Examining and extending the influence of presumed influence hypothesis in social media

References

• Bonito, J. A., Ruppel, E. K., & Keyton, J. (2012). Reliability estimates for multilevel designs in group research. Small Group Research, 43, 443–467. doi:10.1177/1046496412437614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herinan (Eds.), Social influence (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2008). First and third person perceptions on anti-drug ads among adolescents. Communication Research, 35, 169–189. doi:10.1177/0093650207313158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, H., Shen, L., & Wilson, K. M. (2014). Perceived realism: Dimensions and roles in narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 41, 828–851. doi:10.1177/0093650212450585
   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
• Drope, J., Cahn, Z., Kennedy, R., Liber, A. C., Stoklosa, M., Henson, R., … Drope, J. (2017). Key issues surrounding the health impacts of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and other sources of nicotine. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 67, 449–471. doi:10.3322/caac.21413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 427–448. doi:10.1086/268330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu, W. W. (2012). Selecting online videos from graphics, text, and view counts: The moderation of popularity bandwagons. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 46–61. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01593.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25, 481–499. doi:10.1177/009365098025005002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D. L. G., Liebhart, J. L., & Dillard, J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52–68. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x
   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
• Hoffner, C. (1996). Children’s wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 389–402. doi:10.1080/08838159609364360
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analyses: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69. doi:10.1037/a0028347
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Sharma, N., Hansen, D. L., & Alter, S. (2005). Impact of popularity indications on readers’ selective exposure to online news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 296–313. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4903_3
   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
• Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 41, 72–90. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72
   Google Scholar
• Mels, G. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for windows: Getting started guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Nezlek, J. B. (2016). A practical guide to understanding reliability in studies of within-person variability. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 149–155. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13, 251–274. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paek, H. J., & Gunther, A. C. (2007). How peer proximity moderates indirect media influence on adolescent smoking. Communication Research, 34, 407–432. doi:10.1177/0093650207302785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parisot, L. (1988). Attitudes about the media: A five country comparison. Public Opinion, 18-19, 60.
   Google Scholar
• Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2005). Using the SPSS mixed procedure to fit cross-sectional and longitudinal multilevel models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 717–741. doi:10.1177/0013164405278558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2018). Social media use in 2018. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, J. P., Choi, W. S., Gilpin, E. A., Farkas, A. J., & Merritt, R. K. (1996). Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States. Health Psychology, 15, 355–361. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.15.5.355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokhrel, P., Fagan, P., Herzog, T. A., Laestadius, L., Buente, W., Kawamoto, C. T., … Unger, J. B. (2018). Social media e-cigarette exposure and e-cigarette expectancies and use among young adults. Addictive Behavior, 78, 51–58. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavioral Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2005). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rath, J. M., Teplitskaya, L., Williams, V. F., Pearson, J. L., Vallone, D. M., & Villanti, A. C. (2017). Correlates of e-cigarette ad awareness and likeability in U.S. young adults. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 15, 22. doi:10.1186/s12971-017-0125-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, C. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5763), 854–856. doi:10.1126/science.1121066
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1958). Heuristic problem solving: The next advance in operations research. Operations Research, 6, 1–10. doi:10.1287/opre.6.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slater, M. D., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Message variability and heterogeneity: A core challenge for communication research. In E. L. Cohen (Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/23808985.2015.11679170
   Google Scholar
• Spybrook, J., Bloom, H., Gongdon, R., Hill, C., Martinez, A., & Raudenbush, S. (2011). Optimal design plus empirical evidence: Documentation for the “optimal design” software. Retrieved from http://hlmsoft.net/od/
   Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN 1nodel: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. S., Oh, J., Kang, H., & Sreenivasan, A. (2012). How does technology persuade? Theoretical mechanisms for persuasive technologies. In J. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 388–404). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Tao, C. C., & Bucy, E. P. (2007). Conceptualizing media stimuli in experimental research: Psychological versus attribute-based definitions. Human Communication Research, 33, 397–426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00305.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar