Perceptions of social influence when messages favour 'us' versus 'them': A closer look at the social distance effect

European Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 353-365

  Elder, Tracey J ^a,b   Douglas, Karen M ^a   Sutton, Robbie M ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744515173     PISSN: 00462772     EISSN: 10990992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.300     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Amanciô. L. (1989). Social differentiation between 'dominant' and 'dominated' groups: Toward an integration of social stereotypes and social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 1-10.
2. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
3. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
4. Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behaviour. In M. A. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1-16). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
5. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1985). The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behaviours. Annual Review of Psychology, 11, 119-243.
6. Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgements. Social Cognition, 4, 353-376.
7. Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and direct versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 445-453.
8. Chapin, J. R. (2000). Third-person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority at-risk youth. Communication Research, 27, 51-81.
9. Codol, J. P. (1984). Social differentiation and nondifferentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed,), The social dimension (pp. 314-337). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 680-688.
11. Cohen, J., Mutz. D. C., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161-173.
12. David, P., & Johnson, M. A. (1998). The role of self in third-person effects. Journal of Communication, 48, 37-58.
13. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
14. Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 263-292.
15. Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 235-248.
16. Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: Computer-mediated communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399-416.
17. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2004). Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self-other differences in resistance to persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1-39.
18. Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1995). Me, us and them: Political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195-215.
19. Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1998). Perceived self-other differences in persuasibility: The effects of interpersonal and group-based similarity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 1-21.
20. Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1999). Social identity and perceptions of media persuasion: Are we always less influenced than others? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1879-1899.
21. Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). The perceived impact of persuasive messages on 'us' and 'them'. In D. J. Terry, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behaviour and social context - the role of norms and group membership (pp. 265-291). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B. A. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77-93.
23. Eveland, W. P., Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H., & McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary. Communication Research, 26, 275-303.
24. Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorisation and attitude toward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836-842.
25. Gunther, A., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements. Communication Research, 19, 574-596.
26. Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 58-67.
27. Innes, J. M., & Zeitz, H. (1988). The public's view of the impact of the mass media: A test of the 'third-person' effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 457-463.
28. Klar, Y. (2002). Way beyond compare: Nonselective superiority and inferiority biases in judging randomly assigned group members relative to their peers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 331-351.
29. Klar, Y., Medding, A., & Sarel, D. (1996). Nonunique invulnerability: Singular versus distributional probabilities and unrealistic optimism in comparative risk judgments. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 67, 229-245.
30. Krueger, J. (1998). Enhancement bias in descriptions of self and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 505-516.
31. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1991). Self-stereotyping and self-enhancement in gender groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 403-417.
32. McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynistic rap lyrics. Communication Research, 24, 153-175.
33. Mullin, B. A., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Dimensions of subjective uncertainty in social identification and minimal intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 345-365.
34. Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 57-85.
35. Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self-other judgements and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 502-510.
36. Perloff, R. M. (1996). Perceptions and conceptions of political media impact: The third-person effect and beyond. In A. N. Crigler (Ed.), The psychology of political communication (pp. 177-197). Ann Arbor, USA: University of Michigan Press.
37. Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorisation explanation for the Third-Person Effect. Human Communication Research, 31, 129-161.
38. Reid, S. A., Byrne, S., Brundidge, J. S., Shoham, M. D., & Marlow, M. L. (2005). Predicting first- and third-person perceptions for pornography: Further evidence for a self-categorization explanation. Manuscript under review.
39. Rubin, R., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2001). Stretching the boundaries: Strategic perceptions of intragroup variability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 413-429.
40. Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and Severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26, 240-267.
41. Simon, B., & Mummendey, A. (1990). Perceptions of relative group size and group homogeneity: We are the majority and they are all the same. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 351-356.
42. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.
43. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
44. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monteray, CA: Brooks/Cole.
45. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Cicago: Nelson-Hall.
46. Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1982). Self-evaluation maintenance and the perception of friends and strangers. Journal of Personality, 59, 261-279.
47. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.
48. Vivian, J. E., & Berkowitz, N. H. (1993). Anticipated outgroup evaluations and intergroup bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 513-524.
49. Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A. J., Main, K. J., & Roy, S. A. (2000). Meta-stereotype activation: Evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by members of dominated groups in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 690-707.
50. White, H. A. (1997). Considering interacting factors in the third-person effect: Argument strength and social distance. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 557-564.
51. Williams, J. A. (1984). Gender and intergroup behaviour: Towards an integration. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 311-316.