The optimal impact phenomenon: beyond the third person effect

Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self‐other differences in resistance to persuasion

“…However, participants actually underestimated the extent to which their attitudes would have changed, just as they did in the case of negative messages in Studies 1 and 2. So we did not replicate the reversed TPE as obtained in other research (e.g., Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996;Innes & Zeitz, 1988). It is also interesting to note that we did not replicate the reversed TPE as measured by traditional items.…”

“…This took the form of material arguing against fossil fuel use for envirnomental reasons. Research to date suggests that under such conditions, the third-person effect is often reversed so that people perceive themselves as more likely to be influenced than others (e.g., Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996;Innes & Zeitz, 1988). The overestimation/underestimation issue remains to be tested for positive messages.…”

Integrating Theoretical Traditions in Media Effects: Using Third-Person Effects to Link Agenda-Setting and Cultivation

“…One could argue that there would be less of a ''status response'' or ''self-serving'' bias for acknowledging a media influence that could be viewed as ''learning'' or ''understanding,'' compared to accepting the notion that the media tell you whom to vote for or what is important in life. This also is consistent with Hoorens and Ruiter's (1996) notion that people consider their responses as more appropriate. At the same time, we should not expect the gap between perceptions of media influence on self and other to close completely for either type of effect.…”

“…Lopez-Saez, Martinez-Rubio, and Arias (1997) noted that third-person perception has been explained in attribution theory as a self-serving bias. Hoorens and Ruiter (1996) argued that people perceive their own responses to the media not as weaker but as more appropriate than other people's responses. Survey researchers also know that respondents often give responses to avoid offending the interviewer, to please the interviewer, or so they won't appear in a negative light.…”

Too positive to change? Examining optimism bias as a barrier to media effects on environmental activism

“…Messages with desirable (beneficial) outcomes such as environmental protection messages (see Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996) might gear self-protective actions from environmental risks. However, the optimism bias would make people believe that the risk is higher for others, thus leading to human inaction; that is, environmental optimism bias could be understood as a mechanism that attenuates or annuls the effect of perceived media influence (on self) on environmental activism.…”