More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Third-person perception of online comments

Authors:

Gina Masullo Chen,

Yee Man Margaret NgAuthors Info & Claims

Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 55, Issue PB

Pages 736 - 742

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.014

Published: 01 February 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Using online comments posted on news stories as the context, this study aimed to examine the interplay between the third-person perception (TPP) - that people believe media message have a greater effect on changing the attitudes of others compared with themselves - and online incivility. It also examined whether people's agreement with the content of the comments would influence the TPP. Results of an experiment (N = 301) showed incivility muted the persuasive effect of online comments, so only civil comments produced a TPP, whereby people felt comments had greater persuasive power over others compared with themselves. However, counter to predictions, whether people agreed with the comments did not influence the TPP. Findings also supported the TPP social distance corollary such that subjects perceived comments as having the largest third-person perceptual gap between the self and those who disagreed with them. Results are discussed in relation to TPP and face and politeness theories. People perceive civil online comments as more persuasive than uncivil comments.People perceive civil online comments as having more persuasive power on others, than the self.People perceive social distance with others online based on agreement on social issues.

References

[1]

A.A. Anderson, D. Brossard, D.A. Scheufele, M.A. Xenos, P. Ladwig, The "Nasty effect": online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 (2014) 373-387.

Digital Library

[2]

N. Antonopoulos, A. Veglis, A. Gardikiotis, R. Kotsakis, G. Kalliris, Web third-person effect in structural aspects of the information on media websites, Computers in Human Behavior, 44 (2015) 48-58.

Digital Library

[3]

S.A. Banning, Do you see what I see? Third-person effects on public communication through self-esteem, social stigma, and product use, Mass Communication and Society, 4 (2001) 127-147.

[4]

S. Banning, K. Sweetser, How much do they think it affects them and whom do they believe? Comparing the third-person effect and credibility of blogs and traditional media, Communication Quarterly, 55 (2007) 451-466.

[5]

N. Baym, Interpersonal life online, in: The handbook of new media, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2010, pp. 35-54.

[6]

A.J. Berinsky, G.A. Huber, G.S. Lenz, Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's mechanical turk, Political Analysis, 20 (2012) 351-368.

[7]

P. Borah, Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere, Communication Research, 41 (2014) 809-827.

[8]

J.M. Brett, M. Oleakalns, R. Friedman, N. Goates, C. Anderson, C.C. Lisco, Sticks and stones: language, face, and online dispute resolution, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2007) 85-99.

[9]

L.F. Brost, Editors have mixed feelings on user-generated content, Newspaper Research Journal, 34 (2013) 101-119.

[10]

P. Brown, S.C. Levinson, Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge Press, NY, 1987.

[11]

M. Buhrmester, T. Kwang, S.D. Gosling, Amazon's mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (2011) 3-5.

[12]

D.J. Carr, M. Barnidge, B.G. Lee, S.J. Tsang, Cynics and skeptics: evaluating the credibility of mainstream and citizen journalism, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 9 (2014) 452-470.

[13]

C. Chang, Is this website for me? Website-self-congruency effects triggered by visual designs, Media Psychology, 31 (2012) 835-860.

[14]

G.M. Chen, Z. Abedin, Exploring the differences in how men and women retaliate in response to threats to positive face on social media, Computers in Human Behavior, 38 (2014) 118-126.

Digital Library

[15]

K. Coe, K. Kenski, S.A. Rains, Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments, Journal of Communication, 64 (2014) 658-679.

[16]

J. Cohen, R.G. Davis, Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political advertising, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 68 (1991) 680-688.

[17]

J. Cohen, D. Mutz, V. Price, A. Gunther, Perceived impact of defamation: an experiment of third-person effects, Public Opinion Quarterly, 52 (1988) 161-173.

[18]

J. Connors, Understanding the third person effect, Communication Research Trends, 24 (2005) 3-14.

[19]

W.R. Cupach, C.L. Carson, Characteristics and consequences of interpersonal complaints associated with perceived face threat, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19 (2002) 443-462.

[20]

E. Darics, Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual team, Journal of Politeness Research, 6 (2010) 129-150.

[21]

W.P. Davison, The third-person effect in communication, Public Opinion Quarterly, 47 (1983) 1-15.

[22]

P. De Vries, T.J.L. Van Rompay, Subtle persuasion: the unobtrusive effect of website-banner congruence on trust, in: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasion technology, Vol. 16, 2009.

[23]

F.R. Dillman Carpentier, D.R. Roskos-Ewoldsen, B.B. Roskos-Ewoldsen, A¿test of network models of political priming, Media Psychology, 11 (2008) 186-206.

[24]

W.P. Eveland, A.I. Nathanson, B.H. Detenber, D.M. McLeod, Rethinking the social distance corollary: perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception, Communication Research, 26 (1999) 275-302.

[25]

L. Festinger, A¿theory of cognitive dissonance, Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL, 1957.

[26]

E. Goffman, The presentation of the self in everyday life, Doubleday, New York, 1959.

[27]

E. Goffman, J. Best, Interaction rituals: Essays in face-to-face behavior, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 2005.

[28]

A.C. Graesser, Prose comprehension beyond the word, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.

[29]

S.L. Graham, Disagreeing to agree: conflict (im) politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community, Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (2007) 742-759.

[30]

H.P. Grice, Utterer's meaning and intention, The Philosophical Review, 78 (1969) 147-177.

[31]

A.C. Gunther, Overrating the X-rating: the third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography, Journal of Communication, 45 (1995) 27-38.

[32]

A. Hermida, N. Thurman, A¿class of culture: the integration of user-generated content with professional journalistic frameworks of British newspaper websites, Journalism Practice, 2 (2008) 343-356.

[33]

D. Hevey, M. Dolan, Approach/avoidance motivation, message framing, and skin cancer prevention: a test of the congruency hypothesis, Journal of Health Psychology, 19 (2014) 1003-1012.

[34]

I. Himelboim, S. McCreery, M. Smith, Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideological exposure on Twitter, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18 (2013) 40-60.

Digital Library

[35]

J.B. Houston, G.J. Hansen, G.S. Nisbett, Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias: third-person effect in online news, Electronic News, 5 (2011) 79-92.

[36]

J. Huh, The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context: the case of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, Communication Research, 31 (2004) 568-599.

[37]

M. Jenkins, M. Dragojevic, Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: a politeness-theory based approach, Communication Research, 40 (2013) 559-590.

[38]

S. Lee, K.J. Kim, S.S. Sundar, Customization in location-based advertising: effecting of tailoring source, locational congruity, and product involvement on ad attitudes, Computers in Human Behavior, 51 (2015) 336-343.

Digital Library

[39]

B. Lee, R. Tamborini, Third-person effect and internet pornography: the influence of collectivism and internet self-efficacy, Journal of Communication, 55 (2005) 292-310.

[40]

M.A. Locher, Introduction: politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication, Journal of Politeness Research, 6 (2010) 1-5.

[41]

A.E. Marwick, d. boyd, I¿tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience, New Media & Society, 13 (2011) 114-133.

[42]

P.C. Meirick, Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: political advertising and first- and third-person effects, Communication Research, 31 (2004) 234-255.

[43]

P.C. Meirick, Rethinking the target corollary: the effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions, Communication Research, 32 (2005) 822-843.

[44]

S. Metts, W.R. Cupach, Face theory, in: Engaging theories of interpersonal communication, Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2008, pp. 203-214.

[45]

D.C. Mutz, B. Reeves, The videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust, American Political Science Review, 99 (2005) 1196-1211.

[46]

E. Ng, B. Detenber, The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussion on perceptions and intentions to participate, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (2005).

[47]

J.G. Oetzel, S. Ting-Toomey, Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: a cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory, Communication Research, 30 (2003) 599-624.

[48]

C.E. Osgood, P.H. Tannenbaum, The principles of congruity in the prediction of attitude change, Psychological Review, 62 (1955) 42-55.

[49]

P.B. O'Sullivan, A.J. Flanagin, Reconceptualizing "flaming" and other problematic messages, New Media & Society, 5 (2003) 68-94.

[50]

G. Paolacci, J. Chander, P.G. Ipeirotis, Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk, Judgment and Decision Making, 5 (2010) 411-419.

[51]

Z. Papacharissi, Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups, New Media & Society, 6 (2004) 259-283.

[52]

S.A. Rains, The natural of psychological reactance revisited: a meta-analytic review, Human Communication Research, 39 (2013) 47-73.

[53]

B. Reeves, C. Nass, The media equation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.

Digital Library

[54]

H. Rojas, D.V. Shah, R.J. Faber, For the good of others: censorship and the third-person effect, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8 (1996) 163-186.

[55]

D. Rucinski, C.T. Salmon, The "other" as the vulnerable voter: a study of the third-person effect in the 1988 US presidential campaign, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2 (1990) 345-368.

[56]

A.D. Santana, Virtuous or vitriolic: the effects of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards, Journalism Practice, 8 (2014) 18-33.

[57]

E. Scharrer, R. Leone, First-person shooters and the third-person effect, Human Communication Research, 34 (2008) 210-233.

[58]

V. Schweisberger, J. Billinson, T.M. Chock, Facebook, the third-person effect and the differential impact hypothesis, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 (2014) 403-413.

Digital Library

[59]

M. Shapiro, T.M. Chock, Media dependency and perceived reality of fiction and news, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48 (2004) 675-695.

[60]

L. Shen, J. Palmer, L.M.M. Kollar, S. Comer, A'social comparison explanation for the third-person perception, Communication Research, 42 (2015) 260-280.

[61]

L. Shen, Z. Pan, L. Shen, Understanding the third-person perception: evidence from a meta-analysis, Journal of Communication, 58 (2008) 280-300.

[62]

M. Sifianou, Disagreements, face and politeness, Journal of Pragmatics, 44 (2012) 1554-1564.

[63]

S. Sobieraj, J.M. Berry, From incivility to outrage: political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news, Political Communication, 28 (2011) 19-41.

[64]

K. Sommer, M. Hofer, Influence of online comments on the perceptual and behavioral components of the third-person effect, in: Paper presented at the annual conference of the international communication association, Boston, MA, 2011, May.

[65]

K.K. Stephens, R.L. Cowan, M.L. House, Organizational norm congruency and interpersonal familiarity in e-mail: examining messages from two different status perspectives, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16 (2011) 228-249.

[66]

N. Tal-Or, Y. Tsfati, A.C. Gunther, The influence of presumed media influence: origins and implications of the third-person perception, in: Media processes and effects, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2009, pp. 99-112.

[67]

J.V. Wood, J.L. Michela, C. Giordano, Downward comparison in everyday life: reconciling self-enhancement models with the mood-cognition priming model, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (2000) 563-579.

[68]

S. Yoo, J.F. Peña, M.E. Drumwright, Virtual shopping and unconscious persuasion: the priming effects of avatar age and consumers' age discrimination on purchasing and prosocial behaviors, Computers in Human Behavior, 48 (2015) 62-71.

Digital Library

[69]

G.W. Yun, S. Park, Selective posting: willingness to post a message online, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16 (2011) 201-227.

[70]

Z.-J. Zhong, Third-person perceptions and online games: a comparison of perceived antisocial and prosocial game effects, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14 (2009) 286-306.

Cited By

McInnis BAjmani LDow S(2022)Engagement or Knowledge Retention: Exploring Trade-offs in Promoting Discussion at News WebsitesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35551946:CSCW2(1-38)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555194
Chen GNg Y(2017)Nasty online comments anger you more than me, but nice ones make me as happy as youComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.01071:C(181-188)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.010
Ham CNelson M(2016)The role of persuasion knowledge, assessment of benefit and harm, and third-person perception in coping with online behavioral advertisingComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.07662:C(689-702)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.076

Recommendations

Nasty online comments anger you more than me, but nice ones make me as happy as you

Using online comments posted on news stories as the context, this research used two experiments to assess the influence of online comments on people's emotions as well as on their perceptions of others' emotions. Study 1 (N=301) showed that people ...
The role of persuasion knowledge, assessment of benefit and harm, and third-person perception in coping with online behavioral advertising

Online behavioral advertising (OBA) provides Internet users with potential benefit (relevant ads) and harm (privacy infringement) through personalized covert persuasion tactics, making it an interesting case for understanding perceptions of media ...
Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior

Despite the potential of online commenting spaces for public deliberation, they are often full of destructive or uncivil and aggressive comments. Based on research on social learning and social influence, we conducted an online experiment to investigate ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computers in Human Behavior

Computers in Human Behavior Volume 55, Issue PB

February 2016

645 pages

ISSN:0747-5632

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier Ltd.

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Published: 01 February 2016

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

McInnis BAjmani LDow S(2022)Engagement or Knowledge Retention: Exploring Trade-offs in Promoting Discussion at News WebsitesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35551946:CSCW2(1-38)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555194
Chen GNg Y(2017)Nasty online comments anger you more than me, but nice ones make me as happy as youComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.01071:C(181-188)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.010
Ham CNelson M(2016)The role of persuasion knowledge, assessment of benefit and harm, and third-person perception in coping with online behavioral advertisingComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.07662:C(689-702)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.076

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents