This study examines the effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on perceived media effects for desirable and undesirable health messages. It finds support for the effect social distance as traditionally measured; that is, groups that are more socially distant from the self, like the public, are perceived to be more affected by cigarette ads than close groups, such as friends. However, individual measures of respondents' social distance from any given comparison group generally are unrelated to perceived effects on the group. The influence of a group's perceived exposure on perceived message effects is confirmed for cigarette ads but not for desirable messages. Perceived attitudes of comparison groups toward message-relevant behaviors emerge as a factor that deserves inclusion in models of perceived effects.
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.
2.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Green, M. L. (1996). Selective self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1194-1209.
3.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871-880.
4.
Brame, R., Paternoster, R., Mazerolle, P.,& Piquero, A. (1998). Testing for the equality of maximum-likelihood regression coefficients between two independent equations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14(3), 245-261.
5.
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual-process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull& R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition(Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Chapin, J. R. (2000). Not like me: Self vs. other distinctions in first-person perception. Communication Research Reports, 17, 320-330.
7.
Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 680-688.
8.
Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V.,& Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161-173.
9.
Converse, P. E. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 578-599.
10.
David, P., Liu, K., & Myser, M. (2004). Methodological artifact or persistent bias? Testing the robustness of third-person and reverse third-person effects for alcohol messages. Communication Research, 31(2), 206-233.
11.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
12.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
13.
Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A.,& Terry, D. J. (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.
14.
Eveland, W. P., 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(3), 275-302.
15.
Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1981). Acceptance, yielding and impact: Cognitive processes in persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion(pp. 339-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Gibbon, P., & Durkin, K. (1995). The third person effect: Social distance and perceived media bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 597-602.
17.
Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355-372.
18.
Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 58-67.
19.
Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 18(3), 355-372.
20.
Hamilton, D. L.,& Sherman, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition(Vol. 2, pp. 1-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Hoorens, V.,& Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: Beyond the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 599-610.
22.
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.
23.
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H.,& Eveland, W. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51(4), 678-695.
25.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P.,& 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.
26.
Meirick, P. C. (2002). Self-enhancement, self-affirmation and threats to selfworth: Three tests of a motivational explanation for first and thirdperson effects. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(6), 2037-2037. (UMI No. 3056339)
27.
Meirick, P. C. (2004). Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: Political advertising and first and third-person effects. Communication Research, 31(2), 234-255.
28.
Neuwirth, K.,& Frederick, E. (2002). Extending the framework of third, first and second-person effects. Mass Communication and Society, 5(2), 113-141.
29.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: Ameta-analysis. Communication Research, 21(4), 516-546.
30.
Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 57-85.
31.
Peiser, W.,& Peter, J. (2001). Explaining individual differences in third-person perception: A limits/possibilities perspective. Communication Research, 28(2), 156-180.
32.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167-184.
33.
Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353-378.
34.
Price, V., Huang, L.-N., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations toward media. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 525-540.
35.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 10, pp. 174-221). New York: Academic Press.
36.
Ross, L.,& Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
37.
Scharrer, E. (2002). Third-person perception and television violence: The role of out-group stereotyping in perceptions of susceptibility to effects. Communication Research, 29(6), 681-704.
38.
Tajfel, H.,& Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 7-17). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
39.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes(Vol. 2, pp. 77-121). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
40.
White, H. A. (1997). Considering interacting factors in the third-person effect: Argument strength and social distance. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(3), 557-564.
41.
White, H. A.,& Dillon, J. F. (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.
