Most of my thesis
This is my thesis before the survey is distributed and results figured. This is the first 60%. I apologize in advance for the formatting, or, lack thereof. I don't feel like going through 30some pages to reformat it after it's been bastardized by Word.
Source Intimacy and Perceived Media Effects:
Blogs and The First- and Third-person Effect
Chelsea R Killam
Quantitative Research Methods 20061
Table of Contents
Page Number
Abstract 3
Introduction 4
Research Questions and Hypothesis 5
Research Rationale 6
Literature Review 7
Third-person effect 7
First-person effect and Source Intimacy 9
Methodology 10
Respondents and Sample Procedure 10
The Survey Instrument 10
Primary Measures 13
Conclusion 16
Limitations, Heuristics, Validity and Reliability 16
References 17
Appendix I 19
Survey Instrument 19
Abstract
The current study addresses the first- and third-person perceptual hypotheses in terms of how the source of a message increases or decreases the size of the effect. Internet blogs as a news medium are studied using a survey of questions related to perceived influence of media and how intimate the respondent feels toward the news source that is listed. Results of this study will determine what the relationship is between an intimate source and self-other perceptions of messages from those sources and also whether or not, in the sense of source intimacy, blogs are a useful medium with which to distribute news.
“In the view of those trying to evaluate the effects of communication, its greatest impact will not be on ‘me’ or ‘you’ but on ‘them’-the third persons”(Davison, 1983, p. 3). This is the primary idea behind Davison’s Third-person Effect Hypothesis - people will perceive others, third persons, to be more strongly influenced by media messages than themselves. Since Davison’s studies in the late 1970s, his hypothesis has been supported by a number of experiments studying many different kinds of media content.
In addition to studying varying types of messages, some researchers have conducted meta-analyses, which have considered the various moderators affecting the results of third-person effect studies (Paul, Salwen, & Dupagne, 2000; Meirick, 2004). Analysis of the source as a moderator of third-person effect in these meta-analyses has revealed an opposing phenomenon called first-person effect (Chapin, 2000; Duck et al., 1995; Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996; Meirick, 2002). The first-person effect is when people perceive themselves to be more positively influenced by a media message than others (such as public service announcements) (White & Dillon, 2000).
This study will look closely at the source as a moderator in first- and third-person effect. How does the intimacy of the source of a message play a role in the perceived influence of messages? In other words, do people feel more trusting of news sources that have some degree of familiarity -- a face, name, personal information - and therefore feel a different level of influence than they do from a news source that lacks this same degree of familiarity?
In order to perform this study, the research will focus on a recent trend in surveillance methods called web logs, or blogs for short. For the purposes of this study, news blogs are considered websites that contain information provided by an individual or group of individuals that has the intention of contributing valuable information to the public.
This study intends on expanding on the existing knowledge about first- and third-person effect by addressing the following research questions and hypotheses.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The ultimate goal of this study is to answer the following:
RQ1: What is the relationship between the intimacy of the source of a message and the perceived influences of the effect of the message on the self and on others?
Salwen (1998) found newspaper readers to consider themselves more intelligent than observers of other types of media and positive relationships have been found between newspaper reading and the use of the web for surveillance purposes (Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000). Because of the similar nature of and uses for newspapers and blogs, the following has been proposed:
H1: Readers of blogs will consider themselves to be smarter than others who read different forms of news media.
This assumption on behalf of the respondents strengthened the results of the third-person effect. People who read newspapers, feeling that others are less intelligent, concluded that others were more susceptible to propagandistic messages. However, it has been found that when a source is trustworthy, the message is more desirable (Cohen, et al, 1988; Gunther, 1991). This could lead to a reverse of the third-person effect into a first-person effect, whereby one believes that they are more likely to be positively influenced by a message than others, because others are not as competent (Chapin, 2000; Duck et al., 1995; Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996; Meirick, 2002). Therefore:
RQ2a: Does blog readership produce a first person effect?
RQ2b: Does blog readership produce a third person effect?
Research Rationale
This study holds merit in both the scholarly and the social spheres.
The contributions to academia involve adding to the current pool of knowledge in the areas of first- and third-person effect research. The third-person perceptual hypothesis has been broadly researched and the support for the theory is overwhelming. This study will offer another piece to the continually developing hypothesis of third-person effect. As of yet, there is no research available that discusses the effects of blogging as a medium on third-person effect data. Similarly, very little research exists regarding the influence of a source that people feel familiar with. Many studies have addressed trustworthiness of sources, but few have looked into feelings of perceived subjective proximity. This study will fill that knowledge gap.
Socially, this study will offer information beneficial to media outlets and marketers. If news blogs are found to support the first-person effect hypothesis, then it would be prudent for message senders to look to the blog world as a new medium to distribute information. A first-person effect would indicate that people feel more inclined to taking to heart the information that they are being presented with. If a third-person effect is found, then it will be clear that news outlets should stay away from blogging as a news tool.
The researchers personal justifications for this study revolve around an interest in the great blog debate, which asks, “Is blogging journalism?” It is out of the scope of this study, and also far too brash, to answer this question. However, it will give the researcher insight into what large majorities of people think regarding this issue.
Exemplary Review of the Literature
Before discussing the method of this survey, a review of the relevant literature is necessary. All of the literature included in this review was obtained through Rochester Institute of Technology’s Journal Database. This database pointed to the following resources: ComAbstracts, EBSCO Host and RIT’s own bound print periodicals and microfilm collection. The search of the resources was preformed between early September of 2006 and late October of 2006.
This review will discuss the first- and third-person effect hypotheses, as well as the impact of the source on effect size.
The Third-person Perceptual Hypothesis
In 1983 Davison published the first study that named and defined the phenomenon of third-person effect. His study included four experiments. Each experiment supported the hypothesis, but the first three are of particular interest, as they seem to have been the most important in strengthening and solidifying the theory.
The first of Davison’s (1983) experiments was conducted in 1978 following an election and a large strike that shut down three major newspapers. A survey was distributed to 33 Columbia University graduate students and questioned them on the influence of media surrounding the two recent events and how they believed it effected “New Yorkers in general” and then how they felt it effected them personally. This first study found 48% of the students answered in such a way that supported the hypothesis that individuals would perceive others to be more influenced by the media (p. 5).
The second study in 1981 (Davison, p. 5) switched the approach and asked about the self before the others. 25 graduate students were queried on how they felt media exposure affected their requests for material things that they normally wouldn’t have asked of their parents (p. 6). A similar question was then asked about other people’s children. Regarding other people’s children, not one subject answered “not at all” in response to the question. 68% felt that other’s children were influenced “quite a lot” (p. 6). This is an extreme example of third-person effect.
The first two experiments concerned propagandistic material - the first was about political campaigning and the second about product advertising. The third study, however, was mostly focused on news reports about the campaigning prior to the 1980 election. In this case, not one respondent felt that they would be influenced “quite a lot,” but felt that the results of others being influenced would have an impact on the outcome of the election (p. 7). This third experiment is important because it demonstrates the breadth of the theory. It shows that it isn’t just persuasive media that produces this perceptual effect.
In fact, since Davison’s research, the third-person effect hypothesis has been applied to many types of messages, including pornography (Gunther, 1995), rap music (McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997), political advertising (Cohen & Davis, 1991; Gunther and Thorson, 1992), product advertising (Duck, Hogg, & Terry, 1998; Gibson & Durkin, 1995), and news (Perloff, 1989; Salwen & Dupagne, 1999). This research has revealed how robust the third-person perceptual hypothesis is and has opened doors for further study by suggesting new areas to research, including meta-analytical type research.
Meta-analyses look at large amounts of data about a particular field of research and find patterns and meaning in the data. For example, Paul, Salwen and Dupagne (2000) performed a meta-analysis of the third-person effect. They looked at the data from 32 different studies and considered the effects of eight moderators : source, method, sampling, respondent, country, message desirability, medium, and message. Of the conclusions that the researchers came to, one of the most surprising and profound had do with desirability of message. This was not found to be a significant moderator (p. 77), despite the large pool of research concerning message desirability. The research that exists on message desirability often discusses the parallel phenomenon to the third-person effect called the first-person effect and seems to indicate that message desirability does play a large role in how pronounced the effect is.
The First-person Effect and Source Intimacy
The first-person effect is the name that was given to findings of those such as Hoorens & Ruiter (1996) who predicted and found that messages that are considered desirable to be influenced by will result in a reverse of the third-person effect (p. 609). This reversal means that people will perceive themselves more likely to be positively influenced by a message than others. The authors attribute this to an “optimum impact phenomenon”, which explains both third- and first-person effects by suggesting that perceived self-other differences are based on an attempt to “bolster self-esteem” (p. 609).
Meirick (2004, 2005) also looked at first-person perceptions. His study (2004) is one of the few that studies the size of the third- or first-person effect when the affinity of the source is manipulated. Meirick (2004) looked at political ads and the influence an in-group candidate, or a candidate that is favored by the respondent group, would minimize the third-person effect, and, in fact, produce a first-person effect. This is because the in-group candidate is favored by the respondent group, and therefore delivers desirable messages. As was discussed above, self-benefiting messages are desirable to be influenced by.
The previous research opens up opportunity to look further into source affinity, or as this study calls it, source intimacy. Again, an intimate source is defined as a source whose message sender is familiar and able to be identified. An example of this type of source is a news blog.
Method
Respondents and Sample Procedure
An Internet survey of Rochester Institute of Technology students in Rochester, New York will be distributed. A convenience sample of 400 of RITs undergraduate students will be emailed. A list of all RIT’s students will be obtained from the campus’ Registrar . From this list, a skip interval method will be used to gather names to which the survey will be emailed. The sample will be stratified according to college size to assure a representative sample of the population. Once the names are chosen, they will be input into a Microsoft Outlook Mail program while on the campus Internet network. The Outlook programs on campus are pre-loaded by the University with the email addresses of all of the students .
The survey will be distributed via ClipBoard, an online survey tool. Participants will be notified through email that there is a survey awaiting them and that if they complete the survey, they will have a chance to win a gift certificate to the campus bookstore. The survey will prompt the participant for their unique student ID number, which will control for multiple submissions. Once the survey is completed, the data will be accessible to the distributor of the survey.
The Survey Instrument
The instrument opens with a brief description of the research and introduction of the researcher. Also included are explanations of various terms used in the survey, as well as a request for consent.
The first term that is defined in the introduction is news, which reads, “When the survey asks about news, it is referring to “any type of information that provides the public with a better understanding of the subject that is being discussed.” Next, the introduction presents news blogs: “When the survey discusses news blogs, it is referring to any type of blog website that includes information about subjects other than the author’s personal accounts (such as love life, work gripes, etc).” The term, others, is explained as referring to, “those other than yourself and those with whom you are well acquainted.” And finally, an explanation of the terms that deal with the intimacy of the source is provided: “When the survey suggests that you are “familiar with,” “know,” or feel “close to” a source, it means that you know, for example, the name of the person who is delivering you the message. This is in opposition to an anonymous source that does not have an identifiable person behind it.”
Once the respondent reads the introduction and provides consent, the survey begins. The material in this instrument was designed specifically for this research.
Part I addresses the first research question. The respondent is given instructions on how to answer the Semantic Differential-Type Scale. The survey lists 10 potential news sources, which are as follows: newspaper, friend, professor, news pundit (Bill O’Reilly, James Carville), talk radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh), news radio, television news anchor (Katir Couric, Dan Rather), satirist (Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert), news website (cnn.com, bbc.com) and news blog. The respondent is asked to rate each source, on a 7-point semantic differential scale, by how familiar they feel with the source in respect to the definition of “familiar” given in the introduction. One end of the scale is “anonymous,” and the opposite end is “familiar.” Following that question is a question that asks the respondent to list their top three sources of news from the list in the first question.
The second section to Part I lists the same sources, but asks the survey taker to mark as they feel another person would answer. The method is the same as in the first questions. Again, the respondent is asked to list the top three sources of news, except this time for others, rather than themselves.
The third section to Part I, which is still concerned with research question 1, gives four statements having to do with perceived effects of messages from both intimate sources and non-intimate sources. The respondent is asked to answer, on a Likert scale from 0-4, 0 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree, how much they agree with the statement. The first statement says, “I feel that I make better decisions because of the information I obtain from the sources I feel familiar with.” The second statement is the same format, but for non-familiar sources. The third and fourth statements follow the structure of the first two, but refer to bad decision making due to intimate and non-intimate sources.
Following that, the same four statements are provided and the respondent is asked to answer how they feel others would answer.
At this point, the survey taker is notified that questions about blogging are next and if they do not read blogs, they need not continue the survey. When the instrument is fed into ClipBoard, there will be a question that asks if the respondent reads blogs .If they do, they will be provided with the remainder of the survey. If they do not, the survey will terminate.
If the respondent is a blog reader, then Part II begins. Part II addresses the first hypothesis and the remaining research questions.
The first section in Part II is concerned with attitudes of blog readers. There are four statements, rated with a Likert scale of 0-4 (0 being strongly disagree to 4 being strongly agree). The first statement suggests that blogs contain information that cannot be found in other media. The second statement reinforces this, saying, “Those who don’t read blogs don’t have access to the same amount of information as I do.” The third statement proposes that blogs offer more thorough coverage of news and the fourth statement concludes this section, saying, “Overall, I am more informed than others who don’t read blogs.”
The second section in Part II deals with perceived effects of media. There are two questions: the first asks how influenced the respondent’s decisions are by blog messages, and the second asks how influenced their attitudes are. The next two questions also ask about decisions and attitudes, but instead, ask how influenced others are. These four questions are also rated on a 0-4 Likert scale.
Following this section is an open-ended question asking the respondent why they read blogs and a question asking for the names of the blogs that the respondent reads.
The instrument ends with four demographic questions, sex, age, major and ethnicity, and a page for the respondent to leave any additional comments or thoughts.
Primary Measures
The first section in Part I of the instrument, asking about source intimacy, will demonstrate and reinforce what is considered to be an intimate source. An average will be calculated for each source option based on all of the survey respondents’ ratings. This average will be compared to the frequency of answers in the second question, which asks which news sources they most often seek.
Asking the respondent to answer the same questions for others will show whether or not individuals feel that others seek news from intimate sources or non-intimate sources.
An example conclusion would look like this: If respondents seek news primarily from the sources that they marked as intimate, and perceive others to seek news from sources that they perceive others to consider non-intimate, then a first-person effect is taking place.
This first section also serves to prepare the respondent for the questions following. It introduces the respondent to the idea of an intimate source and solidifies in their head what they consider, and what they think others consider, to be a familiar source, so that the answers to the subsequent questions are more readily available in their heads.
The next section in Part I directly asks the respondent about the influence of the messages that come from familiar and non-familiar sources. These questions are rated on a 0-4 Likert scale. The 0 end indicates a strong disagreement, 1 disagree, 2 neutral, 3 agree and 4 strongly agree. These questions also concern the first research question. Four combinations -- better decisions from intimate source, better decisions from non-intimate source, worse decisions from intimate source and worse decisions from non-intimate source -- are included. The same four questions are posed for others. This set of eight questions will reveal the size of the effect.
This is the point at which non-blog readers will discontinue the survey. Their data is still relevant because it provides information for the first research question. The second part of the survey will address the research hypothesis and remaining research questions.
The first section in Part II will provide a score for intelligence attitudes regarding blog reading. Four statements are posed, again using a 0-4 Likert scale, which will indicate whether or not the respondent feels more informed, and therefore more intelligent, than consumers of other news media.
The second section of Part II asks directly, again, about media influences on decision-making and attitudes for both the self and others, this time specifically regarding blogs. Once again, the respondent is provided with a 0-4 Likert scale to rate their opinion on. The scores from this section will show either a first- or third-person effect.
The next section asks open-ended questions about blog-reader motivation. This question is included for use in a pre-test that will be conducted prior to the actual distribution of the survey. This will provide the researcher with information that may have been otherwise overlooked. The question regarding which blogs are read is primarily statistical, and will also assure the researcher that the blogs that the respondents are referring to are of the same type and quality with which the research is concerned.
The concluding demographic questions are for statistical purposes. They are included at the end of the survey so as to avoid any trepidation that they could cause if presented prior to the rest of the survey.
Conclusion
In order to determine a relationship between an intimate source and first- and third-person effect, a survey of university students will be conducted. The survey will inquire about perceived influence on self and others and blog usage. This study calls upon former, related research that has determined that the source does indeed act as a moderator in first- and third-person effect size. The results of this study will add to the current research that exists on this subject by providing an additional dimension of information regarding the source. This study also has implications for news distributors and marketers.
Limitations, Heuristics, Validity and Reliability
It is out of the scope of this study to consider specific types of news messages. It would be beneficial to perform combined analyses of the effect of source intimacy on, say, political campaign messages presented through blogs by the candidates themselves. This would provide a better understanding of the impact of blog news media.
Additionally, this study was only able to survey those belonging to a technical university, where blog usage is likely to be more frequent and saturated. It is speculated that casual blog readers of the general public would provide different results than this study will. They are a demographic that should be studied in the future.
Similarly, some respondents will be students of communication who will be able to identify the theory used, which will have an impact on their answers.
The reliability of this test depends on a coefficient of .05 or greater for blog readers or non-blog readers to conclude that any significant effect is being produced. The questions included in the survey hold face validity in that, to the researcher, they appear as if they will provide the data needed to achieve the required reliability.
References
Althaus, S. L. & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17, 21-45.
Chapin, J.R. (2000). Not like me: Self vs. other distinctions in first-person perception. Communication Research Reports. 17 (3, Summer), 320-330.
Cohen, J., Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political adverting. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 680-688.
Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V., & Gunther, A.. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly. 52 (2, Summer), 161-173.
Davison, W.P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
Duck, J.M., Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (1995). Me, us, and them: Political identification and the third person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195-215.
Gunther, A. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research. 18 (3, June), 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.C. & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574-596.
Hoorens, V., & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: Beyond the
third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 599-610.
Krejce, R.V., & Morganm D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
McLeod, D.M., Eveland, W.P., Jr., & Nathanson, A.I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis is of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153-174.
Meirick, P.C. (2002). Self-enhancement, self-affirmation and threats to self-worth: Three tests of a motivational explanation for first- and third person effects. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (6), 2037. (UMI No. 3056339)
Meirick, P.C. (2004). Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: Political advertising and first- and third-person effects. Communication Research. 31 (2, April), 234-255.
Meirick, P.C. (2005). Rethinking the target corollary: The effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research, Dec2005, Vol. 32 Issue 6, p822-843
Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A
meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and
Society, 3, 57-85.
Salwen, M.B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research. 25 (3, June), 359-285.
White, H.A., and Dillon, J.F. (2000). Knowledge about others' reaction to a public service announcement: The impact on self persuasion and third-person perception. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 77 (4, Winter), 788-803.
Appendix I: Survey
Intimacy of Media Sources and the Influence of the Messages They Deliver
A Survey
2006
Chelsea R Killam
Hello!
My name is Chelsea Killam. I am a Professional and Technical Communications senior and I am working on my undergraduate thesis. I am researching the effects of news sources on how individuals feel they and others are influenced by the messages they are receiving.
This survey will ask you a number of questions regarding how you feel about where you get your news. It is important to understand what the survey is asking; so to clarify, I will lay out a few important definitions that are relevant to this study.
When the survey asks about news, it is referring to any type of information that provides the public with a better understanding of the subject that is being discussed.
Therefore, when the survey discusses news blogs, it is referring to any type of blog website that includes information about subjects other than the author’s personal accounts (such as love life, work gripes, etc).”
The term others refers to those other than yourself and those with whom you are well acquainted.
When the survey suggests that you are “familiar with,” “know,” or feel “close to” a source, it means that you know, for example, the name of the person who is delivering you the message. This is in opposition to an anonymous source that does not have an identifiable person behind it.
And lastly, I ask that you please sign below giving your consent and acknowledgement that you are providing information that will be used as data in a research paper.
Name ____________________________ Date _________________________
Thank you!
Part I
First, I’d like you to tell me how acquainted you feel with the following list of sources. Leave an X on the continuum where you feel the source lies, between familiar and anonymous. How well do you feel you know these sources?
1. Please rate the following by the level of familiarity you feel toward them:
Anonymous Familiar
Newspaper < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Friend < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Professor < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
News Pundit < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Bill O'Reilly, James Carville)
Talk Radio < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(NPR, Rush Limbaugh)
News Radio < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Television News Anchor < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Katie Couric, Dan Rather)
Satirists < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert)
News Website < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Cnn.com, BBC.com)
News Blog < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Engadget.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com)
2. Please tell me which three of those listed above you are most likely to go to for your news, from first most likely to third most likely. If you do not use as many as three sources, only list as many as is appropriate:
1. ______________________________
2. ______________________________
3. ______________________________
3. Now, I’d like you to do the same thing, except answer how you think others would answer. How close do you think others feel to the following sources?
Please rate the following by the level of familiarity others feel toward them:
Anonymous Familiar
Newspaper < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Friend < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Professor < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
News Pundit < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Bill O'Reilly, James Carville)
Talk Radio < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(NPR, Rush Limbaugh)
News Radio < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Television News Anchor < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Katie Couric, Dan Rather)
Satirists < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert)
News Website < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Cnn.com, BBC.com)
Blog < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
4. Please tell me which three of those listed above you think that others are most likely to go to for their news, from first most likely to third most likely:
1. ______________________________
2. ______________________________
1. ______________________________
Next, I’d like you to answer a few questions regarding how influenced you feel by these news sources. Please answer as honestly as possible, and keep in mind that there are no wrong answers.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
5. I feel that I make better < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information I obtain from the
sources I feel familiar with
6. I feel that I make better < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information I obtain from the
sources I don’t feel familiar with
7. I feel that my decisions < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
are negatively influenced by the
information I receive from the
sources I feel familiar with
8. I feel that my decisions < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
are negatively influenced by the
information I receive from the
sources I don’t feel familiar with
And again, do the same for how you feel others would answer:
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
9. Others make better < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information that they receive
from sources that
they feel familiar toward
10. Others make better < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information that they receive
from sources that
they don’t feel familiar toward
11. Others make bad < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information that they receive
from sources that
they feel familiar toward
12. Others make bad < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information that they receive
from sources that
they don’t feel familiar toward
-STOP-
The following section is for readers of blogs.
If you do not read blogs, please discontinue the survey now.
Thank you for your participation.
Part II
This section concerns itself with blogs that focus on spreading news as opposed to personal journal-type blogs that discuss the author’s love life or other personal information. Examples of the type of website that this survey is concerned with are Fark.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com, Anderson Cooper’s 360∞ Blog and Engadget.com. These types of blogs contain information that is helpful to the public.
