Presumed Media Influences and Demands for Restrictions: Using Panel Data to Examine the Causal Direction

REFERENCES

• American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2015). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (9th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions2015_8theditionwithchanges_April2015_logo.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Atkin, C. K., Galloway, J., & Nayman, O. B. (1976). News media exposure, political knowledge and campaign interest. Journalism Quarterly, 53, 231–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, M. J., Andriate, G. S., & Payne, S. K. (1985). Does communication apprehension cause communication state anxiety?: A cross lagged panel analysis. Communication Research Reports, 2, 29–35.
   Google Scholar
• Bernhard, U., & Dohle, M. (2014). Do even journalists support media restrictions? Presumed political media influences and the consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 250–271. doi:10.1177/1077699014527456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26, 193–211. doi:10.1080/10584600902854363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, S., & Moon, S.-I. (2016). Is the third-person effect real? A critical examination of rationales, testing methods, and previous findings of the third-person effect on censorship attitudes. Human Communication Research, 42, 312–337. doi:10.1111/hcre.12078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., & Weimann, G. (2008). Who’s afraid of reality shows? Exploring the effects of perceived influence of reality shows and the concern over their social effects on willingness to censor. Communication Research, 35, 382–397. doi:10.1177/0093650208315964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15. doi:10.1086/268763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dohle, M., & Bernhard, U. (2014). Presumed online media influence and support for censorship: Results from a survey among German parliamentarians. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 256–268. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edt027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dohle, M., & Bernhard, U. (2016). Third-person effect and influence of presumed media influence approach revisited. In G. Vowe & P. Henn (Eds.), Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp. 103–117). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 275–302. doi:10.1177/009365099026003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng, G. C., & Guo, S. Z. (2012). Support for censorship: A multilevel meta-analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Reports, 25, 40–50. doi:10.1080/08934215.2012.661019
   Google Scholar
• Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in causal models. Child Development, 58, 80–92. doi:10.2307/1130293
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25, 486–504. doi:10.1177/009365098025005002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199–215. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, L. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2010). Assessing causality in the relationship between community attachment and local news media use. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 174–195. doi:10.1080/15205430903012144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, P. N., & Parks, M. R. (2012). Social media and political change: Capacity, constraint, and consequence. Journal of Communication, 62, 359–362. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01626.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, S. A., & Tian, Y. (2014). The effects of communication efficacy on information-seeking following events that increase uncertainty: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Communication Quarterly, 60(2), 234–254. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.669325
   Google Scholar
• Lachapelle, G., & Maarek, P. (Eds.). (2015). Political parties in the digital age. The impact of new technologies in politics. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Lambe, J. L. (2004). Who wants to censor pornography and hate speech? Mass Communication and Society, 7(3), 279–299. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0703_2
   Google Scholar
• Lambe, J. L., & McLeod, D. M. (2005). Understanding third-person perception processes: Predicting perceived impact on self and others for multiple expressive contexts. Journal of Communication, 55, 277–291. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02672.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavrakas, P. (1993). Telephone survey methods: Sampling, selection, and supervision (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lavrakas, P. (2008). Surveys by telephone. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 249–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, B. K., & Tamborini, R. (2005). Third-person effect and Internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55, 292–310. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02673.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, J. S., & Golan, G. J. (2011). Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on YouTube. Communication Research, 38, 710–727. doi:10.1177/0093650211405649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 678–695. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02902.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 153–174. doi:10.1177/009365097024002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meirick, P. C. (2005). Rethinking the target corollary: The effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research, 32, 822–843. doi:10.1177/0093650205281059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.5393889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paek, H., Gunther, A. C., McLeod, D. M., & Hove, T. (2011). How adolescents’ perceived media influence on peers affects smoking decisions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45, 123–146. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01195.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paek, H.-J., Lambe, J. L., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Antecedents to support for content restrictions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 273–290. doi:10.1177/107769900808500204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Post, S. (2015). Incivility in controversies: The influence of presumed media influence and perceived media hostility on the antagonists in the German conflict over aircraft noise. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650215600491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojas, H. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 343–363. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1093/ijpor/8.2.163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1093/ijpor/2.4.345
   Google Scholar
• Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25, 259–285. doi:10.1177/009365098025003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salwen, M. B., & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47, 60–78. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02706.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (1999). The third-person effect: Perceptions of the media’s influence and immoral consequences. Communication Research, 26, 523–549. doi:10.1177/009365099026005001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmierbach, M., Boyle, M. P., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Understanding person perceptions: Comparing four common statistical approaches to third-person research. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 492–513. doi:10.1080/15205430802375311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmierbach, M., Xu, Q., & Boyle, M. P. (2012). The role of exemplification in shaping third-person perceptions and support for restrictions on video games. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 672–694. doi:10.1080/15205436.2011.616278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, L., & Huggins, C. (2013). Testing the model of influence of presumed influence in a boundary condition: The impact of question order. Human Communication Research, 39, 470–491. doi:10.1111/hcre.12013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistisches Bundesamt. (2016). Datenreport 2016. Ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Data report 2016. Social report about Germany]. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Datenreport/Downloads/Datenreport2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
   Google Scholar
• Sun, Y. (2013). When presumed influence turns real: An indirect route of media influence. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion. Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 371–387). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, Y., Pan, Z. D., & Shen, L. J. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58, 280–300. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00385.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tal-Or, N., Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y., & Gunther, A. C. (2010). Testing causal direction in the influence of presumed media influence. Communication Research, 37, 801–824. doi:10.1177/0093650210362684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tal-Or, N., Tsfati, Y., & Gunther, A. C. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence. Origins and implications of the third-person perception. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 99–112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tian, Y. (2011). Communication behaviors as mediators: Examining links between political orientation, political communication, and political participation. Communication Quarterly, 59, 380–394. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583503
   Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y. (2007). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and minority alienation: The case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57, 632–651. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00361.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577–585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vowe, G., & Henn, P. (Eds.). (2016). Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wei, R., Chia, S. C., & Lo, V.-H. (2011). Third-person effect and hostile media perception influences on voter attitudes toward polls in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23, 169–190. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R., & Lo, V.-H. (2007). The third-person effects of political attack ads in the 2004 US presidential election. Media Psychology, 9, 367–388. doi:10.1080/15213260701291338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R., Lo, V.-H., & Lu, H.-Y. (2011). Examining the perceptual gap and behavioral intention in the perceived effects of polling news in the 2008 Taiwan presidential election. Communication Research, 38, 206–227. doi:10.1177/0093650210365536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, W., & Koo, S. H. (2001). Perceived effects of sexually explicit internet content: The third-person effect in Singapore. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 260–274. doi:10.1177/107769900107800204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, J., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2008). Does a perceptual discrepancy lead to action? A meta-analysis of the behavioral component of the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 375–385. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youn, S., Faber, R. J., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 633–649. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200007)17:7<633::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-B
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar