
political advertising on voter turnout is not uniform, but dependent
on the individual message and the perceived appropriateness of the
critical commentary. They also point to the influence of political
predisposition and personal involvement with political issues.
Third-person effect
As a central theory in media effects research, the third-person
effect has been widely investigated by mass communication researchers
in their attempt to understand perceived media effects on self and
others and how these effects may lead to real life
consequences. More than twenty years following the original third
person study by Davison (1983) over 45 published articles and dozens
of peer reviewed conference papers investigated the third-person
effect phenomenon (Perloff, 1999). As noted by Gunther (2003), the
third-person effect is made up of the perceptual and behavioral
components. The perceptual component (TPP) of the third-person
effect predicts that people tend to underestimate media effects on
themselves while overestimating media effects on others (Perloff,
1993). The behavioral component examines the potential consequences
of the third-person effect (Perloff, 1999).
As noted by Gunther and Storey (2003), the perceptual hypothesis has
been widely supported by dozens of studies. These include studies on
the third-person effect and a wide array of topics such as misogynic
rap lyrics (Eveland, Nathanson, Detenber, & McLeod, 1999),
sensational courtroom trials (Driscoll & Salwen, 1997), pornography
residential mobility (Tsfati & Cohen, 2003), Holocaust denial
advertising ((Price, Tewksbury & Huang, 1998) and even third-person
effect and Y2K millennium pseudo crisis (Tewksbury, Moy & Weis,
2004). The tendency of individuals to overestimate media effects on
others while underestimating effects on self as predicted by the
perceptual component has traditionally been explained by biased
optimism or by causal attribution (Rucinski & Salmon, 1990). Biased
optimism assumes that people evaluate themselves more favorably than
they do others and therefore perceive themselves as less susceptible
to negative events (Weinstein & Klein, 1996). Causal attribution
posits that people will interpret media effects on self in terms of
situational factors while interpreting effects on others based on
dispositional explanations (Shah, Faber, & Youn, 1999).
TPE and advertising
Both causal attribution and biased optimism can be useful in
explaining the TPP when the media stimulus is negative such as the
case with pornography (Chia, Lu, & McLeod, 2004), misogynic rap
lyrics (McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997) and media violence
((Rojas, Shah, & Faber, 1996). However, not all media stimuli are
negative. Researchers have found only mixed evidence of TPP when
dealing with "socially desirable" stimuli such as public service announcement.
Gunther and Thorson (1992) were first to suggest that the positive
or negative nature of the message influences the third-person effect.
Comparing perceived media effects of public service announcements and
brand advertising, they identified a reversed third-person effect
(sometimes referred to as the first-person effect) in which people
tend to overestimate media effects on self while underestimating
media effects on others.
Research on third-person effect and advertising found mixed TPP
depending largely on the nature of the advertising messages. For
example, Ognianova, Meeds, Thorson, and Coyle (1996) looked at
political ad reviews (also known as ad watches) and TPE. They
identified a greater third-person effect for negative political ad
reviews than for the positive ad reviews.
Similarly, Duck & Mullin (1995) found that experiment participants
identified TPP when exposed to negative stimuli while perceiving
first person perceptions when exposed to positive stimuli such as
public service announcements. Duck, Terry and Hogg (1995) found that
survey respondents perceived themselves to be more influenced by high
quality AIDS advertisements than others. They argued that
ego-enhancement was the driving mechanism for such a reversed
third-person effect. Innes and Zeitz (1998) also identified that the
valance of content as positive or negative can lead to reduced levels
of TPP. Respondents in their study identified greater TPP when
exposed to media violence than they did for political advertising or
public service campaigns. Gunther and Mundy (1993) compared
"harmful" and "beneficial" advertisements and found that while
individuals perceived others to be more influenced by "harmful" ads
than they were, they did not evaluate others differently than
themselves when it came to "beneficial" ads. Finally, Banning (2001)
found that negative stigma of advertising leads to greater levels of
a third-person effect.
The current study aims to broaden understanding of the third-person
effect by examining the third-person effect of negative and positive
political advertising on both the perceptual and behavioral
components. Based on the rich third-person effect literature we will
predict the following regarding advertising valance and third person
perceptions:
H1: Respondents will perceive others to be more influenced than they
were when exposed to political attack advertisements (third-person effect).
H2: Respondents will perceive themselves to be more influenced than
others when exposed to candidate positioning advertisements
(first-person effect).
Behavioral consequences of TPE
While the perceptual component of the third-person effect has been
widely supported by research (Perloff, 1999), researchers have agreed
that the behavioral component has not. (Gunther & Storey, 2003;
Perloff, 1999). While the former examines perceived media effects,
the latter focuses on the real life consequences of these perceived
effects. Until now, behavioral research on TPE has focused largely
on the real life consequences of the perceived effects of negative
media. For example, Shah, Faber and Youn (1999) found a significant
relationship between third-person perceptions of advertising of
controversial products and willingness to censor advertising. Salwen
and Dupagne (1999) found third-person perceptions of general media
effects was a key predictor of support for restrictions on negative
political advertising. Hoffner et al. (1999) identified a positive
relationship between TPP of the effect of television violence and
likelihood to support censorship. Indeed, several other studies were
successful in establishing a relationship between TPP and real life
consequences on a variety of topics including pornography (Lee &
Yang, 1996), news coverage (Tewksbury, Moy, & Weis, 2004), television
violence (Rojas et al., 1996), television viewing (Peiser & Peter,
2000) and misogynic rap lyrics (McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997).
Missing from the literature on the behavioral consequences of the
third-person effect is knowledge on the real life consequences of the
first-person effect. As evident by previous studies (Such as Gunther
& Mundy, 1993), TPP largely depend on the nature of the media
stimuli. Researchers have consistently examined how negative stimuli
such as pornography led to real life consequences but failed to take
into account the real life consequences of more socially desirable
stimuli such as public service announcements or positive message advertising.
Even before researchers looked into behavioral effects of the TTP,
one early study (Griswold, 1992) found Georgia voters who felt others
were more affected by economic messages were less likely to vote.
However, no separation between valences of the messages was made.
The current study will attempt to contribute to knowledge of the
behavioral component by providing one of the first empirical tests of
the real life consequences of TPP regarding political
advertisements. As previously discussed in the literature review,
scholars found evidence suggesting that negative advertising may lead
to reduced voter turnout (Ansolabehere et al., 1994). Based on the
behavioral component research that found TPP to lead to real life
consequences, we hypothesize that TPP of positive and negative
political advertising will lead to real life consequences in terms of
willingness to vote:
H3: Third person perceptions are negatively associated with
participants' likelihood to vote.
Methods
This judgment-task experiment was conducted with sophomore-to-senior
level students in a medium sized state university. Judgment task
experiments are considered to be between surveys and laboratory
experiments, but focus on generalizability of stimuli rather than
generalizability over respondents (Runkel & McGrath, 1972). Because
of this, probability sampling is not required (Rosenthal, 1987).
While there is some concern on using student subjects, a recent study
found 41% of the empirical articles in mass communication journals
used student subjects/respondents and 57% to 87% of studies in
psychology journals used student samples (Lowry & Sundararaman,
2003). Furthermore, examining the relationship between the
third-person effect and perceived voting intention in college is of
particular importance based on their emergence as a key constituency
in modern presidential elections (Kantrowitz, 2004; Hoover, 2003).
The subjects were not offered an inducement and all in the sampling
pool but one agreed to participate. Instruments were distributed and
participants were shown four thirty-second television commercials for
Presidential candidates George Bush and John Kerry. Subjects then
responded to questions about each ad. Each administration took less
than fifteen minutes. The four thirty-second ads were drawn from the
official Bush/Kerry websites (Appendices A-D).
Description of Questions
The study utilized a 48-item instrument including demographics to
describe respondents' age, gender, major, ethnic background and
political affiliation. After watching each of the four political
ads, respondents were asked to measure the influence of the ad on
their perceptions and the perceptions of others as well as on their
likelihood to vote.
The "self" questions that followed the showing of each ad were as
follows: 1) How much do you think this ad will influence your
perception of George W. Bush? 2) How much do you think this ad will
influence your perception of John Kerry?
The scores on both these questions on all four advertisements were
summed together to produce one omnibus "self" perception score. The
measure of the participants' perception of the ads' influence on
others was measured with the following questions: 1) How much do you
think this ad will influence the perception of George W. Bush by
others in the United States who have seen this ad? 2) How much do you
think this ad will influence the perception of John Kerry by others
in the United States who have seen this ad? The scores on both these
questions for all four advertisements were summed together to produce
one omnibus "others" perception score. The questions were
seven-point, equal -interval scales with bipolar opposites, bounded
by the adjectives "no influence" and "great influence." Indicators of
perceptions, likelihood to vote and influence on candidate choice,
were combined respectively for each of the four ads.
The basic definition for the perceptual "third-person effect" is the
phenomenon created by a person believing the media has a greater
effect on others than the media do on him or her self (Davison,
1983). In the context of this study, the third-person effect would
be defined as an individual believing that political advertising
messages had a greater effect on others than they had on him or her
self. The operational method of defining the third-person effect in
this study is the same method used in many other third-person effect
studies and is not unique to this research.
In this study, a measure of the third-person effect is created by a
number of "couplets," paired questions in the questionnaire. The
concept of using pairs of questions to come up with a third-person
effect score originated with Davison (1983).
Traditionally the first question of the couplet is something to the
effect of "How much do you think this message affects you?" While the
second question is traditionally something like "How much do you
think this message affects others?" If the scores of the two groups
of questions are significantly different from each other, and the
scores of the first question are subtracted from the second question,
a positive score will reveal a third-person effect. To avoid
hypothesis guessing, the couplet questions were not placed in
proximity to each other, but were embedded in the instrument.
In order to clarify the difference between self and others for the
respondents, the following directions were given: "For the questions
on each of the following pages, you will be shown an advertisement
and then asked to answer the questions on that page. You will be
asked to answer questions about your perceptions and the perceptions
of others. By "others," we are referring to other individuals in the
United States who have seen the same ads.
Questions pertaining to behavior consisted of assessing perceived
influence on likelihood to vote. Likelihood to vote was measured with
the question: How much does this ad influence your likelihood to go
out and vote? Perceived affect on candidate choice was measured with
the question: How likely will this ad influence your choice of
candidate (who you will vote for)? As with the perception questions,
behavior questions were seven-point, equal -interval scales with
bipolar opposites, bounded by the adjectives "no influence" and
"great influence."
Results
Three-hundred-forty participated in the study, of whom 206 were
female (62 %), with an overall mean age of 19. The sample was
predominantly white (89.3%), with 6.2% African American, 2.4%
Hispanic, .9% Native American and 1.2% other ethnicities.
Six-point-three percent said they were not likely at all to vote,
15.5% said they were somewhat likely to vote and 78.2% said they were
very likely to vote. In regard to the upcoming election, 2.7% said
they were not interested at all, 9.8% said they were somewhat
interested, 25.7% said they were interested, and 61.8% said they were
very interested.
A manipulation check was performed on the ads to determine if the
attack ads were indeed viewed by the respondents as negative and if
the positioning ads were viewed by the respondents as positive.
Descriptive statistics of the individual ads showed a great
difference in means (see Table1).
Table 1
Sum of valence scores by ad and ad type
Ad# Kind of Ad N Sum Mean Std.
Ad1 Attack 339 701 2.07 .92
Ad2 Positioning 338 1,523 4.51 .79
Ad3 Attack 339 594 1.75 .91
Ad4 Positioning 340 1,579 4.64 .63
NB: The range of each of the above scores was five, one being the
most negative and five
being the most positive.
The combined attack ad valence scores each showed a much more
negative perception among respondents than the combined positioning
ad valence scores (see Table 2). The positioning ads were rated as
being much more positive by respondents. To test if this difference
was significant, a one way ANOVA was run. Significance was found [F
(8, 326) = 23.74, p = .0001].
Table 2
Total summed valence scores for all ads
Ad type N (respondents) sum mean std
Attack ads 338 1,289 3.81 1.24
Position ads 339 2,169 6.40 1.13
NB: Higher scores mean respondents indicated they believed the ad was
more positive.
The first and second hypotheses examine the perceptual element,
predicting a difference in third-person perception based on
positioning and attack political messages. To analyze this it was
necessary to group the messages by category and see if the level of
third-person perception is significantly different.
The two positioning ads' third-person effect scores were calculated
using the previously mentioned traditional self minus others method
and added together. The two attack ads' third-person effect scores
were likewise calculated, added together and compared to the combined
scores of the positive ads' third-person effect index using a one way
ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant [F (14, 332) = 8.07, p = .0001].
The negative ads had a much higher third-person effect level (which
transfers to a lower first-person effect level) and the positive ads
had a much lower third-person effect level (a higher first-person
effect level). This supports hypotheses 1 and 2, which says positive
messages have a greater first-person effect and negative messages
have a greater third-person effect, respectively. Table 3 shows the
third-person effect score for the negative ads was 1,031, while the
third-person effect score for the positive ads was 612, meaning the
third-person effect score for the attack ads was 40.65% higher than
the third-person effect score for the positioning ads.
Table 3
Third-person effect level for positioning and attack ads
Ad Type Mean Standard Deviation Sum
TPE Attack Ads 3.06 2.65 1,031
TPE Positioning Ads 1.82 3.59 612
Since Hypothesis 3 deals with the behavioral aspect of the
third-person effect, the total third-person effect scores of all four
ads for both candidates were compared to the total scores for
likelihood to vote of the four ads. A regression was used to test the
linear nature of this A bivariate-regression between the third-person
effect and likelihood to vote resulted in significance [R = .24, R2 =
.06, F = (1, 329), 20.00, p = 0001] at the .0001 level (adjusted R2
was not used because the regression was bivariate rather than multivariate).
A test of the association between behavioral scores relating for
positive and negative ads respectively was run. A one-way ANOVA
resulted in significance [F (8, 336) = 72.10, p = .0001]. Table 4
shows participants felt the attack ads were more likely to make them
vote. This means likelihood to vote increased as the third-person
effect increased, and the third-person effect was a firm predictor of
likelihood to vote. This does not support H3.
Table 4
Behavioral score descriptive statistics relating to likelihood to
vote grouped by positioning and attack ads
Mean Standard Deviation Sum
Attack Ads 4.62 2.69 1,562
Positioning Ads 4.35 2.17 1,476
N.B.: Question: "How much does this ad influence your likelihood to
go out and vote?"
Higher scores reflect a greater belief that the ads would affect the
participant's likelihood to vote.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to explore third person
perceptions with a focus on message valance in political
advertising. Our study analyzed how people perceived political
advertisements to affect themselves based on the perceptual component
of the third-person effect. In addition, we analyzed how these
perceived effects influenced peoples' likelihood to go out and vote
based on the behavioral component of the third-person
effect. Realizing that political advertising has emerged as a
central campaign technique in modern elections, we argue that
understanding perceived effects of political advertising is an
important area of knowledge.
Our study found evidence to support the notion that the valance of
the advertising content can influence the amount and direction of the
third-person effect (Gunther & Thorson, 1992). We found that
political attack ads may lead to greater third person perceptions
while candidate positioning advertisements led to a first-person
effect. These results reinforce research finds by Cohen & Davis (1992).
Moving beyond the perceptual component of the third-person effect, we
examined how perceived effects of political advertising may influence
participants' likelihood to vote. Our results indicated that
likelihood to vote increased as the third-person effect
increased. These results are contrary to our hypothesis. While
third person perceptions were significant predictors of likelihood to
vote, the coefficient direction was contrary to our predictions. We
found that likelihood to vote decreased as first person perceptions
decreased or if phrased in the other direction, likelihood to vote
increased as third person perceptions increased. What these results
actually point to is that the perceived effects of negative political
advertising may actually motivate people to go out and vote. This is
contrary to the assumptions of previous research that suggests that
negative ads are likely to disenfranchise voters from the political
process (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995). It should be noted that
while previous TPE researchers such as Cohen and Davis (1991)
suggested behavioral consequences of negative political advertising,
their study did not actually test for it. The current study did test
for a behavioral consequence of the third-person effect in political
advertising and found evidence that contradicted Cohen and Davis' conclusion.
This study found people are more likely to say they are going to vote
if an ad carries an attack. This does not support the
disenfranchisement Cohen and Davis suggested. The situation in the
current study is one in which respondents felt others would be more
affected by political attack ads and yet said those same attack ads
were more likely to make them want to vote.
The explanation may lie in more recent studies on the third-person
effect that have delved into behavior consequences. Paternalism has
been offered as a reason people tend to act in certain circumstances
involving the third-person effect (McLeod, Detenber & Eveland, 2001).
Paternalism suggests that people will react to protect others and in
reference to the third-person effect it has been suggested that the
third-person effect can lead to paternalism. This may occur because
of variables common to both concepts. For instance, both paternalism
and the third-person effect rely on a feeling by the individual that
they are in a less vulnerable position than their counterparts.
Past third-person effect studies have suggested paternalism is
responsible for people wanting to censor a variety of sources from
rap music to television. The researchers suggest that in this
third-person effect study paternalism is also at work and responsible
for the link between political attack ads and increased likelihood to vote.
The researchers suggest that respondents feel that because the attack
ads effect others more than themselves (in their own perception) the
"others" are more vulnerable to the attack messages. To combat this,
they feel more motivated to get out and vote to balance what they
feel is the inequity of knowledge created by vulnerable voters. This
model explains the findings in this study. While the findings for
hypothesis 3 were not confirmed, the findings do suggest that
paternalism may be a factor in how people respond to political media
messages in general and political attack ads in particular.
Future research could further examine the apparent link between
paternalism, third-person effect and political messages in the
behavioral realm. Specifically, elements of paternalism should be
tested as part of third-person effect experiments instead of merely
assumed as a cause.
References
Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994).
Does attack advertising
demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829-838.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political
advertising shrinks and polarizes the electorate. New York: Free Press.
Banning, S. A. (2001). Do you see what I see?: Third-person effects on public
communication through self-esteem, social stigma, and product use. Mass
Communication and Society, 4 (2), 127-147.
Boyle, T. P. (2001). Intermedia agenda setting in the 1996
presidential election.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 26-44.
Chia, S.C., Lu, K., & McLeod, D.M. (2004). Sex, lies and video
compact disc: A case
study on third-person perception and motivations for censorship.
Communication Research, 31 (1), 109-130.
Clinton, J. D., & Lapinski, J.S. (2004). Targeted advertising and
voter turnout:
An experimental study of the 2000 presidential election. Journal of Politics,
66 (1).
Cwalina, W., Falkowski, A., & Kaid, L.L. (2000). Role of advertising
in forming the
image of politicians: Comparative analysis of Poland, France and Germany.
Media Psychology, 2, 119-146.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The Third-person effect in communication, Public
Opinion Quarterly 47, 1-13.
Driscoll, P., & Salwen, M. (1997). Self-perceived knowledge of the
O.J. Simpson trial:
Third-person perception and perceptions of guilt. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 74(3), 541-556.
Duck, J., Hogg, M., & Terry, D. (1995). Me, us and them: Political
identification and the
third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election.
European Journal of
Social Psychology, 25, 195–215.
Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B. A. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media:
Reconsidering the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology,
25, 77-93.
Eveland, W. P. Jr., Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H., & McLeod, D. M. (1999).
Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of
exposure and the
third-person perception. Communication Research, 26, 275-302.
Garramone, G. M. (1985). Effects of negative political advertising:
The roles of sponsor
and rebuttal. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 29, 147-159.
Garramone, G. M., & Atkin, C. K. (1990). Effects of negative
political advertising on the
political process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34(3),
299-312.
Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign advertising and voter
turnout: New
evidence for a stimulation effect. The Journal of Politics, 64(3), 721-740.
Griswold, W. F. (1992, August). Third-person effect and voting intentions in a
presidential primary election. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Montreal.
Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the
third-person effect.
Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 58-67.
Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed
influence. Journal of
Communication, 53(2), 199-215.
Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of
commercials and
public service announcements: The third-person effect in new domains.
Communication Research, 19, 574-596.
Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J., Hubbs, L., Kamigaki, S.,
Kowalczyk, L., et al.
(1999). Support for censorship of television violence. Communication
Research, 26(6), 726-742.
Hoover, E. (2003). Courting campus kids. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 49, 39, A35.
Innes, J. M., & Zeitz, H. (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.
Jamieson, K. H. (2001). Everything you think you know about politics
. . . and why you're
wrong. New York: Basic Books.
Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize
or suppress
turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation.
American Political Science Review, 93(4), 877-889.
Kantrowitz, B. (2004, July 5). The junior varsity. Newsweek, 36-38.
Lee, C., & Yang, S. (1996, August). Third-person perception and support for
censorship of sexually explicit visual content: A Korean case. Paper
presented at
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Anaheim,
CA.
Lowry, D. T., & Sundararaman, K. H. (2003, August). Population
validity and subject
selection bias in eight marketing and mass communication journals: A critical
review. Paper presented at the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass
Communication, Kansas City, MO.
McCombs, M., Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Rey, F. (1997).
Candidate images in
Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 74, 703-717.
McKinnon, L. M., & Kaid, L. L. (1999). Exposing negative campaigning
or enhancing
advertising effects: An experimental study of adwatch effects on voters'
evaluations of candidates and their ads. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 27, 217-236.
McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2001). Behind
the third-person
effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of
Communication, 51, 678-695.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997).
Support for censorship of
violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect.
Communication Research, 24(2), 153-174.
Merritt, S. (1984). Negative political advertising: Some empirical
findings. Journal of
Advertising, 13(3), 27-38.
Ognianova, E., Meeds, R., Thorson, E., & Coyle, J. (1996, August).
Political adwatches
and the third-person effect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Anaheim,
CA.
Peiser, W., & Peter, J. (2000). Third-person perception of
television-viewing behavior.
Journal of Communication, 50(1), 25-45.
Perloff, R. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third-person effect of
televised news
coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-62.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review and
synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167-184.
Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and
synthesis.
Media Psychology, 1, 353-378.
Pinkleton, B. (1997). The effects of negative comparative political
advertising on
candidate evaluations and advertising evaluations: An exploration. Journal of
Advertising, 26(1), 19-29.
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Huang, L. (1998). Third-person effects on
publication of a
Holocaust-denial advertisement. Journal of Communication, 48 (2), 3-26.
Roberts, M., & McCombs, M. (1994). Agenda setting and political
advertising: Origins
of the news agenda. Political Communication, 11, 249-262.
Roddy, B. L., & Garramone, G. M. (1988). Appeals and strategies of
negative political
advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32(4), 415-427.
Rojas, H., Shah, D. V., & Faber, R. J. (1996). For the good of
others: Censorship and the
third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 8, 163- 186.
Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and
Democracy. New York: Macmillan.
Rosenthal, R. (1987). Judgement Studies: Design, Analysis and Meta-analysis.
Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
Rucinski, D., & Salmon, C. 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.
Runkel, P.J., & McGrath J.E. (1972). Research on Human Behavior: A
Systematic Guide
to Method. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (1999). The third-person
effect: Perceptions of the
media's influence and immoral consequences. Communication Research, 26(5),
523-550.
Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and
severity: Perceptual
dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26,
240–267.
Sorauf, F. J. (1988). Money in American Elections. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman/Little.
Tewksbury, D., Moy, P., & Weis, D. (2004). Preparations for Y2K:
Revisiting the
behavioral component of the third-person effect. Journal of
Communication, 54,
138-155.
Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2003). On the effect of the "third person
effect": Perceived
influence of media coverage and residential mobility intentions. Journal of
Communication, 53, 711–727.
Wattenberg, M. P., & Brians, C. L. (1999). Negative campaign
advertising: Demobilizer
or mobilizer? American Political Science Review, 93(4), 891-899.
Weinstein, N., & Klein, W. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and
future. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 1-8.
West, D. M. (1997). Air wars: Television advertising in election
campaigns, 1952–1996.
Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
Appendix A
Ad #1 Kerry
Male Voiceover: The Bush healthcare record: health insurance costs up
64%; Medicare premiums up by 56%…The Bush healthcare plan: raise
insurance premiums for 4 out of 5 small businesses. Over a million
more Americans would lose their health insurance coverage…John Kerry:
a plan to make healthcare available and affordable, cut the costs for
small businesses…John Kerry--a new direction on healthcare.
Kerry: I'm John Kerry, and I approved this message.
Appendix B
Ad #2 Kerry
Male Voiceover: He's a husband and father…a hunter…hockey
player…tough prosecutor…advocate for kids…a man of faith…a combat
veteran who earned 3 purple hearts, risking his life to save
others…19 years Senate foreign relations committee, praised by former
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under Presidents Reagan and
Clinton…stronger at home, respected in the world…John Kerry for President.
Kerry: I'm John Kerry, and I approved this message.
Appendix C
Ad #3 Bush
Bush: I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this message.
Female voiceover: Few votes in Congress are as important as funding
our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October 2002 for
military action in Iraq, he later voted against funding our soldiers.
Senate role call: Mr. Kerry?
Female voiceover: No. Body armor for troops in combat…
Senate role call: Mr. Kerry?
Female voiceover: No. Higher combat pay…
Senate role call: Mr. Kerry?
Female voiceover: No. And better healthcare for reservists and their families…
Senate role call: Mr. Kerry?
Female voiceover: No. Wrong on defense.
Appendix D
Ad #4 Bush
Bush: We're in changing times, and the economy is changing. We need
new small business owners, and that's why the policies I put forth
help small businesses. We've got tax cuts in place that will help the
economy grow, and we've also got plans to help people get the skills
necessary to fill the new jobs of the 21st century. I'm optimistic
about America because I believe in the people of America. I'm George
W. Bush, and I approved this message.
|
