American Behavioral Scientist

http://abs.sagepub.com/

Third-Person Effects of Health News : Exploring the Relationships Among

Media Exposure, Presumed Media Influence, and Behavioral Intentions
Ran Wei, Ven-Hwei Lo and Hung-Yi Lu
American Behavioral Scientist 2008 52: 261 originally published online 1 August 2008
DOI: 10.1177/0002764208321355

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/2/261

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for American Behavioral Scientist can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/2/261.refs.html

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 American Behavioral Scientist
Volume 52 Number 2
October 2008 261-277
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0002764208321355
Third-Person Effects http://abs.sagepub.com
hosted at
of Health News http://online.sagepub.com

Exploring the Relationships Among

Media Exposure, Presumed Media
Influence, and Behavioral Intentions
Ran Wei
University of South Carolina, Columbia
Ven-Hwei Lo
National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan
Hung-Yi Lu
National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan

This study expands third-person effect research to health news coverage. It examines
the perceptual and behavioral components of third-person effects. Moderator variables
of third-person effects—knowledge and exposure to health news—are also examined.
Using data from a survey of public opinion about the coverage of avian flu involving a
probability sample of 1,107 college students in Taiwan, findings show that respondents
tend to think the influence of avian flu news on others is greater than on themselves.
Furthermore, exposure to avian flu news was found to narrow the self–other perceptual
gap. Regarding the linkages between the third-person perception of avian news and
behavioral responses to the perception, findings show that perceived effects of avian flu
news on the self resulted in taking action—seeking information about avian flu and
seeking out Tamiflu. However, findings further show that the third-person perception
acted like a brake on taking such action.

Keywords: third-person effects; health news; avian flu; information seeking

R esearch on the perceived effects of media has expanded rapidly in recent years
(Gunther & Storey, 2003; Perloff, 2002). Departing from the direct model of
media effects concerning mediated messages on individuals and on society, this
rapidly growing stream of media-effect research seeks to understand the complexity of
media content on an audience’s social perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors by exam-
ining audience perceptions about the reality of media influence (Perloff, 1993). The

Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Ran Wei, PhD, University of South Carolina, School
of Journalism & Mass Communications, Coliseum 4008, Columbia, SC 29208; e-mail: ran.wei@sc.edu.

261

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

262 American Behavioral Scientist

third-person effect hypothesis exemplifies an indirect approach (Gunther & Storey,

2003). As Perloff (2002) put it, “Instead of looking at media effects on beliefs, it exam-
ines beliefs about media effects. Rather than assuming that media affect perceptions,
it assumes that perceptions can shape media” (pp. 489-490). Mutz (1989) character-
ized third-person effects as “the influence of perceptions of media influence” (p. 3).
The thesis is that the perceived effects of media messages are real media effects.
According to the third-person effect hypothesis proposed by Davison (1983),
people tend to perceive mass media as having a stronger effect on others than on
themselves. In Davison’s (1983) words, “people will tend to overestimate the influ-
ence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others” (p. 3).
Perloff (1993, 2002) articulated the two components of the third-person effect
hypothesis: perceptual and behavioral. The perceptual component refers to the dis-
crepancy between the self and others in assessing the influences of media messages.
Gunther (1991) characterized the third-person perception as “what we think others
think” (p. 355). The behavioral component proposes that a biased third-person per-
ception compels people to action to restrict the assessed media messages (Davison,
1996; Gunther, 1995, 1998; Rojas, Shah, & Faber, 1996; Salwen, 1998).
Several studies have broken new ground in third-person effect research. In propos-
ing an indirect-effect model, Gunther and Storey (2003) explored how people react to
their perceptions of media messages on others. Tewksbury, Moy, and Weis (2004) fur-
ther articulated this approach, suggesting that how an individual responds to a media
message “depends largely on what the message is thought to do to others” (p. 140).
They argued that the perceptions of the action of others may be a useful approach to
examine the linkages between the perceptual component and behavioral intentions.
Jensen and Hurley (2005) suggested a new construct of presumed influence to assess
the nature of presumed media influence. They defined presumed behavior as a mea-
sure of “what receivers think others will do” (Jensen & Hurley, 2005, p. 245). They
demonstrated that the presumed effect of media messages on others’ behavior showed
predictive power over action independent of the perceived effects of media messages.
The goal of this study is to expand third-person effect research in processing
health news. Moderator variables of third-person effects are examined, focusing on
the role of knowledge and exposure to health news in estimating effects of health
news on the self relative to others. Finally, the study explores behavioral responses
to third-person perceptions on the self as compared to others in the context of assess-
ing health coverage. The goal is to demonstrate that the perceived effect of health
news on the self will be a better predictor of behavioral intention.

