Telecom T314 Third Person Effect, Study notes of Telecommunication electronics

Indiana University Bloomington Telecommunication T 314 Topic III: Third Person effect

Typology: Study notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 12/02/2012

ashleyfu2010
ashleyfu2010 šŸ‡ŗšŸ‡ø

10 documents

1 / 10

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Telecommunication T314 Media Process
Topic: Third Person Effect
11/12/2012 Monday class – third person effect
Background
The life and times of W. Phillips Davison
• Princeton University – 1949
• WW2
• Iwo Jima Island
• Pamphlets dropped
• Troops evacuated( 64
A 4
7 9
B B
)
• Davison to self: ā€œHmmmā€??
• West Germany – Early 1950s
• Role of press in policy formation?
• Editorial writers: ā€œEducated people not affected; general person is.ā€
•Davison to self: ā€œHmmmā€
• Election Headquarters – Some years later
• Davison campaigning for his preferred candidate
• Receives opponent’s leaflet
• Even though he is not affected, he worries others will be and takes counter
measures
• 1983
• Davison to self: ā€œI’ve got it!ā€
• Writes Public Opinion Quarterly article titled ā€œThe third-person effect in
communicationā€
Third-person effect hypothesis: Part 1
ā€œPeople will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the
attitudes and behavior of others. More specifically, individuals who are members of an
audience that is exposed to a persuasive communication will expect the communication
to have a greater effect on others than on themselves.ā€
Part 1: Component 1
ā€œPeople will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the
attitudes and behavior of others.ā€
• Researchers call this a ā€œThird-Person Perception.ā€
Part 1: Component 2
ā€œIndividuals who are members of an audience that is exposed to a persuasive
communication will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on
themselves.ā€
*This aspect of the Third-Person Effect Hypothesis is known as the perceptual ( 6 1
1 F
6 0
2 7
)hypothesis.
*Hypothesis supported? Third-Person effect.
Third-person effect hypothesis: Part 2
ā€œThe impact that people expect communication to have on others may lead them to take
some action. Any effect that the communication achieves may thus be due not to the
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa

Partial preview of the text

Download Telecom T314 Third Person Effect and more Study notes Telecommunication electronics in PDF only on Docsity!

Telecommunication T314 Media Process

Topic: Third Person Effect

11/12/2012 Monday class – third person effect Background The life and times of W. Phillips Davison

  • Princeton University – 1949
    • WW
    • Iwo Jima Island
    • Pamphlets dropped
    • Troops evacuated( 6 4A 47 9B B)
    • Davison to self: ā€œHmmmā€??
  • West Germany – Early 1950s
    • Role of press in policy formation?
    • Editorial writers: ā€œEducated people not affected; general person is.ā€
    • (^) Davison to self: ā€œHmmmā€
  • Election Headquarters – Some years later
    • Davison campaigning for his preferred candidate
    • Receives opponent’s leaflet
    • Even though he is not affected, he worries others will be and takes counter measures
  • 1983
    • Davison to self: ā€œI’ve got it!ā€
    • Writes Public Opinion Quarterly article titled ā€œThe third-person effect in communicationā€ Third-person effect hypothesis: Part 1 ā€œPeople will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others. More specifically, individuals who are members of an audience that is exposed to a persuasive communication will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on themselves.ā€

Part 1: Component 1 ā€œPeople will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others.ā€

  • Researchers call this a ā€œThird-Person Perception.ā€ Part 1: Component 2 ā€œIndividuals who are members of an audience that is exposed to a persuasive communication will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on themselves.ā€ *This aspect of the Third-Person Effect Hypothesis is known as the perceptual ( 6 11 F6 02 7 )hypothesis.

* Hypothesis supported? Third-Person effect.

Third-person effect hypothesis: Part 2 ā€œThe impact that people expect communication to have on others may lead them to take some action. Any effect that the communication achieves may thus be due not to the

reaction of the ostensible( 5 04 78 8C 57 68 4) audience but rather to the behavior of those who

anticipate, or think they perceive, some reaction on the part of others.ā€

Take action part.

*Social scientists call this the behavioral hypothesis or the behavioral corollary.

