Perceiving Penn State: The Formative Role of Interpersonal Discussion in Third-Person Perceptions in the Wake of a Sexual Abuse Scandal

Communication Research

Volumn 42, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 922-938

  Huge, Michael E ^a   Glynn, Carroll J ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

interpersonal discussion; public opinion; third person perceptions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940951865     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650214534970     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. B.Chappell (2012). Penn State abuse scandal: A guide and timeline. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142111804/penn-state-abuse-scandal-a-guide-and-timeline
2. J.ChoiM.YangJ.J.C.Chang (2009). Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon: The roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate. Communication Research, 36, 54-75. doi:10.1177/0093650208326462
3. W.P.Davison (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15. doi:10.1086/268763
4. W.P.Davison (1996). The third-person effect revisited. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 113-189.
5. J.N.DruckmanK.R.Nelson (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729-745. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00051
6. W.P.EvelandJr. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21, 177-193. doi:10.1080/10584600490443877
7. W.P.EvelandJr.M.H.Hively (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205-224. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
8. W.P.EvelandJr.M.J.Hutchens (2013). The role of conversation in developing accurate political perceptions: A multilevel social network approach. Human Communication Research, 39, 422-444. doi:10.1111/hcre.12011
9. W.P.EvelandJr.D.V.Shah (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101-117. doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00318
10. W.P.EvelandJr.T.Thomson (2006). Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56, 523-542. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x
11. L.B.FrankJ.S.ChatterjeeS.T.ChaudhuriC.LapsanskyA.BhanotS.T.Murphy (2012). Conversation and compliance: Role of interpersonal discussion and social norms in public communication campaigns. Journal of Health Communication, 17, 1050-1067. doi:10.1080/10810730.2012.665426
12. A.C.Gunther (1995). Overrating the x-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27-38. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00712.x
13. A.C.GuntherA.P.Hwa (1996). Public perceptions of television influence and opinions about censorship in Singapore. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 248-265.
14. A.F.Hayes (2007). Exploring the forms of self-censorship: On the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication, 57, 785-802. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00368.x
15. A.F.Hayes (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
16. L.H.HoffmanC.J.GlynnM.E.HugeR.B.SietmanT.Thomson (2007). The role of communication in public opinion processes: Understanding the impacts of intrapersonal, media, and social filters. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 287-312. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edm014
17. R.HuckfeldtJ.SpragueJ.Levine (2000). The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review, 94, 641-561.
18. M.HugeC.J.GlynnI.Jeong (2006). A relationship-based approach to understanding third-person perceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 530-546.
19. E.KatzP.F.Lazarsfeld (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
20. J.L.LambeD.M.McLeod (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
21. D.M.McLeodB.H.DetenberW.P.Eveland (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
22. D.M.McLeodW.P.EvelandA.I.Nathanson (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
23. J.M.McLeodS.H.Chaffee (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 469-499.
24. P.C.Meirick (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
25. K.NeuwirthE.Frederick (2004). Peer and social influence on opinion expression: Combining the theories of planned behavior and the spiral of silence. Communication Research, 31, 669-703. doi:10.1177/0093650204269388
26. K.NeuwirthE.FrederickC.Mayo (2002). Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing. Communication Research, 29, 320-359. doi:10.1177/0093650202029003005
27. E.Noelle-Neumann (1974). Spiral of silence: Theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24, 43-51.
28. E.Noelle-Neumann (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion, our social skin (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29. H.-J.PaekT.HoveM.KimH.J.JeongJ.P.Dillard (2012). When distant others matter more: Perceived effectiveness for self and other in the child abuse PSA context. Media Psychology, 15, 148-174. doi:10.1080/15213269.2011.653002
30. H.J.PaekZ.D.PanY.SunJ.AbisaidD.Houden (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, 143-170. doi:10.1177/0093650204273760
31. R.M.Perloff (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In J.BryantM.B.Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 252-268). New York, NY: Routledge.
32. T.Rohan (2012). Sandusky gets 30 to 60 years for sexual abuse. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-sandusky-is-sentenced-in-sex-abuse-case.html
33. H.RojasD.V.ShahR.F.Faber (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 163-186.
34. M.B.Salwen (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
35. M.B.SalwenP.D.Driscoll (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the OJ Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47, 60-78. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02706.x
36. M.SchmierbachM.P.BoyleD.M.McLeod (2008). Understanding person perceptions: Comparing four common statistical approaches to third-person research. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 492-513. doi:10.1080/15205430802375311
37. J.Shamir (1997). Speaking up and silencing out in face of a changing climate of opinion. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 602-614.
38. B.G.SouthwellA.Torres (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation. Communication Monographs, 73, 334-350. doi:10.1080/03637750600889518
39. B.G.SouthwellM.C.Yzer (2009). When (and why) interpersonal talk matters for campaigns. Communication Theory, 19, 1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01329.x
40. Y.SunZ.PanL.Shenz (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
41. B.G.TabachnickL.S.Fidell (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
42. P.Thamel (2012). Sanctions decimate the Nittany Lions now and for years to come. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-penalties-include-60-million-fine-and-bowl-ban.html?pagewanted=all.
43. Y.TsfatiJ.Cohen (2004). Object-subject distance and the third person perception. Media Psychology, 6, 335-361. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0604_2
44. B.van den PutteM.YzerB.G.SouthwellG.J.de BruijnM.C.Willemsen (2011). Interpersonal communication as an indirect pathway for the effect of antismoking media content on smoking cessation. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 470-485. doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.546487