Health News and Third-Person Effects

Health news in mass media does not often make headlines. It requires a high
threshold for attracting people’s attention unless the coverage involves a sudden,

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 Wei et al. / Third-Person Effects of Health News 263

imminent, and massive threat to people’s health (such as the severe acute respiratory
syndrome [SARS] outbreaks in 2003). Then, health news has its 15 minutes of fame.
Past research shows a general pattern between message desirability and third-person
effects. Undesirable messages (such as pornography) tend to lead to third-person
perceptual bias, whereas desirable messages (such as public service announcements)
tend to generate a reverse third-person effect. The message desirability of health cov-
erage is ambiguous. The nature of health coverage is informational, educational, and
beneficial to receivers. But the news about a health threat may upset people. The
actual coverage of avian flu in Taiwan was found to be sensational (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], Taiwan, 2005), contributing to people’s anx-
iety and making them thirstier for information. As Gunther and Mundy (1993)
argued, when a message is not perceived to be beneficial and involves large risks, the
third-person effect will be unequivocal.
However, no study has examined third-person effects in the domain of health news.
To fill the gap, this study examines the third-person hypothesis in estimating the influ-
ence of health news in the media, focusing on the coverage of avian flu in Taiwan.
Avian flu (also known as bird flu) is an infection caused by the H5N1 virus, which is
found chiefly in birds. Infections with these viruses can occur in humans. The first out-
break of avian flu was reported in South Korea in December of 2003 (CDC, 2006).
Avian flu hit several other Asian countries, including Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia,
and China in 2005. In China alone, 35 outbreaks of avian flu occurred; 194,000 poul-
try were infected in 2005 (“Chinese Health Officials,” 2006). Later, the flu spread to
Africa and Europe. According to the World Health Organization (2006), 173 people
were diagnosed with avian flu worldwide; 148 died by September of 2006.
Although no outbreak was reported in Taiwan, the residents on the island really pan-
icked due to its proximity to China. A survey conducted by Taiwan’s CDC in 2005 found
that 70% of respondents feared an outbreak on the island. Furthermore, 53% believed
that the impact of avian flu would be more serious than that of the SARS outbreak in
2003. Avian flu outbreaks and avian flu–related information were covered extensively in
Taiwan’s news media. For example, reports about a shortage of Tamiflu, the only known
vaccine that cures the H5N1 virus, resulted in a rush to stock up on the vaccine. Thus,
the news about worldwide outbreaks of avian flu in Taiwan offers a salient case to exam-
ine perceived effects of health news on the self and others and to explore the conse-
quences of the presumed effects of such news for taking preventive action.

Literature Review

The Third-Person Effect Hypothesis

Since Davison published his seminal piece proposing the third-person effect
hypothesis in 1983, sufficient empirical evidence has been reported in a large

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

264 American Behavioral Scientist

number of studies in support the hypothesis (Paul, Salwen, & Dupagne, 2000;
Perloff, 1993, 1999). Past research found stronger third-person perceptual effects in
estimating negative media messages, including pornography, violence, controversial
news reports and ads, and attack ads (Brosius & Engel, 1996; Chapin, 2002; Cohen
& Davis, 1991; Duck & Mullin, 1995; Gunther & Mundy, 1993; Henriksen & Flora,
1999; Hoffner & Buchanan, 2002; Huh, Delorme, & Reid, 2004; Lo & Wei, 2002;
McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997; Salwen & Driscoll, 1997; Wei & Lo, 2007;
Youn, Faber, & Shah, 2000). A general pattern emerged from these studies: The
more negative or controversial the mediated message, the stronger the perceived
effect of such messages on others relative to the self.
In the context of assessing the effect of avian flu news on individuals, although
news about avian flu is basically informational, desirable, and beneficial for people
to cope with this health threat, the threat to one’s health embedded in the message is
unpleasant. Thus, it is expected that the third-person effect will apply.

Moderators of Third-Person Effects

In addition to confirming the perceptual component of the third-person effect
hypothesis, past research also identified a number of moderators of third-person
effects. The presence of these moderating variables mitigates the self–other perceptual
discrepancy. For example, previous studies showed that the magnitude of the third-
person effect increases with social distance (Brosius & Engel, 1996; Gunther, 1991;
McLeod et al., 1997; Meirick, 2005; Paek, Pan, Sun, Abisaid, & Houden, 2005). In
processing health news, knowledge and media use are particularly important.

Knowledge and the third-person perception. Knowledge is considered a key mod-

erator in estimating the influence of health news because it functions as a heuristic
guide for individuals in coping with uncertainty. Past third-person effect studies exam-
ining the relationship between knowledge of a given topic and the third-person percep-
tual differential found evidence in support of knowledge’s moderating role. That is, as
knowledge increases, the perceived effect of media messages increases (Atwood,
1994; Chapin, 2002; Driscoll & Salwen, 1997; Lasorsa, 1989; Wei & Lo, 2007; White
& Dillon, 2000). In a study investigating the third-person perceptual effect of attack
ads during the 2004 presidential campaign, Wei and Lo (2007) found that the
self–other perceptual gap was positively correlated with knowledge about attack ads.
These findings suggest that the perceived effects of mediated messages are exper-
tise based. Thus, in processing avian flu news, people will be likely to rely on what
they know about the epidemic when judging the influence of such news on the self
relative to others. More specifically, people who know a great deal about avian flu
will be able to relate to the coverage. As a result, they are likely to be realistic in
assessing the effect of avian flu news on themselves. Furthermore, if they believe
they are influenced by avian flu news, they will presume that the news has an effect

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 Wei et al. / Third-Person Effects of Health News 265

on others as well. Thus, the higher the level of avian flu knowledge, the greater the
perceived effects of avian news on the self as well as others.

Media use and the third-person perception. In theory, media use as a moderator
of third-person effects amplifies the self–other perceptual gap (Salwen, 1998)
because of knowledge gain from media use. Past studies identified these contingent
media factors that mitigate third-person effects: attributes of the source, stimuli,
message types, media orientation, and contexts of exposure (Perloff, 1993; Price,
Huang, & Tewksbery, 1997; Wei & Lo, 2007). General use of media for information
and entertainment does not necessarily make people concerned about media influ-
ence, but exposure to specific (particularly negative and controversial) content trig-
gers viewers’ concern about harms (Huh et al., 2004).
Interestingly, past studies that explored the relationship between media exposure
and the perceived effects of negative media content showed that higher exposure was
related to fewer perceived effects on the self and others. Lo and Wei (2002) found
that exposure to Internet pornography was negatively associated with the perceived
effects of Internet pornography on the self and others. Hoffner et al. (1999) reported
that greater exposure to TV violence was negatively associated with concerns about
the harmful effects of TV violence on society. Eveland, Nathanson, Detenber, and
McLeod (1999) also found that the perceived likelihood of exposure was a signifi-
cant predictor of the perceived impact of violent rap on others.
However, in the context of assessing health converge such as avian flu news, it is
expected that higher news exposure will be positively correlated with greater per-
ceived effects on the self and others because news about avian flu is informational,
desirable, and beneficial for people to cope with this health threat. People may take
the news seriously and internalize it for the sake of self-protection. If they reckon
that avian flu news influences them, they may presume others will be influenced as
well. Thus, exposure to avian flu news will likely be positively related to the per-
ceived effects of such news on the self as well as others.

Third-Person Effects and Behavioral Intentions

The third-person perception has implications for behavioral intentions. As
Gunther and Storey (2003) argued, people who assume influences of media mes-
sages on a given audience will adapt their behavior to correspond to those assump-
tions. Also, the behavioral component shows that people are more likely to act if they
believe that others are more susceptible to harmful effects than themselves (Huh et al.,
2004). Numerous studies on the presumed harms of negative and controversial
media contents (Gunther, 1995; Hoffner et al., 1999; Hoffner & Buchanan, 2002;
Lo & Paddon, 1998; McLeod, Detenber, & Eveland, 2001; McLeod et al., 1997;
Neuwirth, Frederick, & Mayo, 2002; Rojas et al., 1996; Youn et al., 2000) found
that the third-person perception predicted support for restrictions of such contents.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

266 American Behavioral Scientist

Other behavioral effects reported in recent studies include the likelihood of devel-
oping an eating disorder (David & Johnson, 1998), intention to relocate if people
believed that others were more affected by media coverage of their town than they
were (Tsfati & Cohen, 2003), likely interaction with health workers (Gunther &
Storey, 2003), and increased desire to be slim (Park, 2005). Neuwirth et al. (2002)
explored the relationship between third-person effects and heuristic systematic pro-
cessing. They found that the third-person effect was positively associated with
respondents’ behavioral intentions in terms of civil participation, discussion about
elections, and support for media censorship.
Information-seeking models in health communication research (Case, 2002)
assume that people need more information when they face threats or uncertainty in
their daily lives. In the context of avian flu coverage, residents in Taiwan would feel
a heightened need to seek information about the flu to reduce uncertainty and seek
out Tamiflu to gain control over the threat (Street, 2003). Thus, the behavioral inten-
tions responding to the presumed effects of avian flu news on the self and others in
this study will focus on seeking information about the disease and looking for
Tamiflu, the only known vaccine against the virus.
Specifically, a study by Price, Tewksbury, and Huang (1998) on the perceived
effects of a Holocaust-denial ad found that it was perceived impact on the self, not
on others, that predicted opposition to publishing the ad. The finding was confirmed
in other studies. The perceived media effect on the self is a particularly reliable pre-
dictor of behavioral outcomes (Lo & Wei, 2002; Wei & Lo, 2007). Price et al.
(1998) argued that knowledge about the self was a trustworthy gauge that people
may consult when assessing media impact on the self and others. Likewise, knowl-
edge about the self will be a useful measure to predict behavioral intentions in
response to the presumed effects of avian flu on the self and others. Thus, it is
expected that the perceived effects of avian flu news on the self will be a stronger
predictor of seeking information about the flu and the intention to seek out Tamiflu
than will the perceived effects of such news on others. However, the people who
assume that the influence of avian flu news on others will be greater than on them-
selves will be less likely to seek avian flu information and seek out Tamiflu. Why
bother if others are believed to be hit? Thus, the third-person perception will be
negatively associated with intentions to seek avian flu information and seek out
Tamiflu.

