(II) The lack of conceptual explication and theoretical explanation can jeopardize the development of the IPI framework. More theory-building efforts are needed to move IPI from a descriptive model to an explanatory and predictive theoretical framework.
IPI, in its current formulation, is a depiction of “regular succession” (Psillos, 2002). It describes, but does not explain. Using Dubin’s (1978) terms, it involves the “what” and “how” elements, but not “why.” Though the process formulation of IPI contains causal propositions (e.g., presumed influence causes attitudinal/behavioral change; or exposure of others leads to presumed influence on them), it has yet to offer cogent causal explanations. Without answering the “why” questions, IPI will remain an interesting descriptive framework, but not a theory.
Theory-building is a long-term project. One starting point is conceptual explication. The “component” analysis section of this chapter engages a little bit with this task. Delineating formal conceptual typologies, like the one for behavioral consequences discussed earlier, is an important task in constructing theories (Hage, 1972). Such conceptual categories have heuristic functions in generating theoretical questions that build up for theory-development.
For example, with the conceptual categories of behavioral outcomes, questions can be raised about the contingent conditions and different mechanisms responsible for different types of behaviors. Does IPI have the same explanatory or predictive power across the subdimensions? How may different types of involvement be related to normative or instrumental behaviors? What are the factors that may determine the tipping point toward “convergent” versus “divergent” reactions? Such inquiries will help IPI scholars deductively derive a set of testable propositions and shed light on the underlying causal mechanisms.
Conceptual characteristics of the self-other relationship should also be more carefully analyzed to understand how construal of others (in relation to self and message context) influences one’s own attitudinal/behavioral outcomes. Though extant literature has examined different kinds of referents, conceptual characteristics of the self-other relationship have not been directly explicated or examined yet. A more fundamental question that faces IPI research is what are the situations in which the thought of referent others arises and matters in the first place. In other words, when referent others are specified to the respondents in the surveys in current IPI research, the assumption is that the real-world decision-making process involves these others. Are there conditions under which such an assumption simply does not hold? Do we risk reifying the notion of presumed influence if we leave that assumption unchecked? Since “there are many different grounds that could lead one actor to treat a subset of other actors as a comparison point” (Marsden & Friedkin, 1993), which referent others are called for by different message contexts and behavioral domains? Some qualitative, exploratory research is needed to establish a more solid foundation to justify the referent other measures and explicate the conceptual dimensions.
(III) Finally, a bigger question for IPI scholars to ponder over is what theoretical space and practical grounds IPI can carve out for itself in the landscape of media effects and persuasion research.
IPI Versus TPE
As briefly argued earlier, though Gunther and Storey (2003) suggest that IPI is a broader model under which TPE is a special case, we should not rush to that conclusion without adequate theoretical and empirical investigations. The two frameworks posit different causal antecedents (i.e., perceived effects on others vs. self-other perceptual gap), and therefore imply different theoretical explanations for behavioral responses. For example, IPI, by uncoupling perceived effect on others and that on self and placing sole emphasis on the former, implies that individuals’ assessment of the normative or ecological environment is used as a separate piece of social information in behavioral decisions. In TPE, on the other hand, using the self-other perceptual difference as a predictor highlights a social comparison process, where the latitude of difference between perceived self-position and other-position generates motivation for actions. Perceptions of how differently others are affected by messages than self account for variance in behavioral inclinations, instead of considerations of others’ reactions alone. Given that both frameworks have garnered some empirical support (for example, Rojas, 2010, and Lim & Golan, 2011, respectively supported TPE and IPI hypotheses regarding “corrective actions”) and both are theoretically underexplicated, we need more theorizing as well as more carefully crafted and purposeful research designs to identify the conditions for the viability (or nonviability) of each framework.
IPI versus TRA
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) also includes the thought of others in the equation to predict behavioral outcomes. The primary difference between IPI and TRA is that IPI connects the dots between messages and others, explicitly specifying the relationship between the two. In TRA, the “others” usually refer to close individuals, such as family members or partners, and the perceptions of their thoughts are presumably based more on intimate knowledge or experiences. In IPI, referent others are usually a broader group, and presumptions about them are inferences made based on media messages. In addition, in terms of the mechanism of influence, the subjective norm component in TRA is mostly about the normative influence, whereas in IPI, as discussed earlier, other types of mental calculations can be encompassed.
Practical Implications? Message, Message, Message!
Generally speaking, a major practical contribution of IPI is the very knowledge that media messages have indirect, unintended effects that can also be consequential. If nothing else, this at least reminds campaign practitioners that they need to pretest indirect effects in addition to the direct, intended effects of messages.
What about implications of IPI for intervention strategies and message design? Though IPI scholars have suggested that a social-norm approach be used in media campaigns to correct erroneous perceptions (e.g., Chia & Gunther, 2006; Paek et al., 2011), this is not a unique contribution of IPI. Research on peer norm and peer influence has long found that the misperceptions of norms contributed to risk behaviors and correction of such norm perceptions can be another venue for behavioral change (Clapp & McDonell, 2000; Prentice & Miller, 1993). Furthermore, social-norm campaigns have already been widely implemented and so far produced rather mixed results (i.e., Clapp, Lange, Russell, Shillington, & Voas, 2003; Wechsler et al., 2003), casting doubt on their effectiveness.
So far IPI research has yielded few practical insights regarding message design and strategies in the context of persuasion campaigns. As discussed before, unlike in other persuasion perspectives, the message element in IPI is rather neglected. Lim and Golan’s (2011) study showed that explicating message content can and should be a new direction for IPI research, and can potentially open up a fruitful area where IPI meets traditional persuasion theories to generate interesting questions. Their experimental finding that the perceived persuasive intent of the message led to greater presumed influence has clear practical implications for message design. It also suggests the feasibility for IPI scholars to move away from exposure as the exogenous explanatory factor and switch to message factors as the theoretical anchor of the process. Such a switch has practical value in addition to theoretical importance. More specifically, knowledge about the effect of exposure itself does not have much practical utility, as limiting or increasing individuals’ exposure to the media content would be a rather constrained or ineffective intervention strategy in real life. A lot can be done, however, if we have a solid stock of knowledge about how message characteristics directly or indirectly influence message processing and relate to attitudinal or behavioral consequences. Such knowledge will help practitioners design more effective persuasion messages and intervention programs.
Summary
* * *
This chapter presents a review and an analytical discussion of the research on influence of presumed influence. Representing an indirect model of media effect
s, IPI complements traditional persuasion perspectives with its central idea that a message can indirectly influence individuals’ attitudes or behaviors by shaping their presumptions about the message influence on other audience members. A review of extant findings from a wide range of health, advertising, and political contexts largely shows support for the postulated IPI process, though the inconsistencies in extant findings and the lack of causal evidence require that future investigations pay attention to such problems and make efforts to resolve them.
The component view of IPI attempts some conceptual explication of the key components of IPI through which some underlying conceptual dimensions are clarified and a few conceptual issues are raised. Future research should engage in more in-depth conceptual and theoretical explications and investigate causal explanations for the posited relationships. IPI should move from the “descriptive” stage to the “explanatory” stage of theory development, where theory construction, theory testing, and theory reformulation are focal tasks (Reynolds, 1971, p.155). Theoretical explications, combined with experimental studies or longitudinal studies, are necessary to make that move.
References
* * *
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.
Atwood, E. L. (1994). Illusions of media power: The third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 269–282.
Chia, S. C. (2006). How peers mediate media influence on adolescents’ sexual attitudes and sexual behavior. Journal of Communication, 56, 585–606.
Chia, S. C. (2007). Third-person perceptions about idealized body image and weight-loss behavior. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(4), 677–694.
Chia, S. C. (2010). How social influence mediates media effects on adolescents’ materialism. Communication Research, 37, 400–419.
Chia, S. C., & Gunther, A. C. (2006). How media contribute to misperceptions of social norms about sex. Mass Communication & Society, 9, 301–320.
Chia, S. C., & Lee, W. (2008). Pluralistic ignorance about sex: The direct and the indirect effects of media consumption on college students’ misperception of sex-related peer norms. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(1), 52–73.
Chia, S. C., & Wen, N. (2010). College men’s third-person perceptions about idealized body image and consequent behavior. Sex Roles, 63(7/8), 542–555.
Choi, Y., Leshner, G., & Choi, J. (2008). Third-person effects of idealized body image in magazine advertisements. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(2), 147–164.
Clapp, J. D., Lange, J. E., Russell, C., Shillington, A., & Voas, R. (2003). A failed norms social marketing campaign. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 409–414.
Clapp, J. D., & McDonnell, A. (2000). The relationship of perceptions of alcohol promotion and peer drinking norms to alcohol problems reported by college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 19–26.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., & Tsfati, Y. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence on strategic voting. Communication Research, 36(3), 359–378.
Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y., & Sheafer, T. (2008). The influence of presumed media influence in politics: Do politicians’ perceptions of media power matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 331–344.
Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(4), 381–398.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15.
Dillard, J. P., & Sun, Y. (2008). Questions about structure, referent, and bias in judgments of the effectiveness of persuasive messages. Journal of Health Communication, 13(2), 149–168.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory development. New York, NY: Free Press Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 33–40.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gentles, K., & Harrison, K. (2006). Television and perceived peer expectations of body size among African American adolescent girls. Howard Journal of Communications, 17, 39–55.
Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequences in third-person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355–372.
Gunther, A. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25 (2), 486–504.
Gunther, A. C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D. L. G., Liebhart, J. L., & Dillard J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52–68.
Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 58–67.
Gunther, A. C., Perloff, R. M., & Tsfati, Y. (2008). Public opinion and the third-person effect. In W. Dons-bach & M. Traugott (Eds.), Handbook of public opinion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199–215.
Hage, J. (1972). Techniques and problems of theory construction in sociology. New York, NY: Wiley.
Hayduk, L., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! Testing! One, two, three-testing the theory in Structure Equation Models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 841–850.
Hoffner, C., & Rehkoff, R. A. (2011). Young voters’ responses to the 2004 U.S. presidential election: Social identity, perceived media influence, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 732–757.
Huh, J., & Langteau, R. (2007). Presumed influence of DTC prescription drug advertising: Do experts and novices think differently? Communication Research, 34(1), 25–52.
Jensen, J. D., & Hurley, R. J. (2005). Third-person effects and the environment: Social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior. Journal of Communication, 55, 242–256.
Jiang, R., & Chia, S. C. (2009). The direct and indirect effects of advertising on materialism of college students in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(3), 319–336.
Lim, J. S., & Golan, G. J. (2011). Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on YouTube. Communication Research, 38, 710–727.
Marsden, P. V., & Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 125–149.
McLeod, J. M., & Pan, Z. (2005). Concept explication and theory construction. In S. Dunwoody, L. B. Becker, D. M. McLeod, & G. M. Kosicki (Eds.), The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod (pp. 14–76). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Milkie, M. A. (1999). Social Comparisons, reflected appraisals, and mass media: The impact of pervasive beauty images on black and white girls’ self-concepts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 190–210.
Paek, H. (2009). Differential effects of different peers: Further evidence of the peer proximity thesis in perceived peer influence on college students’ smoking. Journal of Communication, 59, 434–455.
Paek, H., & Gunther, A. C. (2007). How peer proximity moderates indirect media influence on adolescent smoking. Communication Research, 34, 407–432.
Paek, H., Gunther, A. C., McLeod, D. M., & Hove, T. (2011). How adolescents’ perceived media influence on peers affects smoking decisions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(1), 123–146.
Park, S. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on women’s desire to be thin. Communication Research, 32, 594–614.
Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 489–506). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In M. B. Oliver & J. Bryant (Eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research. (pp. 252–268). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 243–256.
Psillos, S. (2002). Causation and explanation. Chesham, UK: Acumen.
Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31, 129–161.
Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Rojas, H. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. Internatio nal Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(3), 343–363.
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), 60–75.
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detections of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561–582.
Schweber, N. (2011, November 10). Penn state students clash with police in unrest after announcement. The New York Times. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com
Shen, L., Pan, Z., & Sun, Y. (2010). A test of motivational vs. cognitive explanations for third-person perception. American Journal of Media Psychology, 3, 32–53.
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 78
