Content-Type: text/html

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
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D7275357%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a> with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================

Youth Perceptions of their School Violence Risks

John Chapin
Penn State University


Abstract

	In order to gauge youth perceptions of school violence, the study 
links two perceptual bias literatures: third-person perception and 
optimistic bias. The intersection of the two literatures may be 
especially beneficial in understanding how adolescents process and 
interpret mass media public health messages and subsequently engage 
in risk behaviors or self-protective behaviors in health contexts. 
Findings from a survey of 350 urban adolescents indicate shared 
predictors of third-person perception and optimistic bias (age, 
self-esteem) as well as differences (knowledge).



Youth Perceptions of their School Violence Risks
Children and youth are bombarded daily by a broad array of violent 
messages in the media. Recaps of the World Trade Center attacks and 
news footage of school shootings depict devastation and human loss, 
while action films and televised crime dramas depict violence as the 
norm, even part of the solution. Even MTV, a staple of youth TV 
consumption, counters violent images in music videos with personal 
documentaries about school violence. The mixed messages leave 
adolescent viewers to decide for themselves what is accurate, what is 
real and what it all means. Their perceptions and interpretations may 
have real-world consequences.
Two distinct literatures provide insight into such adolescent 
misperceptions.  Communication studies offer third-person perception; 
health psychology offers optimistic bias.  Linking the literatures 
within the context of school violence may provide better 
understanding of adolescent perceptions of violence.
	Davison introduced the third-person perception concept in 1983, with 
a straightforward hypothesis: Individuals believe they are less 
influenced than are others by media messages.  Nearly two decades and 
over 50 published articles later, third-person perception is well 
documented but not yet fully understood.
	Multiple studies suggest optimistic bias (Weinstein, 1980) is a 
promising explanation for third-person perception (Brosius & Engel, 
1996; Duck & Mullin, 1995; Duck, Terry & Hogg, 1995; Gunther, 1991; 
Gunther & Hwa, 1996; Gunther & Mundy, 1993; Rucinski & Salmon, 1990). 
Optimistic Bias predicts that people believe they are less vulnerable 
than are others to health risks. The similarities to the third-person 
perception hypothesis are obvious.  Few studies  empirically test 
such a relationship. Chapin (2000) reported a small inverse 
relationship between first-person perception and optimistic bias 
among urban minority at-risk youth. First-person perception emerges 
in studies that use pro-social messages (in this case, safer sex 
message); participants believe it is positive to be influenced by 
such messages, so third-person perception is reversed with people 
believing they are more influenced than others by the messages. 
Chapin concluded that third-person perception and optimistic bias 
each contributed uniquely to understanding participants' perceptions 
and sexual risk-taking behaviors and urged further research linking 
the literatures. The current study furthers the linkage by utilizing 
negative media messages (media violence), which are more common in 
the third-person perception literature.
Purpose of the Study
	The current study serves several purposes: (1) Linking third-person 
perception and optimistic bias, (2) understanding contributing 
factors to both perceptual biases, and (3) applying the concepts to 
the school violence context.
	School violence is an ideal context for the study, given the 
longstanding interest of communication scholars in the relationship 
between media violence and youth behavior, the interest of health 
psychology scholars in understanding and reducing youth violence, and 
the current public concern over high profile school murders.
H1	Students believe they are less influenced than are others by 
violent media (Third-person perception).
H2	Students believe violence is less likely to happen in their school 
than other schools in the U.S. (optimistic bias).
H3	Third-person perception will increase as optimistic bias increases.
Perception and Demographics
	Contrary to predictions by proponents of the adolescent 
invulnerability hypothesis, third-person perception seems to decrease 
with age (Chapin, 2001; Chapin, 2000; Salwen & Dupagne, 1999; Youn, 
Faber & Shah, 2000). Increased experience with the media may explain 
this development.
	Educational differences have been of some interest to third-person 
perception scholars, with the more educated participants exhibiting 
greater degrees of third-person perception, while also believing 
their less educated peers are especially at risk of media influence 
(Mutz, 1989; Peiser & Peter, 2000; Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000). In 
contrast, Shah, Faber and Youn (1999) reported no significant 
relationship between education and third-person perception. The same 
study was the only one to focus on gender, reporting that women were 
more likely than men to exhibit third-person perception regarding the 
effect of gambling advertisements on peers.
	The last demographic variable utilized in the literature is income 
(S.E.S.). Salwen and Dupagne's (1999) meta-analysis of the literature 
found no support for such a relationship.
	The influence of demographics on optimistic bias is less clear. In 
an early literature review and community sample, Weinstein (1987) 
reported little or no relationship between optimistic bias and age, 
education, gender, or income. Weinstein's community sample did not 
include any adolescents, however, and the review was limited to 
studies that Weinstein acknowledged were over-reliant on white 
college student samples.
	Since this early synthesis of the literature, results have been 
mixed. Numerous studies show optimistic bias, like third-person 
perception decreases with age (Arnett, 2000; Job, 1990; Job, Fleming, 
& Morgan, 1992; Quadrel, Fischoff, & Davis, 1993). Quadrel and 
colleagues' (1993) sample tested both adults and adolescents, finding 
adults and their children believed the adults were less prone to a 
variety of risks. Chapin (1999) found no significant relationship 
between optimistic bias and age.
	Over-reliance on college student samples has limited the ability to 
explore a relationship between optimistic bias and education. 
Consistent with the third-person perception literature, Klacynski & 
Fauth (1997) found that more educated participants exhibited greater 
degrees of optimistic bias.
	The optimistic bias literature has addressed gender effects more 
fully than has the third-person perception literature, consistently 
finding males more prone to optimistic bias than females for risks 
ranging from automobile accidents to cancer (Chapin, 1999; Hampson, 
1998; Whalen, Henker, O'Neil, Hollingshead, Holman, & Moore, 1994).
	Finally, income (S.E.S.) also seems to increase optimistic bias 
regarding health risks (Farber, 1992; Williams, Currie, & Wright, 1997).
H4	Third-person perception and optimistic bias will be greater for 
males than for females.
H5	Third-person perception and optimistic bias will increase as age decreases.
Perception and Knowledge
	Knowledge about a context area is a staple of the third-person 
perception literature. Even perceived expertise in an area encourages 
greater self/other distinctions in perceived media influence (Atwood, 
1994; Chapin, 2001; Chapin, 2000; White & Dillon, 2000). Only one 
study (Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996) failed to find a predicted 
relationship between knowledge and third-person perception.
	Similarly, multiple studies have also reported a positive 
relationship between optimistic bias and knowledge (Al-Najjar, 
al-Azemi, Buhaimed, Adib & Behbehani, 1998; Bane, 1998; Frewer, 
Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1998), with one exception reporting no 
significant relationship (Ferguson, 1997).  In both literatures, the 
old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" seems to hold 
true. Given the knowledge/awareness emphasis of most public health 
campaigns, further research in the area may significantly contribute 
to message design.
H6	Third-person perception and optimistic bias will increase as 
knowledge increases.
Perception and Self-Esteem
	Less is known about self-esteem in both literatures. Among David and 
Johnson's (1998) 144 female journalism student participants, students 
in the high self-esteem group (median split) exhibited higher degrees 
of third-person perception regarding the influence of idealized body 
images in the media on eating disorders. Similar results were 
reported previously in a variety of research contexts (Duck, Hogg, & 
Terry, 1995; Gunther, 1992; Gunther & Thorson, 1992). High 
self-esteem may be used as a protective shield against perceived media effects.
	Drawing from the third-person perception literature, Chapin (2000) 
found self-esteem also positively related to optimistic bias. The 
existing literature is limited, but consistent (Smith, Gerrard, & 
Gibbons, 1997), with higher self-esteem allowing people to believe 
they are at reduced risk of health hazards.
H7	Third-person perception and optimistic bias will increase as 
self-esteem increases.
Method
Participants
	The students who participated in the study attended public and 
private schools in a single county in urban Pennsylvania (N = 350). 
Students ranged in age from 13 to 19 (M = 15.6, SD = 2.3), were 60% 
female and 80% Caucasian. Students took part in one-day violence 
awareness sessions offered by a non-profit domestic violence center. 
All sessions took place in school and were conducted by a licensed 
counselor in the presence of teachers. Differences in findings 
attributable to race or public vs. private school attendance were not 
significant.
Materials
	Third-person perception was measured with two items following a 
discussion (priming) of violence in the media: How much do you think 
_____(YOU, OTHER STUDENTS YOUR AGE IN THE U.S.) are influenced by 
violence in the media?  Consistent with the literature, responses 
were on a 7-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all; 6 = extremely 
influenced).  Subtracting SELF-ratings from OTHER ratings resulted in 
a measure of third-person perception, with a positive score 
indicating the belief that others are more influenced by media 
violence (third-person perception).
	Optimistic bias was measured with a single item: Compared to OTHER 
SCHOOLS IN THE U.S., the chances of violence happening in my school 
are: (-3 = much less; +3 = much greater). A mean of zero would 
indicate no difference between perceived chances of school violence.
	Knowledge was measured with an instrument designed by counselors at 
the non-profit center to determine students' awareness of school 
violence and dating violence. Ten items regarding violence facts and 
statistics were collected prior to the session, then immediately 
discussed. Scores ranged from one to 10, indicating the number of 
items answered correctly. All items loaded onto a single factor, and 
the resulting scale demonstrated moderate internal consistency (a = .58).
	Self-esteem was measured with the 10-item Rosenberg scale. The scale 
has been widely used and accepted for over two decades. All items 
loaded onto a single factor, and the resulting scale demonstrated 
high internal consistency (a = .86).
Results
	The first two hypotheses predicted third-person perception and 
optimistic bias among the group. A single-sample t-test was used to 
test H1. Consistent with H1, students believed that they (M = 2.7, SD 
= 1.6) were less influenced than were others (M = 4.5, SD = 1.5) by 
media violence, t (259) = .18.1, p < .000. The positive mean 
difference (1.8) indicates third-person perception. H1 was supported. 
The findings are consistent with the literature.
	A single-sample t-test was also used to test H2. Consistent with H2, 
students believed that violence was more likely to happen in other 
schools in the U.S. than in their school, t (252) = -7.9, p < .000. 
The negative mean (M = -.7, SD = 1.4) indicates optimistic bias at 
the group level. H2 was supported. The findings were consistent with 
the literature.
	H3 predicted that third-person perception would increase as 
optimistic bias increased.  Table 1 summarizes zero-order correlation 
analysis, showing the relationship emerged as predicted. Students who 
believed they were less influenced than were others by media violence 
were also prone to believe that violence wasn't likely to happen in 
their school. H3 was supported. The finding is consistent with the 
limited literature.
Demographics
	An independent-sample t-test was used to test for gender 
differences. Contrary to the prediction that third-person perception 
and optimistic bias would be each greater for males than females, no 
significant difference was found. H4 was not supported. The 
literature is filled with mixed results, with about half the 
published studies finding the predicted difference and half failing 
to produce significant results.
	As predicted, Table 1 indicates that both third-person perception 
and optimistic bias decrease with age. H5 was supported. The findings 
are consistent with the existing literature.
Knowledge
	Results were split for knowledge. Prior knowledge of school and 
relationship violence was associated with decreased levels of 
third-person perception, but not related to optimistic bias. H6 is 
supported for third-person perception, but not for optimistic bias. 
The split it not surprising, given that content specific knowledge is 
a mainstay of the third-person perception literature and is 
relatively new to the optimistic bias literature, producing mixed results.
Self-Esteem
	As predicted in H7, Table 1 indicates that both third-person 
perception and optimistic bias increase with self-esteem. H7 was 
supported. The findings are consistent with the existing literature.
Predicting Third-Person Perception and Optimistic Bias
	Standard multiple regression was used to identify the best 
predictors of third-person perception and optimistic bias. Table 2 
compares the predictors of each. Analysis of residual plots indicates 
that assumptions regarding normality, linearity, and homoscedacity were met.
	Age was the best predictor of both, followed closely by self-esteem. 
The split between third-person perception and optimistic bias and 
their relationship with knowledge offers the only distinction in 
strikingly similar models, suggesting media viewers apply existing 
knowledge to perceptions of violent content yet fail to base 
perceptions of their own safety on known facts.
Discussion
	The study served several purposes. It links the third-person 
perception and optimistic bias literatures, further bridging a gap 
between communication studies and health psychology. The intersection 
of the two literatures may be especially beneficial in understanding 
how adolescents process and interpret public health messages and 
subsequently engage in risk behaviors or self-protective behaviors in 
health contexts. The study was among the first to examine 
third-person perception or optimistic bias within the important 
context of school violence. Few studies have linked third-person 
perception to health campaigns; results of the current study suggest 
gains are to be made by further investigation in this area.
	The study furthers understanding of contributing factors to both 
perceptual biases. Age appears to increase perceptual bias, perhaps 
due to the absence of negative consequences.  Reasonable people know 
they shouldn't drink and drive, but each time they get behind the 
wheel after consuming alcohol without having an accident or receiving 
a fine, the misperception that these consequences won't ever happens 
is likely to increase. Likewise, such individuals may disregard 
drinking and driving PSAs because the messages do not apply to them. 
The growing literature on self-esteem should be of special interest 
to educators who target students with low self-esteem as potential 
risk-takers, suicide risks, and potential perpetrators of school 
violence.  Adolescents on the high end of the scale seem to be at 
elevated risk as well.
	The finding that adolescents don't depend on rational thought 
(knowledge) to guide risk-taking behaviors is not new. The expression 
"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" seems to apply here. Like 
high self-esteem, a knowledge base, not paired with realistic 
perceptions of potential risks to self, may serve as a shield to 
preserve self-concept, while still engaging in risky behaviors. 
Students who are told by a peer that they are going to bring a gun to 
school and shoot people the following day, routinely fail to report 
the threat to parents or to school officials and subsequently show up 
for school as scheduled, safe in the belief that "bad things don't 
happen here." Decreasing the perceptual biases may be the first step 
in reducing the risks or at least increasing precautions.
Limitations
	Results reported here are based on a convenience sample of students 
in urban Pennsylvania, recruited by a non-profit domestic violence 
center. Differences in schools that choose to participate in such 
programs may skew results toward greater or lesser perceptions of 
violence. Findings may also not be generalizable to other areas of 
the country. Cooperative arrangements between universities and 
non-profit organizations create unique opportunities, but also 
limitations; in this case, limited space on pre/post tests for 
measures limited the scope of the investigation, and 
counselor-constructed measures (knowledge) met the organization's 
needs to guide sessions, but resulted in measures with only moderate 
internal consistency for research purposes.
Acknowledgements
	The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Stacy de las 
Alas and Grace Coleman of Crisis Center North, and Amira Johnson of 
Penn State University to this project.

References
Al-Najjar, F., Al-Azemi, W., BuHaimed, W., Adib, S., & Behbehani, J. 
(1998). Knowledge and expectations among Kuwaiti mothers attending 
clinics for asthmatic children.  Psychology, Health & Medicine, 3(3), 253-259.
Arnett, J. (2000). Optimistic bias in adolescent and adult smokers. 
Addictive Behaviors, 25(4), 625-632.
Atwood, E. (1994). Illusions of media power: the third-person effect. 
Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 269-281.
Bane, C. (1998). Maintaining optimistic bias in the face of 
constraining risk information, Dissertation Abstracts International: 
Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 5(8-B), 4519.
Brosius, H. & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of 3rd person effects: 
Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized negative 
attitudes towards media influence, International Journal of Public 
Opinion Research, 8(2), 142-162.
Chapin, J. (2001). It won't happen to me: The role of optimistic bias 
in African-American teens' risky sexual practices. Howard Journal of 
Communications, 12, 49-59.
Chapin, J. (2000). Third-person perception and optimistic bias among 
urban minority at-risk youth. Communication Research, 27(1), 51-81.
Chapin, J. (1999). Third-person perception and sexual risk-taking 
among minority "at-risk" youth. Mass Communication and Society, 2 
(3/4), 163-173.
David, P. & Johnson, M. (1998). The role of self in third-person 
effects about body image, Journal of Communication 48 (4), 37-58.
Davison, W. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public 
Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
Duck, J. & Mullin, B. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: 
reconsidering the third-person effect. European Journal of Social 
Psychology, 25, 77-93.
Duck, J., Terry, D., & Hogg, M. (1995). The perceived influence of 
AIDS advertising: 3rd person effects in the context of positive media 
content. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 305-325.
Farber, N. (1992). Perceptions of pregnancy risk: A comparison by 
class and race. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64 (3), 479-484.
Ferguson, E. (1997). HIV/AIDS knowledge and HIV/AIDS risk perception: 
An indirect relationship. Work & Stress, 11(2), 103-117.
Frewer, L., Howard, C., Hedderly, D., Shepherd, R. (1998). 
Methodological approaches to assessing risk perceptions associated 
with food-related hazards, Risk Analysis, 18(1), 95-102.
Gunther, A. (1991). What we think others think: cause and consequence 
in the third person effect. Communication Research, 18(3), 355-372.
Gunther, A. & Hwa, A. (1996). Public perceptions of television 
influence and opinions about censorship in Singapore. International 
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(3), 248-265.
Gunther, A & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person 
effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 58-67.
Gunther, A. & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of 
product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person 
effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19(5) 574-596.
Hampson, S., Andrews, J., Lee, M., Foster, L., Glasgow, R., & 
Lichtenstein, E. (1998). Lay understating of synergistic risk: The 
case of radon and cigarette smoking. Risk Analysis,18(3), 343-350.
Hoorens, V. & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: 
Beyond the 3rd person effect.  European Journal of Social Psychology, 
26(4), 599-610.
Job, R. (1990). The application of learning theory to driving 
confidence: The effect of age and the impact of random breath 
testing, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 22, 97-107.
Job, R., Fleming, E. & Morgan, G. (1992). The effects of age on 
unrealistic optimism about driving and road safety, International 
Journal of Psychology, 27, 627-628.
Klacynski, P. & Fauth, J. (1996). Intellectual ability, rationality, 
and intuitiveness as predictors of warranted and unwarranted optimism 
for future life events, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25(6), 755-819.
Mutz, D. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence: 
Third-person effects and the public expression of opinions, 
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1(1), 3-23.
Peiser, W. & Peter, J. (2000). Third-person perception of television 
viewing behavior. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 25-45.
Quadrel, M., Fischoff, B., & Davis, w. (1993). Adolescent (in) 
vulnerability, American Psychologist, 48(2), 102-116.
Rucinski, D. & Salmon, C. (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.
Salwen, M. & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A 
meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis, Mass Communication & 
Society, 3(1), 57-85.
Salwen, M. & Dupagne, M. (1999). The third-person effect: Perceptions 
of the media's influence and immortal consequences. Communication 
Research, 26(5), 523-549.
Shah, D., Faber, R., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: 
Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect, 
Communication Research, 26(2), 240-267.
Smith, G., Gerrard, M. & Gibbons, F. (1997). Self-esteem and the 
relation between risk behavior and perceptions of vulnerability to 
unplanned pregnancy in college women, Health Psychology, 16(2), 137-146.
Weinstein, N. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-460.
Whalen, C., Henker, B., O'Neil, R., Hollingshead, J., Holman, A. & 
Moore, B. (1994).  Preadolescents' perceptions of AIDS before and 
after Earvin Magic Johnson's announcement, Journal of Pediatric 
Psychology, 19(1), 3-17.
White, H. & Dillon, J. (2000). Knowledge about others' reaction to a 
public service announcement: The impact of self persuasion and 
third-person perception. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 
77(4), 788-803.
Williams, J., Currie, C., & Wright, P. (1997). Socioeconomic status 
and adolescent injuries, Social Science & Medicine, 44 (12), 1881-1891.
Youn, S., Faber, R., & Shah, D. (2000). Restricting gambling 
advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology and Marketing, 
17(7), 633-649.

Table 1

Zero-Order Correlations among Third-Person Perception (TPE), 
Optimistic Bias (OB), and Study Variables.
													
			2	        	3		4		5				

TPE		      	.18**	      	-.18**		  .16*		.15*

OB			---       		-.18**         	-.01             	.14*

Age					---	      	.09         	.01

Knowledge						---	     	.12

Self-esteem								---
													
* Because optimistic bias is indicated by a negative mean, signs for 
OB have been reversed in the table for ease of interpretation.

**p<.01, *p<.05


Table 2

Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting 
Third-Person Perception and Optimistic Bias
													
Third-Person Perception		Optimistic Bias

      Adjusted  r2 = .04			Adjusted  r2 = .02
            n = 300				     n = 300

				____________________		__________________
Predictor			B	SE B	    ß			B	SE B	   B	
Age				-.11	.04	   -.13**		-.10	.04	   -.13**
Self-Esteem			-.03	.01	   -.12**		-.03	.01	   -.12**
Knowledge			-.21	.10	   -.10*			  .03	.09	     .02
Optimistic Bias		  .00	.06	     .00			----------------------------
Third-Person Perception	----------------------------		  .00	.04	     .00	
**p<.01, *p<.05