FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS: CENSORSHIP AND THE THIRD-PERSON EFFECT

The third person effect hypothesis, which states that individuals exposed to a mass media messaage will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on themselves, may help to explain the growing trend in support of media censorship. It is suggested here that overestimating the effect of media on others may play an important role in the forces underlying a willingness to restrict various types of communication. To examine this relationship, this study focused on the discrepancy between perceived media effects on others and self, and its relation to pro-censorship attitudes within three major topics: the media in general, violence on television, and pornography. The results of this study support the existence of the third-person effect in mass communication. The findings also indicate that as the gap between perceived firstand third-person effects increases, individuals are more likely to manifest pro-censorship attitudes. This relationship remained for all three topics even when a variety of potentially confounding demographic, media use, and attitudinal variables were controlled. The data also suggest that for pornography the effects gap is related to a willingness to act in favor of censoring. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Yet, despite this amendment, there appears to be a growing trend towards the support of censorship for several types of communication. These areas include: pornography (Ritts and Engbretson 1991, Cowan 1992), books (Wellborn 1982, Yudof 1983), the press (Schwartz 1977, Picard 1982), television violence (Rowland 1983) and neo-fascism (Hentoff 1989, Brown 1990). Expectations about the potentially 'dangerous' effects of communication messages seem to lie at the heart of the censorship phenomenon. One area of research that may shed some light on pro-censorship attitudes is the third-person effect (Davison 1983). According to the third-person effect hypothesis, individuals exposed to a mass media message will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on themselves. Individuals assume that the effects of communication 'will not be on "me" or "you", but on "them"—the © World Association for Puilic Opinion Research igqb 164 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH third-persons' (Davison 1983, p. 3). Furthermore, it has been suggested that the observer's expectation of the communication's impact may lead that individual to take some action. The third-person effect may lead to greater support for media censorship because of exaggerated expectations about media effects on others. Advocates for censorship seem particularly likely to be overestimating the effects of media on others—the 'gullible' public. This study argues that the existence of a third-person effect in communication is an important factor contributing to pro-censorship attitudes towards media. The discrepancy between perceived media effects on others and self is expected to contribute to explaining variance in censorship attitudes. This will be examined regarding the media in general, as well as two important areas of media content: violence on television and pornography.

[1]  E. E. Jones,et al.  From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception1 , 1965 .

[2]  D. Byrne,et al.  Husband-wife similarity in response to erotic stimuli. , 1973, Journal of personality.

[3]  S. Worchel,et al.  The Effects of Censorship on Attitude Change: The Influence of Censor and Communication Characteristics1 , 1975 .

[4]  Dale T. Miller.  Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. , 1976 .

[5]  L. Ross.  The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1 , 1977 .

[6]  J. Ray.  Does authoritarianism of personality go with conservatism , 1979 .

[7]  E. E. Jones,et al.  A robust attribution error in the personality domain , 1981 .

[8]  P. Gollwitzer,et al.  Affect as a mediator of attributional egotism , 1981 .

[9]  W. Davison.  The Third-Person Effect in Communication , 1983 .

[10]  J. Ray,et al.  A Scale to Measure Conservatism of American Public Opinion , 1983 .

[11]  W. D. Rowland,et al.  The politics of TV violence : policy uses of communication research , 1984 .

[12]  J. Harvey,et al.  Current issues in attribution theory and research. , 1984, Annual review of psychology.

[13]  Mark R. Lepper,et al.  The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. , 1985 .

[14]  H. D. White.  Majorities for Censorship. , 1986 .

[15]  M. Ryan,et al.  Attitudes of College Newspaper Advisers toward Censorship of the Student Press , 1986 .

[16]  H. Kelley.  Attribution in social interaction. , 1987 .

[17]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  PERCEIVED IMPACT OF DEFAMATION AN EXPERIMENT ON THIRD-PERSON EFFECTS , 1988 .

[18]  Diana C. Mutz.  THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEPTIONS OF MEDIA INFLUENCE: THIRD PERSON EFFECTS AND THE PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF OPINIONS* , 1989 .

[19]  R. Perloff.  Ego-Involvement and the Third Person Effect of Televised News Coverage , 1989 .

[20]  B. Schell,et al.  Factors affecting censorship by Canadian librarians , 1989 .

[21]  Dominic L. Lasorsa,et al.  Real and Perceived Effects of ‘Amerika’ , 1989 .

[22]  S. Chaffee,et al.  Regulating Pornography: A Public Dilemma , 1990 .

[23]  Charles T. Salmon,et al.  THE ‘OTHER’ AS THE VULNERABLE VOTER: A STUDY OF THE THIRD-PERSON EFFECT IN THE 1988 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN , 1990 .

[24]  Darryl K. Brown.  Racism and race relations in the university , 1990 .

[25]  Michael J. Havice,et al.  Discrepancy between Perceived First-Person and Perceived Third-Person Mass Media Effects , 1991 .

[26]  Albert C. Gunther,et al.  What We Think Others Think , 1991 .

[27]  G. Cowan,et al.  Feminist Attitudes Toward Pornography Control , 1992 .

[28]  Rick Hense,et al.  The Development of the Attitudes Toward Censorship Questionnaire1 , 1992 .

[29]  Esther Thorson,et al.  Perceived Persuasive Effects of Product Commercials and Public Service Announcements , 1992 .

[30]  Richard M. Perloff,et al.  THIRD-PERSON EFFECT RESEARCH 1983–1992: A REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS , 1993 .

[31]  Albert C. Gunther,et al.  Biased Optimism and the Third-Person Effect , 1993 .

[32]  Albert C. Gunther,et al.  Overrating the X‐Rating: The Third‐Person Perception and Support for Censorship of Pornography , 1995 .

[33]  Hans-Bernd Brosius,et al.  THE CAUSES OF THIRD-PERSON EFFECTS: UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM, IMPERSONAL IMPACT, OR GENERALIZED NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS MEDIA INFLUENCE? , 1996 .

[34]  Lars Willnat,et al.  MASS MEDIA AND POLITICAL OUTSPOKENNESS IN HONG KONG: LINKING THE THIRD-PERSON EFFECT AND THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE , 1996 .