Need for Orientation and Third-Person Effects of the Televised Debates in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

References

• Banning, S. A. (2006). Third-person effect on political participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 785–800. doi:10.1177/107769900608300404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, L., Hansen, J., & Verser, M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing US presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 335–350. doi:10.1080/0363775032000179133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, L., McKinney, S., & Lance Holbert, R. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 259–273. doi:10.1080/03637750128060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, L., Webber, D., & Berman, J. (1998). Effects of presidential debate watching and ideology on attitudes and knowledge. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 163–172.
   Google Scholar
• Camaj, L. (2014). Need for orientation, selective exposure, and attribute agenda-setting effects. Mass Communication and Society, 17(5), 689–712. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.835424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camaj, L., & Weaver, H. (2013). Need for orientation and attribute agenda-setting during a US election campaign. International Journal of Communication, 7, 22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaffee, S., & Miyo, Y. (1983). Selective exposure and the reinforcement hypothesis: An intergenerational panel study of the 1980 presidential campaign. Communication Research, 10(1), 3–36. doi:10.1177/009365083010001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, C., Wei, R., & Lo, H. (2014). Ambivalent versus univalent voters: Perceived media influences and third-person perceptions. Media Psychology, 17(4), 420–450. doi:10.1080/15213269.2014.924420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., & Davis, R. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 68(4), 680–688. doi:10.1177/107769909106800409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison, P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15. doi:10.1086/268763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duck, M., Terry, J., & Hogg, A. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 305–325. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1703_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M. (2017). The third-person effect in advertising: A meta analysis. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 377–394. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1292481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eveland, P., Nathanson, I., Detenber, H., & McLeod, M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception. Communication Research, 26(3), 275–302. doi:10.1177/009365099026003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freelon, D., & Karpf, D. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390–406. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.952659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geer, G. (1988). The effects on presidential debates on the electorate’s preference on candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 486–501. doi:10.1177/004478088016004005
   Google Scholar
• Gil de Zuniga, H., & Liu, J. (2017). Second screening and political persuasion on social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 193–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golan, G., & Day, A. (2008). The first-person effect and its behavioral consequences: A new trend in the twenty-five year history of third-person effect research. Mass Communication and Society, 11(4), 539–556. doi:10.1080/15205430802368621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther, A., & Storey, D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199–215. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffner, C., & Rehkoff, R. (2011). Young voters’ responses to the 2004 US presidential election: Social identity, perceived media influence, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 732–757. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01565.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 72–91. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirk, R., & Schill, D. (2011). A digital agora: Citizen participation in the 2008 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(3), 325–347. doi:10.1177/0002764210392167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Kleinman, S. (2012). Preelection selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39(2), 170–193. doi:10.1177/0093650211400597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37, 83–94. doi:10.1080/08838159309364205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin., S. (2009). The third-person effect of the presidential debate in Taiwan 2008. Journalism and Communication Research, 101, 45–88.
   Google Scholar
• Lo, V. H., & Wei, R. (2002). Third-person effect, gender, and pornography on the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 13–33. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo, V. H., Wei, R., & Lu, H. Y. (2017). Issue importance, third-person effects of protest news, and participation in Taiwan’s sunflower movement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 682–702. doi:10.1177/1077699016670122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo, V. H., Wei, R., Lu, H. Y., & Hou, H. Y. (2015). Perceived issue importance, information processing, and third-person effect of news about the imported US beef controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27(3), 341–360. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edu039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthes, J. (2005). The need for orientation towards news media: Revising and validating a classic concept. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(4), 422–444. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCombs, M., Shaw, D., & Weaver, H. (2014). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society, 17(6), 781–802. doi:10.1080/15205436.2014.964871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinney, S., & Rill, A. (2009). Not your parents’ presidential debates: Examining the effects of the CNN/YouTube debates on young citizens‘ civic engagement. Communication Studies, 60(4), 392–406. doi:10.1080/10510970903110001
   Google Scholar
• Oh, J., Park, J., & Wanta, W. (2011). Exploring factors in the hostile media perception: Partisanship, electoral engagement, and media use patterns. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(1), 40–54. doi:10.1177/107769901108800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paek, H. J., Pan, Z., Sun, Y., Abisaid, J., & Houden, D. (2005). The third-person perception as social judgment: An exploration of social distance and uncertainty in perceived effects of political attack ads. Communication Research, 32(2), 143–170. doi:10.1177/0093650204273760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. (2015). A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5), 701–729. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1051234
   Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effect: Advances in theory and research (pp. 252–268). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pew. (2018, March 1). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and post-Millennials begin. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-begin/
   Google Scholar
• Pfau, M., & Eveland, P. (1994). Debates versus other communication sources: The pattern of information and influence. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 155–173). Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Rucinski, D., & Salmon, T. (1990). The ‘other’ as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person effect in the 1988 US presidential campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(4), 345–368. doi:10.1093/ijpor/2.4.345
   Google Scholar
• Salwen, B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25(3), 259–285. doi:10.1177/009365098025003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tal-Or, N., Tsfati, Y., & Gunther, 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
• Weaver, H. (1980). Audience need for orientation and media effects. Communication Research, 7(3), 361–373. doi:10.1177/009365028000700305
   Web of Science ®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 US presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(2), 169–190. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R., & Lo, V. (2007). Third-person effects of political attack ads in the 2004 presidential election. Media Psychology, 9(2), 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(2), 206–227. doi:10.1177/0093650210365536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, J., Milavasky, R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge? Human Communication Research, 20, 302–333. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00325.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar