Two parts to the idea
The perceptual part is the gap between estimated impact on others and estimated impact on the self. The behavioral part is the proposal that people act on the gap, for instance by supporting restrictions on messages they regard as harmful to others. Davison illustrated the phenomenon with examples from wartime propaganda and media coverage.
Why it occurs
A meta-analysis by Sun, Pan, and Shen found the perceptual gap to be robust across many studies. It is often larger for messages regarded as undesirable. Suggested explanations include:
- Self-enhancement: wanting to see oneself as harder to manipulate
- Optimistic bias: assuming bad outcomes happen to others
- Different naive theories about how media influence people
- Social distance: more influence is assigned to groups seen as less like oneself
Questions of accuracy and action
A perception gap does not necessarily reveal a bias. Self-reports of being influenced are not always valid, but others may truly be more influenced in some cases, and few studies measure actual effects alongside perceived ones. For some desirable messages, the pattern can reverse, with people reporting more influence on themselves. The behavioral part of the theory has a less consistent evidence base than the perceptual part, and most studies are surveys that cannot establish whether perceptions lead to support for censorship.
Further reading
- Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1).
- Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5(2).
- Sun, Y., Pan, Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58(2).