Hypotheses

The above review of the growing literature of third-person effect research leads to
the formation of several hypotheses to be tested in the context of avian flu news. The
first hypothesis is concerned with testing the baseline perceptual component of
the third-person effects of avian flue news. The second and third hypotheses test the

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 Wei et al. / Third-Person Effects of Health News 267

influence of moderators on biased third-person perceptions. The remaining four

hypotheses focus on examining the relationships between third-person perceptions
(e.g., the perceived influence of avian flu news on the self, on others, and on the
self–other differential) and perceptions-compelled behavioral responses to avian flu
news.

Hypothesis 1: Respondents will perceive news about avian flu to have a greater influence on
others than on themselves.
Hypothesis 2: Knowledge will be positively associated with the perceived effects of avian flu
news on the self and others.
Hypothesis 3: News exposure will be positively associated with the perceived effects of avian
flu news on the self and others.
Hypothesis 4: Perceived effects of avian flu news on the self will be a stronger predictor of
the intention to seek information about the flu than will the perceived effects of such news
on others.
Hypothesis 5: The third-person perception (e.g., the magnitude of perceptual bias) will be
negatively associated with the intention to seek information about avian flu.
Hypothesis 6: Perceived effects of avian flu news on the self will be a stronger predictor of the
intention to seek out Tamiflu than will the perceived effects of such news on others.
Hypothesis 7: The third-person perception (e.g., the magnitude of perceptual bias) will be
negatively associated with the intention to seek out Tamiflu.

Method

Sample
A large-scale survey of college students in Taiwan was used to gather data.
College students were the target population for this study because of they are heavy
media users. In addition, they face a bigger risk of avian flu outbreaks than the aver-
age person because of living in crowded dorms on campus. To draw a probability
sample, a multistage cluster sampling procedure was used. From a pool of 44
colleges and universities located in Taipei, 10 were drawn randomly. Then, 3
classes from each of the 10 colleges were randomly drawn. A questionnaire was
administered to all students in these 30 classes, which totaled 1,201, in December
of 2005. Respondents were assured of voluntary participation, confidentiality, and
anonymity.
Of the 1,201 students selected in the sample, 1,107 (92.2%) completed the survey
successfully. The rest (7.8%) declined to participate or failed to complete the ques-
tionnaire. Of those respondents, the gender ratio was about even, with 46.5% men and
53.5% women. Their mean of age was 20.4 (SD = 1.77). In terms of years of study,
the sample was evenly distributed across the four years. Specifically, 21.6% were
freshmen, 30.7% were sophomores, 23.9% were juniors, and 23.2% were seniors.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

268 American Behavioral Scientist

Measures of Key Variables

Third-person effects. Conceptually, the third-person effect refers to the difference
between the perceived effect of media messages on the self and others. To measure
perceived effects of avian flu news coverage on the self, two questions were used.
Respondents were asked to indicate (a) whether media coverage of avian flu made
“you” concerned about the epidemic and (b) to what extent did the news have influ-
ence on “yourself.” A 7-point Likert-type scale was used (1 = not at all to 7 =
absolutely). A scale of perceived effect of avian news on the self was created by
adding the two items and dividing by 2 (M = 4.46, SD = 1.22, r = .75). Similarly, a
scale of perceived effect of avian news on others was built by using two questions
that replaced words such as “you” and “yourself” with “other people” and “them-
selves” (M = 5.01, SD = .85, r = .68).
The difference in scores between perceived effects on the self and perceived
effects on others was calculated to generate a measure of third-person perception
(M = .56, SD = 1.17). The larger the score, the greater the magnitude of bias in per-
ceiving the effects of avian flu news on the self relative to others.

Exposure to news about avian flu. A content-specific exposure measure was used
to gauge the level of exposure to news coverage of avian flu. Respondents were
asked to indicate how often they read or watched news about avian flu in newspa-
pers, on TV, and on the Internet, respectively. The 4-point response categories ranged
from 1 (never) to 4 (frequently). Results of exploratory factor analysis confirmed that
the three items were loaded on a single factor. The one-factor solution explained
66.58% of the variance (Eigenvalues = 2.00). A composite measure of exposure to
news was constructed by adding the three items and dividing by 3 (M = 2.56, SD =
.65, α = .75). The scale showed moderately high reliability.

Knowledge about avian flu. Knowledge about avian flu was measured with six
questions regarding affected countries, symptoms of avian flu, and facts about
Tamiflu. They were worded as follows: (a) Which pharmaceutical company is the
maker of Tamiflu? (b) Was Taiwan licensed to manufacture Tamiflu? (c) In which
months of the year is the peak season of avian flu? (d) What is the avian influenza
virus called? (e) Which country has reported avian flu outbreaks? and (f) What kind
of disease is bird flu? For each correct answer, a score was assigned. Thus, the
knowledge scale ranged from 0 to 6 (M = 3.10, SD = 1.61).

Intention to seek information about avian flu. Respondents were asked to indicate
whether they agreed that they would seek information about the nature of the avian
flu pandemic, the transmission of the disease, the vulnerability of being infected
with the virus, preventions against the disease, and the treatment of the disease in the
next 3 months. A 5-point Likert scale was used (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree). Results of exploratory factor analysis of the five items confirmed that they

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 Wei et al. / Third-Person Effects of Health News 269

were grouped in a single factor. The one-factor solution explained 79.89% of the
variance (Eigenvalues = 3.99). A composite measure of intention to seek information
about avian flu was constructed by adding the five items and dividing by 5 (M =
3.16, SD = .74, α = .92). The scale achieved high reliability.

Intention to seek out Tamiflu. Respondents were then asked whether they agreed
that they would consider doing the following after the exposure to the news about a
shortage of Tamiflu in Taiwan: (a) to search for information about Tamiflu, (b) to
search for information about how to prevent themselves from getting avian flu, and
(c) to try to purchase Tamiflu. A 5-point Likert scale was used (1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree). Results of exploratory factor analysis showed that the three
items were grouped in a single factor. The single-factor solution explained 71.94%
of the total variance (Eigenvalues = 2.16). A scale of intention to seek out Tamiflu
was created by adding the three items and dividing the sum by 3 (M = 2.67, SD =
.79, α = .80). The scale achieved high reliability.

Findings

Hypothesis 1 predicted that respondents would perceive news about avian flu to
have a greater effect on others than on themselves. To test it, paired t tests were per-
formed. Results show that respondents perceived that the influence of news about
avian flu was greater on others than on themselves. For individual measures, t(1,096)
was 11.28 at the p < .001 level for being more concerned about avian flu because of
avian flu coverage; t(1,093) was 16.35 at the p < .001 level for the perceived influ-
ence of avian news. For the combined perceived effect index of self versus others,
t(1,093) was 15.77 at the p < .001 level. Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that knowledge would be positively related to the perceived
effects of avian flu news on the self and the perceived effects of such news on others.
To test it, three hierarchical regression analyses were performed in which gender and
age were entered first as control variables. In the second block, knowledge was
entered, and the final block included exposure to news about avian flu. The dependent
variables included the perceived effects of avian flu coverage on the self, others, and
the third-person perception. As Table 1 shows, gender was a significant predictor of the
perceived effects of avian flu news on the self and others, suggesting that male respon-
dents perceived less influence of avian flu news than female respondents. Furthermore,
taking into account the influence of gender and age, knowledge (β = .06, p < .05) was
a significant predictor of the perceived effect of avian flu coverage on the self. This
result indicates that the more respondents knew about avian flu, the stronger the effect
of the coverage they perceived on themselves. However, knowledge was not a signifi-
cant predictor of the perceived effects of avian flu news on others and the third-person
perception. These results partially supported Hypothesis 2.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

270 American Behavioral Scientist

Table 1
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Perceived
Effects of Avian Flu News on Self and on Others
Perceived Effects of Avian Flu News
Predictor On Self On Others Third-Person Perception

Block 1: demographics
Gender –.14*** –.11*** .04
Age –.04 –.06* –.02
Adjusted R2 .02 .02 .00
Block 2: knowledge
Knowledge about avian flu .06* .02 –.04
Incremental adjusted R2 .01 .00 .00
Block 3: media use
Exposure to avian flu news .32*** .18*** –.16***
Incremental adjusted R2 .10 .03 .02

Total adjusted R2 .13 .05 .03

Note: Beta weights are from a final regression equation with all blocks of variables in the model. N = 1,023.
Variables are coded, or recoded, as follows: gender, 1 = male, 0 = female; news exposure, 1 = never, 4 =
frequently; perceived effect on self and others, 1 = not at all, 7 = absolutely.
*
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that exposure to news about avian flu would be positively
related to the perceived effects of such news on the self and others. Three hierarchical
regression analyses were performed to test it. As shown in Table 1, after controlling for
the influence of demographics and knowledge, exposure to news about avian flu
proved to be the strongest predictor of perceived effects on the self (β = .32, p < .001),
on others (β = .18, p < .001), and the third-person perception (β = −.16, p < .001).
These results indicate that the more respondents read or watched news about avian flu,
the stronger the effect of the coverage they perceived on themselves and others. At the
same time, the more respondents read or watched news about avian flu, the smaller the
perceptual bias between the self and others. Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that the perceived effects of avian flu news on the self
would be a stronger predictor of the intention to seek information about avian flu
than would the perceived effects of such news on others. To test it, a hierarchical
regression was performed in which gender and age were entered first as control vari-
ables, followed by knowledge and exposure to news about avian flu. The final block
included the perceived effects of avian flu news on the self, others, and the third-per-
son perception. Results in Table 2 (see column 1) show that knowledge (β = .11,
p < .001) and exposure to news about avian flu (β = .21, p < .001) were significant
predictors of the intention to seek information about avian flu. These results suggest

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 Wei et al. / Third-Person Effects of Health News 271

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Information-Seeking Behavior
Intention to Seek Information
Independent Variables About Avian Flu Intention to Seek Out Tamiflu

Block 1: demographics
Gender (male) .04 –.01 .08** .03
Age .00 –.02 –.02 –.04
Adjusted R2 .00 .00 .00 .00
Block 2: knowledge
Knowledge of avian flu .11*** .13*** .05 .06*
Incremental adjusted R2 .03 .03 .02 .02
Block 3: media use
Exposure to avian flu news .21*** .32*** .21*** .31***
Incremental adjusted R2 .11 .11 .11 .11
Block 4: third-person variables
Perceived effect on self .38*** .42***
Perceived effect on others .06* –.01
Third-person perception –.17*** –.22***
Incremental adjusted R2 .15 .03 .15 .05

Total adjusted R2 .29 .17 .28 .17

Note: Beta weights are from a final regression equation with all blocks of variables in the model. N =
1,023. Variables are coded, or recoded, as follows: gender, 1 = male, 0 = female; news exposure, 1 = never,
4 = frequently; perceived effect on self and others, 1 = not at all, 7 = absolutely; intention to seek infor-
mation about avian flu and Tamiflu, 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree.
*
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

that more knowledgeable respondents whose exposure to avian news was high
tended to seek information about the disease. Furthermore, results show that the per-
ceived effects of avian flu news on both the self and others were significant predic-
tors of the intention to seek information about avian flu. However, the beta size of
perceived effects on the self was much larger (β = .38, p < .001) than that of per-
ceived effects on others (β = .06, p < .05). Hypothesis 4 was supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that the third-person perception would be negatively
related to the intention to seek information about avian flu. To test it, a hierarchical
regression analysis was run. Similar to the early run, gender and age were entered
first, followed by knowledge and exposure to news about avian flu. The final block
entered the third-person perception (the other–self differential). As anticipated (see
results shown in column 2 of Table 2), the third-person perception was a significant
but negative predictor of the intention to seek information about avian flu (β = −.17,
p < .001). The results provided support for Hypothesis 5, suggesting that the larger
the third-person perceptual bias, the less likely respondents would be to seek infor-
mation about avian flu.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

272 American Behavioral Scientist

Hypothesis 6 predicted that the perceived effects of avian flu coverage on the self
would be a stronger predictor of the intention to seek out Tamiflu than would the per-
ceived effects of such news on others. To test this hypothesis, a hierarchical regres-
sion analysis was performed in which gender and age were entered first, followed by
knowledge, news exposure, and perceived effects on the self, perceived effects on
others, and the third-person perception. The dependent variable was the intention to
seek out Tamiflu, the second behavioral intention measure. As results in Table 2 show
(see column 3), with the influence of demographics, knowledge, and news exposure
being controlled, the perceived effect of avian flu coverage on the self was the strongest
predictor of the intention to look for Tamiflu (β = .42, p < .001), while the perceived
effect on others was not a significant predictor. What this means is that the stronger
the effect of avian flu news was perceived to be on the self, the more likely these
respondents would be to try to find the flu vaccine. Hypothesis 6 was supported.
Finally, Hypothesis 7 predicted that the third-person perception would be nega-
tively related to the intention to seek out Tamiflu. As results of the final hierarchical
regression analysis in Table 2 show (see column 4), after the influence of knowledge
and news exposure were controlled, the third-person perception was a significant but
negative predictor of the intention to look for Tamiflu (β = −.22, p < .001).
Hypothesis 7 was also supported, suggesting that the larger the size of third-person
perceptual bias, the less likely respondents would be to try to find the flu vaccine.

Discussion

The third-person effect has been well documented in past research on both nega-
tive and socially desirable messages. The third-person effect found in negative mes-
sages is reversed if respondents perceive being influenced by media messages as
smart and socially desirable (the first-person effect; see Gunther & Thorson, 1992;
Henriksen & Flora, 1999). This study expands the research into the domain of health
news by focusing on estimates of the effects of avian flu news. Findings show that
biased third-person effects existed. Respondents tended to think the influence of
avian flu news on others was greater than on themselves. But why does the third-
person effect apply to processing avian flu news, which was essentially information
about a health risk? It appears that although the coverage is basically desirable and
beneficial, the idea of getting avian flu is unpleasant. Thus, this study contributes to
the third-person effect research by showing that desirable and informational but
ambiguous (e.g., either positive or negative) messages such as health coverage also
produce the third-person perceptual effect.
Furthermore, findings indicate that the more respondents knew about avian
flu, the more opened-minded they were about the risk to themselves. This is the
case probably because they knew themselves the best; thus, they were realistic in

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 Wei et al. / Third-Person Effects of Health News 273

assessing the influence of avian flu news on themselves. However, knowledge did
not increase the third-person effect as expected. In addition, the more respondents
read or watched news about avian flu, the stronger the effect of the coverage they
perceived on themselves and others. Interestingly, as a moderator, exposure to avian
flu news did not increase but reduced the self–other perceptual discrepancy. The
more respondents read or watched news about avian flu, the smaller the perceptual
bias between the self and others.
Assessing the effects of media messages on the self and others involves a compli-
cated cognitive process (McLeod et al., 2001; Paek et al., 2005). The cognitive view
of the third-person effect suggests that people rely on their own heuristic mechanisms
to reason about media effects on the self relative to others (Neuwirth et al., 2002). It
seems that in assessing the impact of avian flu news, respondents took the threat pre-
sented in the news seriously. The result was that they probably understood how realis-
tic the threat was to everyone, including themselves. Thus, the self-biased perception
decreased. This particular finding suggests that in making sense of a health risk, expo-
sure to health coverage assists people in the cognitive process about the effects of such
coverage on themselves and others. Thus, this study contributes to third-person effect
research by showing that news exposure is an important moderator of the perceived
effects of news on the self and others. Although ambiguous media messages such as
health news may produce the third-person effect, exposure to such news reduces mes-
sage ambiguity, helping people understand the benefits of the messages. Then, when
the messages are perceived as personally beneficial and thus advantageous to self-
interest, people have an open mind to admit to being influenced by the message.
Regarding the third-person perception-compelled behavioral intentions, findings
show that the perceived effects of avian flu news on the self resulted in taking action,
which involved seeking information about avian flu and seeking out the vaccine
Tamiflu. It appears that respondents internalized the information-driven coverage of
avian flu. After weighing what the news meant to themselves, they took protection
as an individual responsibility. Self-interest appears to be the motivator. However,
findings further show that the third-person perception acted like a brake on taking
protective action. The larger the size of the third-person perceptual bias, the less
likely respondents would be to look for information about avian flu and to try to find
the flu vaccine. Such a finding demonstrates that perceptions of media effects on the
self and others are real media effects with real consequences. Furthermore, the find-
ing is consistent with previous research on the phenomenon of unrealistic optimism
that has consistently shown that optimistic bias provides a restraint on people’s
intention to engage in preventive behavior. Practically, effective health campaigns
should be framed in a way that cuts out third-person perception.
What explains the contradiction in being rational about protecting oneself
but believing others to be less lucky and hence not taking preventive action? Well,
these findings are indicative of human nature. When people understand a real threat to

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

274 American Behavioral Scientist

themselves, they do not take chances. They are self-interested rational beings.
However, when they are asked to compare themselves to others, a set of sociopsycho-
logical dynamics are at work. Admitting to media influence does not make one look
smart (Shah, Faber, & Youn, 1999). Thus, overestimating the influence of health news
on others and underestimating the influence on the self may occur as a self-defense
mechanism (Wei & Lo, 2007). The notions of a positive illusion, optimistic bias
(Weinstein, 1980, 1987, 1989), and downward comparison (Atwood, 1994) all offer
possible explanations. The conclusion is that the sociopsychological mechanisms of
third-person effects are complex, defying a single explanation. This is what makes
third-person effect research fascinating.
The findings of this study, however, are subject to the limitations of a one-shot
survey. The data were primarily self-reported, and the significant relationships are by
no means causal. Future studies can pursue lab-based experiments to manipulate the
messages of health information and then measure changes in perceptions of the
effects of different versions of messages on the self relative to others. Furthermore,
it should be noted that this study has measured not behavior but behavioral inten-
tions. Future research should include measures of actual behavior.

References
Atwood, L. E. (1994). Illusions of media power: The third-person effect. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 71, 269-281.
Brosius, H., & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal
impact, or generalized negative attitudes towards media influence? International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 8, 142-162.
Case, D. O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and
behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Avian influenza (avian flu). Retrieved October 16,
2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–Taiwan. (2005). A report on issues about avian flu preven-
tion. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://flu.cdc.gov.tw/news_content.asp?data_id=223
Chapin, J. (2002). Third-person perception and school violence. Communication Research Reports, 19,
216-225.
Chinese health officials declared a victory on avian flu in 2005. (March 20, 2006). China Times, p. A13.
Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political
advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 680-688.
David, P., & Johnson, M. A. (1998). The role of self in third-person effects about body image. Journal of
Communication, 48(4), 37-58.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-13.
Davison, W. P. (1996). The third-person effect revisited. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 8, 113-119.
Driscoll, P. D., & Salwen, M. B. (1997). Self-perceived knowledge of the O. J. Simpson trial: Third-
person perception and perceptions of guilt. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 541-556.
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.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 Wei et al. / Third-Person Effects of Health News 275

Eveland, W. P., Jr., Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H., & McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social dis-
tance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception. Communication
Research, 26, 275-302.
Gunther, A. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect.
Communication Research, 18, 355-372.
Gunther, A. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of
pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27-38.
Gunther, A. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion.
Communication Research, 25, 486-504.
Gunther, A., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effects. Journalism Quarterly,
70, 58-67.
Gunther, A., & Storey, D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication,
53, 199-215.
Gunther, A., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public ser-
vice announcements: Third person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574-596.
Henriksen, L., & Flora, J. A. (1999). Third-person perception and children: Perceived impact of pro- and
anti-smoking ads. Communication Research, 26, 643-665.
Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. (2002). Parents’ responses to television violence: The third-person percep-
tion, parental mediation, and support for censorship. Media Psychology, 4, 231-252.
Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Hibbs, L. A., Kamigaki, S. K., Kowalczyk, L., et al. (1999).
Support for censorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect and news exposure.
Communication Research, 26, 726-742.
Huh, J., Delorme, D. E., & Reid, L. (2004). The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral out-
comes in a product advertising context: The case of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising.
Communication Research, 31, 568-599.
Jensen, J., & Hurley, R. (2005). Third-person effects and the environment: Social distance, social desir-
ability, and presumed behavior. Journal of Communication, 55, 242-256.
Lasorsa, D. L. (1989). Real and perceived effects of “Amerika.” Journalism Quarterly, 66, 373-378, 529.
Lo, V. H., & Paddon, A. R. (1998, August). The third-person perception and support for restrictions of
pornography: Some methodological problems. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
Association for Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD.
Lo, V. H., & Wei, R. (2002). Third-person effect, gender, and pornography on the Internet. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 13-33.
McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effects:
Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51, 678-695.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misog-
ynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153-174.
Meirick, P. (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.
Mutz, D. C. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence: Third-person effect and the public
expression of opinions. International Journal of Public Opinion, 1, 3-23.
Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2002). Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing.
Communication Research, 29, 320-359.
Paek, H. J., Pan, Z. D., Sun, Y., Abisaid, J., & Houden, D. (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.
Park, S. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on women’s desire to be thin.
Communication Research, 32, 594-614.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

276 American Behavioral Scientist

Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the percep-
tual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 57-85.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research, 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167-184.
Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353-378.
Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Mass effects: Advances
in theory and research (pp. 489-506). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Price, V., Huang, L. N., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations
toward media. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 525-540.
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Huang, L. N. (1998). Third-person effects on publication of a Holocaust-
denial advertisement. Journal of Communication, 48(2), 3-26.
Rojas, H., Shah, D. V., & Faber, R. J. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person
effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 163-186.
Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect
in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25, 259-285.
Salwen, M. B., & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press
restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47(2), 60-78.
Shah, D., Faber, R., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the
third-person effect. Communication Research, 26, 240-267.
Street, R. L., Jr. (2003). Mediated consumer–provider communication in cancer care: The empowering
potential of new technologies. Patient Education and Counseling, 50, 99-104.
Tewksbury, D., Moy, P., & Weis, D. (2004). Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the behavioral component
of the third-person effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 138-155.
Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2003). On the effect of the “third-person effect”: Perceived influence of media
coverage and residential mobility intentions. Journal of Communication, 53, 711-727.
Wei, R., & Lo, V. H. (2007). Third-person effects of political attack ads in the 2004 U.S. presidential
election. Media Psychology, 9, 367-388.
Weinstein, N. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 806-820.
Weinstein, N. (1987). Unrealistic optimistic about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusion from a
community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 481-500.
Weinstein, N. (1989). Effects of personal experience on self-protective behavior. Psychological Bulletin,
105, 31-50.
White, H., & Dillon, J. (2000). Knowledge about others’ reaction to a public service announcement: The
impact on self persuasion and third-person perception. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 77, 788-803.
World Health Organization. (2006). Cumulative number of confirmed human cases of avian influenza
A/(H5N1) reported to WHO. Retrieved September 5, 2006, from http://www.who.int/csr/disease/
avian_influenza/updates/en/index.html
Youn, S., Faber, R., & Shah, D. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect.
Psychology and Marketing, 17, 633-649.

Ran Wei is an associate professor in the School of Journalism & Mass Communications at the University
of South Carolina, Columbia. His research interests include the principles of advertising, advertising in
cultural China, the impact of new media technologies, and media effects. He has published articles in the
International Journal of Advertising, the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, the Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, and Media Asia.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010

 Wei et al. / Third-Person Effects of Health News 277

Ven-Hwei Lo is a professor in the Department of Journalism at the National Chengchi University, Taipei,
Taiwan. His research interests include news analyses, political communication, and media effects. He has
published articles in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, the International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, the Asian Journal of Communication, and Studies in Media & Information Literacy
Education.

Hung-Yi Lu is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the National Chung Cheng
University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan. His research interests include health communication, information seeking,
and media effects. He has published articles in CyberPsychology & Behavior, Communication Research,
and Health Education & Behavior.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by Ferdinand Prawiro on September 30, 2010