Third-Person Effect, Religiosity and Support for Censorship of Satirical Religious Cartoons

References

• Benson, J. M. (1981). The polls: A rebirth of religion? The Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(4), 576–585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkowitz, D., & Eko, L. (2007). Blasphemy as sacred rite/right. Journalism Studies, 8(5), 779–797. doi:10.1080/14616700701504757
   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(2), 250–271. doi:10.1177/1077699014527456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosius, H. B., & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized negative attitudes towards media influence? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(2), 142–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52(2), 161–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, G., Resendez, M., Marshall, E., & Quist, R. (2002). Hate speech and constitutional protection: Priming values of equality and freedom. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewberry, D. R. (2005). In the line of fire: Reconsidering the Holmes of Schenck and the Holmes of Abrams. Free Speech Yearbook, 42, 17–29.
   Google Scholar
• Feng, G. C., & Guo, S. Z. (2012). Support for censorship: A multilevel meta-analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Reports, 25(1), 40–50.
   Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C., & Hwa, A. P. (1996). Public perceptions of television influence and opinions about censorship in Singapore. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(3), 248–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X‐rating: The third‐person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heller, S. (1982). Man bites man. The Progressive, 46(2), 47–50.
   Google Scholar
• Hense, R., & Wright, C. (1992). The development of the attitudes toward censorship questionnaire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1666–1675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., Detenber, B. H., Malik, S., & Neo, R. L. (2012). The roles of value predispositions, communication, and third person perception on public support for censorship of films with homosexual content. Asian Journal of Communication, 22(1), 78–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Hubbs, L. A., Kamigaki, S. K., Kowalczyk, L. … Silberg, K. J. (1999). Support for censorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect and news exposure. Communication Research, 26(6), 726–742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimmelman, M. (2008, March 20). Outrage at cartoons still tests the Danes. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/books/20cartoon.html
   Google Scholar
• Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University religion index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamb, C. (2007). Drawing power. Journalism Studies, 8(5), 715–729. doi:10.1080/14616700701504666.
   Google Scholar
• Lambe, J. L. (2004). Who wants to censor pornography and hate speech? Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), 279–299.
   Google Scholar
• Lipinski-Harten, M. (2014). A slap on the wrist or a pat on the back: The impact of feedback on pro-environmentalism. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https://login.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1636534686?accountid=13965
   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(2), 153–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naab, T., Moehring, W., & Scherer, H. (2007). Freedom of religion and freedom of speech: Two basic human rights in conflict. Conference Papers — International Communication Association (pp. 1–29). International Communication Association. Retrieved from https://pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=26950214&site=ehost-live
   Google Scholar
• Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 57–85.
   Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1(4), 353–378.
   Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983–1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5(2), 167–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitock, T. (2015, January 13). In censoring Charlie Hebdo cartoons, U.S. media bowed to jihadists’ pressure. Opinion. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.636771
   Google Scholar
• Phifer, G., & King, T. R. (1986). Censoring (“editing”) the comics. Journalism Quarterly, 63(1), 174–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressey, S. L., & Kuhlen, R. G. (1957). Psychological development through the life span. New York: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
   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(2), 163–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salwen, M. B., Driscoll, P. D., & Garrison, B. (2005). Third-person perceptions of fear during the war on terrorism: Perceptions of online news users. In Online new and the public (pp. 185–204). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9781410611611
   Google Scholar
• Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
   Google Scholar
• Strossen, N. (1995). Defending pornography: Free speech, sex and the fight for women’s rights. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, Y., Pan, Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third‐person perception: Evidence from a meta‐analysis. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 280–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices. (2008). Retrieved from http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
   Google Scholar
• Wiebe, K. F., & Fleck, J. R. (1980). Personality correlates of intrinsic, extrinsic, and nonreligious orientations. The Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 181–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkes, R. E., Burnett, J. J., & Howell, R. D. (1986). On the meaning and measurement of religiosity in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(1), 47–56.
   Google Scholar
• Worchel, S., Arnold, S., & Baker, M. (1975). The effects of censorship on attitude change: The influence of censor and communication characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(3), 227–239.
   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(3), 375–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youn, S., Faber, R. J., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology and Marketing, 17(7), 633–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar