This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Chock, T. M. Articles by Lang, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Telling Me Quickly

How Arousing Fast-Paced PSAs Decrease Self-Other Differences

Syracuse University

Julia R. Fox

Indiana University

James R. Angelini

University of Delaware

Seungjo Lee

Indiana University

Annie Lang

Indiana University

This study found that increasing the pacing of antisubstance radio Public Service Announcements (PSAs) increased perceived effects on self and diminished perceived differences between effects on self and on others. This was more evident for messages with arousing content than for those with calm content. The study used a mixed multivariate design with arousing content (2), production pacing (3), and message (4) as within-subjects factors and order of presentation (4) as a between-subjects factor. The impact of increased pacing was greater for those who made third-person (3P) judgments (others more affected than self) than by those who made first-person (1P) judgments (self more affected than others). In addition to message features, behavior also influenced perceived message effects. Analysis of a subset of PSAs using antismoking messages found that smokers were more likely to make 3P judgments and nonsmokers 1P judgments about message effects. Implications for PSA design are discussed.

Key Words: third-person e fect • limited capacity • antismoking campaigns

References

• Atkin, C.K. (2001). Theory and principles of media health campaigns. In C. K. Atkin & R. E. Rice (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 49-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Brosius, H., & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or negative attitudes towards media influence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 142-162.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161-173.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• David, P., Liu, K., & Myser, M. (2004). Methodological artifact or persistant bias? Testing the robustness of the third person and reverse third person effects for alcohol messages. Communication Research, 31, 206-233.[Abstract]
• Davison, W.P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Duck, J., & Mullin, B.A. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77-93[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Duck, J., Terry, D., & Hogg, M. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 305-325.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Eveland, W.P., Jr., Nathanson, A.I., Detenber, B.H., & MacLeod, D.M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third person perception. Communication Research, 26, 275-302.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Gunter, B., Furnham, A., & Griffiths, S. (2000). Children's memory for news: A comparison of three presentation media. Media Psychology, 2, 93-119.
• Gunther, A.C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27-38.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• 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, 248-265.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Gunther, A., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements. Communication Research, 19, 574-596.[Abstract]
• Henriksen, L., & Flora, J. (1999). Third-person perception and children: Perceived impact of pro- and anti-smoking ads. Communication Research, 26, 643-665.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Lang, A. (1995, May). The third person e fect and political advertising: Truth, e fectiveness, regulation, and usefulness. Paper presented to the Information Systems Division at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM.
• Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70.[Web of Science]
• Lang, A., Potter, R., & Bolls, P. (1999). Something for nothing: Is visual encoding automatic? Media Psychology, 1, 145-163.
• Lang, A., Schwartz, N., Chung, Y., & Lee, S. (2002, July). Processing substance abuse messages: Production pacing, arousing content, and age. Paper presented to the Information Systems Division at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Seoul, Korea.
• Lang, A., Schwartz, N., & Snyder, J. (1999, August). Slow down, you're moving too fast: Pacing, arousing content, and middle-age. Paper presented to the Theory and Methodology Division at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, New Orleans, LA.
• Lang, P.J., & Greenwald, M. 1985). The international a fective picture system slides and technical report. Gainesville, FL: Center for Research in Psychophysiology.
• Perloff, L.S., & Fetzer, B.K. (1986). Self—other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 502-510.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Perloff, R.M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.[Abstract]
• Perloff, R.M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353-378.
• Potter, R. (2000). The effects of voice changes on orienting and immediate cognitive overload in radio listeners. Media Psychology, 2, 147-177.
• Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1996). Measuring the third-person effect of news: The impact of question order, contrast and knowledge. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 120-141.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Shapiro, M., & Han, M. (1994, August). Thinking-aloud about impersonal impact. Paper presented to the Theory and Methodology Division at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, KS.
• Shapiro, M.A., & Lang, A. (1991). Making television reality: Unconscious processes in the construction of social reality. Communication Research, 18, 685-705.[Abstract]
• Shapiro, M., & Weisbein, L. (2001, May). Only thinking can make it false: Limited capacity, presence and perceived reality of television. Paper presented to the Information Systems Division at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
• Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349-356.[CrossRef]
• Snyder, L., & Rouse, R. (1992, May). The media do not have only an impersonal impact: The case of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior. Paper presented to the Health Communication Division at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Miami, FL.
• van der Molen, W.J.H., & van der Voort, T.H.A. (2000). The impact of television, print, and audio on children's recall of the news. Human Communication Research, 26, 3-27.[Web of Science]
• Weinstein, N.D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Weinstein, N.D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Weinstein, N.D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 481-500.
• Yoon, K., Bolls, P., & Muehling, D. (1999). The effect of involvement, arousal, and pace on claim and non-claim components of attitude toward the ad. Media Psychology, 1, 331-352.

Communication Research, Vol. 34, No. 6, 618-636 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0093650207307900


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Chock, T. M. Articles by Lang, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?