Integrating Theoretical Traditions in Media Effects: Using Third-Person Effects to Link Agenda-Setting and Cultivation

Abstract

In an earlier period of mass communication research, scholars were more adventuresome in advancing “new” theories and less hesitant to “create” theory. The 1970s, in particular, bore witness to the emergence of several such theories—from the knowledge gap and agenda-setting to cultivation. Scholars have generated substantial literatures elaborating work in these and other traditions. Those contributions are now sufficiently robust that it is time to direct some of our energies toward synthesizing theories. This article nominates third-person perception as a candidate for such integration. Several prominent theories of media effects in the mass communication literature are selected to illustrate how the theories can or have been integrated. Results from three surveys provided evidence that the theories of third-person perception, agenda-setting and cultivation can be interrelated. The proposition examined here can serve as a model for further integration of other media theories. This integration attempt harkened back to the times when theory building in media effects was more common and perhaps more optimistic about explaining processes of influence.

Notes

Note. The questions raised in the table are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. Although not listed as an effects theory, uses and gratifications also can be added to the list of mass communication theories linked to third-person effects. Studies in uses and gratifications ask audiences to rate how important various media are for diversion, personal relationships—including social utility such as conversations; personal identity, which includes personal reference or self-evaluation; exploration (ideas about personal concerns); and value reinforcement (McDonald & Glynn, 1984). When we ask whether media have an impact on us, we are asking for the extent to which a media behavior has provided a particular use or gratification—helped us decide for whom to vote, help reinforce our values or decide what's important, give us things to talk about with friends. Following the same logic, we are asking for the extent to which media fulfill the same gratifications for other people.

¹For a sample of the extensive research on agenda-setting see Lopez-Escobar, Llamas, and McCombs (1998); McCombs and Shaw (1993); McLeod et al. (1997); and Shaw, McCombs, Weaver, and Hamm (1999).

²The response or cooperation rate was 44% for the metropolitan study. Because the Internet survey was not based on a probability sample, no response rate could be computed. This is less important in situations where the focus is on relationships, not estimating parameters.

³Contact the authors for measures of other variables not reported here.

⁴The response or cooperation rate was 45%.

⁵The roster of 30 values statements was assembled from several sources: All but 3 of the 16 values used by Tan et al. (1997) to study ethnic adolescents were included in the study. In addition, values were added from the Rokeach (1973) scale and the Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990) value types to represent a broader range of values for the general population.

⁶Although 27% of the sample was age 30 or younger, 19% were 31 to 40, 21% 41 to 50, 15% 51 to 60, 10% 61 to 70, and 7% 71 or older. Some 7.7% had less than high school education, whereas 20% were high school graduates, 37% some college, 23% college graduate, and 12% advanced degrees.

⁷Ages ranged from 27% 30 years or younger, 28% 31 to 40, 27% 41 to 50, 14% 51 to 60, 3.8% 61 to 70, and. 6% 71 or older. Less than 1.5% had less than a high school education, whereas 16% were high school graduates, 41% had some college, 30% were college graduates, and 11% had advanced degrees.

⁸Although 24% were 30 years or younger, 18% were 31 to 40, 21% 41 to 50, 13% 51 to 60, 7% 61 to 70, and 10.5% 71 or older. About 5% had less than a high school education, whereas 20% were high school graduates, 32% some college, 24% college graduates, and 14% had advanced degrees.

Note. A difference score for third-person effects was computed by subtracting perceived effects on “self” from perceived effects on “other”; thus, the higher the score, the greater the perceived third-person effects, that is, the media affect other people more than self. Paired items and difference scores also have been used by other scholars examining third-person effects (e.g., Hoffner et al., 1999; McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997; Salwen & Driscoll, 1997).

^a Metropolitan survey, t(481) = 19.9, p < .001 (N = 482); national Internet survey, t(2, 148) = 38.1, p < .001 (N = 2,149).

^b Metropolitan survey, t(487) = 16.9, p < .001 (N = 488); national Internet survey, t(2, 154) = 34.7, p < .001 (N = 2,155).

^c Metropolitan survey, t(478) = 2.7, p < .01 (N = 479); national Internet survey, t(2, 139) = 5.5, p < .001 (N = 2,140).

Note. A difference score for third-person effects was computed by subtracting perceived effects on “self” from perceived effects on “other”; thus, the higher the score, the greater the perceived third-person effects, that is, the media affect other people more than self.

^a t(289) = 14.8, p < .001 (N = 290).

^b t(289) = 10.5, p < .001 (N = 290).

^c t(287) = 5.3, p < .001 (N = 288).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Leo W. Jeffres

Leo W. Jeffres (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) is professor of communication at Cleveland State University. His research interests include urban communication, media effects, and political communication.

Kimberly Neuendorf

Kimberly Neuendorf (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is professor of communication at Cleveland State University. Her research interests include communication technologies, film, and media effects.

Cheryl Campanella Bracken

Cheryl Campanella Bracken (Ph.D., Temple University) is associate professor of communication at Cleveland State University. Her research interests include media effects and psychological processing of media with a focus on the concept of presence.

David Atkin

David Atkin (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is professor of communication at the University of Connecticut. His research focuses on media effects, diffusion, audience analysis, and media economics.