  • Example 1: White officers at Iwo Jima
  • Example 2: United States Psychological Warfare Division Strategy:
  • The dividends from this operation were expected not so much in the actual number of desertions as in the effect of the counter measures which the German authorities would be induced to take against flying personnel.. .For example, sharpening up of anti-desertion measures and instructions to field police to keep a suspicious eye on everyone-a course which would have serious effects on morale.ā€
  • Example 3: ā€œAct now while supplies last!ā€

Testing the perceptual hypothesis

  • Third-Person Effects:
    • Are consistent
      • Perloff reviewed 45 articles & all found an effect
    • Are substantial
      • rs = around.
    • Occur across a variety of contexts
      • (^) Ex. OJ Simpson trial, heavy metal, Jerry Springer Show, Ads for cigarettes… Methodological concerns
  • Self/Other comparison questions in the same survey
  • Question wording (ex., wording that makes it seem negative to be influenced by media)
  • Question order (ex., asking about self first…than other) Explaining the third-person effect
  • The Self-Serving Bias
  • Need for Control
  • (^) Psychodynamic Projection
  • Fundamental-Attribution Error
  • Simple Schemas/Recall Limitations

11/14 Wednesday Moderating variables

  • Social Acceptability of the message
    • Antisocial message = 3rd^ person effect
    • Prosocial messages = 1st
    • When we have negative ad, we think we will not be affect by the ad. However, if the ad is very positive, we think we are influenced by the ad. It’s good to be influenced/moved. We are more persuaded than other people. We rank ourselves high than other people.
  • Social Distance
  • Media agenda =
    1. Health Care Reform
    2. War in Afghanistan
    3. Border Control Legislation
  • Public agenda =
    1. Economy
    2. Environmental policy
    3. Childhood obesity
  • NO EVIDENCE OF AGENDA SETTING
  • Agenda-Setting –Process through which the media’s agenda of important issues becomes the public’s agenda of important issues
  • Media Agenda –Set of issues that are communicated in a hierarchy of importance to the public at a particular point in time
  • Issue –A social, economic, or political problem

Agenda Setting: A Struggle for Power and Resources

  • Media agenda Public agenda Policy agenda
  • Agenda setting process = Zero-sum game
    • Only so many issues can be covered
    • Covered issues must be prioritized
  • Result: Issue proponents ā€˜compete’ for media coverage, even on issues everybody agrees are important

A Breakdown of ā€œWho’s Who?ā€ in Agenda-Setting Theory

  • Robert Park -Observes gate-keeping function mass media
  • Walter Lippman -Observes correlation between media & public agenda
  • Harold Lasswell -Observes that the media must prioritize issues
  • Bernard Cohen -Media effects on cognition more than attitudes Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw -Coin term ā€œagenda-settingā€ & conduct seminal research
  • Agenda-Setting & Mass Communication History
  • Early mass comm theorists believed media had…?
  • Later metaphors used to describe these theories…?
  • Did research support these theories…?
  • POINT 1. AGENDA SETTING EMBRACED BECAUSE _______
  • Early mass comm theorists studied what types of DVs?
  • But journalistic training teaches journalists…?
  • (^) POINT 2. AGENDA SETTING EMBRACED BECAUSE_______

Agenda-Setting Research

  • McCombs & Shaw (1972)
  • 1968 presidential campaign
  • Measured media’s agenda (e.g.,TV news, newspapers, magazines)
  • Measured public agenda
  • Almost Perfect Relationship between Media and Public Agenda
  • (^) 350 plus studies to date, in and outside of the United States
  • Average Correlation? +0.53, 25% of the believe on what is important on news is affected by the news

Criticisms of Agenda-Setting Research

  • Agenda-Setting or Agenda Reflection?
    • Actual events Media agenda Public Agenda
    • Ray Funkhouser study ā–  Gallup poll data ā–  (^) Newsmagazine stories ā–  Statistical indicators of real world issues
    • Results: ā–  High correlation public agenda & media agenda ā–  Little or no correlation between public/media agenda and real world statistical indicators

Criticisms of Agenda-Setting Research

  • Who sets whose Agenda?
    • Public Media (or) Media Public?
    • (^) Yale news experiments ā–  People assigned to watch newscasts stressing different societal issues ā–  People were more likely to say issues they had heard about were important
  • Unaddressed Criticisms
  • Agenda-setting: A stimulus response model
    • Relatively simple theory, not changing attitude, but does affect what we think about
  • Needs a psychological makeover:
    • (^) ā€œAgenda-setting’s key proponents have worked hard to expand its boundaries and scope, struggling valiantly to overcome the underspecified and constrained stimulus-response approach to media effects contained in agenda-setting’s original conceptualization…but they have had trouble developing ties to psychological theories…that would allow the perspective to become truly usefulā€ (Kosicki, 1993, p. 100).
    • Need for
  • Agenda-setting is a cue driven phenomenon
    • ā€œIt is best to think…of agenda-setting as a set of implicit cues provide by news media about the salience of issues, actors, and situations in the newsā€ (McCombs & Gilbert, 1986, p. 6)
    • ā€œbreaking newsā€ and ā€œwhat’s nextā€, sequence, how long is the length, how many times been repeated, can lead us to know which news is more important.
  • Obtrusive( 5 F3 A5 2A 04 E8 E4 EB A7 68 4, 9 C8 18 3B D7 68 4) issues are issues people are involved with.
  • Unobtrusive( 4 E0 D5 F1 54 EB A6 CE 86 10 F7 68 4) issues are issues people are not involved with.
  • In other words, research shows that involvement is the key variable underpinning agenda-setting effects, as the ELM predicts it should be. Throw in ability as an additional qualifier, and we’re well on our way towards a fuller understanding of the agenda-setting process.

11/28 Wednesday Advertising - A special class of media effects

  • Advertising
    • Classic example of persuasion (intended affect)
  • Classes of media effects
    • Unintended effects (accidently learned something)
    • Intended effects
  • (^) Our effects discussion to date centered on unintended effects
    • Ex: media violence
  • Our theoretical discussion to date centered on unintended effects
    • Ex: cultivation, social learning, priming
  • Persuasion theory helps us understand advertising effects

Advertising and Information Processing

  • Modes of information processing
    • Systematic (map to the central), we are thoughtful, rational, logical
      • (^) If that is the case, then all the ads will be the same, direct approach, the price and the utility of the ad. But there are still a lot of things that not useful but sill very expensive and popular.
    • Automatic
  • Systematic processing defined
  • What advertising would look like if we always processed systematically
    • Reason 1 why we don’t always process systematically
      • We don’t always know much about the product, the company and even the function, so we have to reply on the advertisements. Since the company know that we do not have enough information about the product, they know we have to use other ways to evaluate the product or the company.
    • Reason 2 why we don’t always process systematically
      • thinking takes energy and time,
    • Automatic processing/Fixed action patterns
  • Summary

Principle 1: Reciprocity

  • Reciprocity defined
  • (^) Universal belief
  • Evolutionary basis
    • Giving can be adaptive
  • Tremendous social pressure to abide by rule
  • Reciprocity and Advertising
  • Pregiving
  • (^) Charitable organizations
  • Real estate
  • Rejection then retreat
  • TV infomercials
  • Print ads
  • Loyalty/longevity
  • Military
  • Car companies
  • Credit cards/airlines Giving back to others

Principle 2: Commitment/Consistency

  • Commitment/Consistency defined
  • Why commitment/consistency so powerful (3)
  • Advertising tactics that rely on commitment/consistency
    • Low ball
      • Steps in process
      • Ex steps: Car dealerships
      • Why lowball works
      • Ex psychology: Car buying
    • (^) Customer involvement
      • Ex: Diet Dew Challenge, Trojan Magnum Live Large Contest
      • Why customer involvement works
    • High cost
      • Usually associated with ā€œluxury products/servicesā€
      • Classic cost = commitment research
        • Aronson & Mills (1959). Sexual discussion group
        • Same process at work in gang initiations/Greek hazing
  • Commitment/Consistency (continued)
    • Bait and switch
      • (^) Different from low ball
      • Steps in process Principle 3: Social Proof
  • Illustrative story
  • Principle of social proof defined
  • Laugh track
  • Common advertising tactic
  • Creative application: undercover marketing
  • When is social proof most powerful?
    • Uncertainty
    • (^) Similarity
    • Number of people Principle 4: Liking
  • Liking defined
  • Credible claims
  • New scarcity
  • Social competition