First, please respond to the following statements:
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
13. I read blogs because the < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
information that they present
can’t be found in other news media
14. Those who don’t read < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
blogs don’t have access to the same
amount of information as I do
15. I feel that blogs present < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
news more thoroughly than
other news media
16. Overall, I am more < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
informed than others who
don’t read blogs
This second section includes questions about both yourself and others. Like before, please answer the first set of questions for you, and the second set for how you feel others would answer.
Not strong Not very Neutral Strong Very
at all strong Strong
17. How strong would you < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
rate the influence of the messages
you read in blogs on decisions you make?
18. How strong would you < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
rate the influence of the messages
you read in blogs on attitudes that you hold?
Not strong Not too Neutral Strong Very
at all strong strong
19. How strong would you < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
rate the influence of the messages
that others read in blogs on
decisions that they make?
20. How strong would you < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
rate the influence of the messages
that others read in blogs on attitudes
that they hold?
21. Next, in the space provided, could you please explain why you read blogs?
22. Could you please list the blog(s) that you read?
And lastly, please provide the demographic information requested below for statistical purposes.
I am:
q Male
q Female
The age I turned on my last birthday was: _____
My major is: _____________________________________________
I belong to the following ethnic group:
q African American or Black
q Asian or Pacific Islander
q Caucasian or White
q Multiracial
q Native American
If you have any additional notes or comments, please feel free to leave them in the space provided below.
This completes the survey.
Thank you very much for your time and information.
Source Intimacy and Perceived Media Effects:
Blogs and The First- and Third-person Effect
Chelsea R Killam
Quantitative Research Methods 20061
Table of Contents
Page Number
Abstract 3
Introduction 4
Research Questions and Hypothesis 5
Research Rationale 6
Literature Review 7
Third-person effect 7
First-person effect and Source Intimacy 9
Methodology 10
Respondents and Sample Procedure 10
The Survey Instrument 10
Primary Measures 13
Conclusion 16
Limitations, Heuristics, Validity and Reliability 16
References 17
Appendix I 19
Survey Instrument 19
Abstract
The current study addresses the first- and third-person perceptual hypotheses in terms of how the source of a message increases or decreases the size of the effect. Internet blogs as a news medium are studied using a survey of questions related to perceived influence of media and how intimate the respondent feels toward the news source that is listed. Results of this study will determine what the relationship is between an intimate source and self-other perceptions of messages from those sources and also whether or not, in the sense of source intimacy, blogs are a useful medium with which to distribute news.
“In the view of those trying to evaluate the effects of communication, its greatest impact will not be on ‘me’ or ‘you’ but on ‘them’-the third persons”(Davison, 1983, p. 3). This is the primary idea behind Davison’s Third-person Effect Hypothesis - people will perceive others, third persons, to be more strongly influenced by media messages than themselves. Since Davison’s studies in the late 1970s, his hypothesis has been supported by a number of experiments studying many different kinds of media content.
In addition to studying varying types of messages, some researchers have conducted meta-analyses, which have considered the various moderators affecting the results of third-person effect studies (Paul, Salwen, & Dupagne, 2000; Meirick, 2004). Analysis of the source as a moderator of third-person effect in these meta-analyses has revealed an opposing phenomenon called first-person effect (Chapin, 2000; Duck et al., 1995; Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996; Meirick, 2002). The first-person effect is when people perceive themselves to be more positively influenced by a media message than others (such as public service announcements) (White & Dillon, 2000).
This study will look closely at the source as a moderator in first- and third-person effect. How does the intimacy of the source of a message play a role in the perceived influence of messages? In other words, do people feel more trusting of news sources that have some degree of familiarity -- a face, name, personal information - and therefore feel a different level of influence than they do from a news source that lacks this same degree of familiarity?
In order to perform this study, the research will focus on a recent trend in surveillance methods called web logs, or blogs for short. For the purposes of this study, news blogs are considered websites that contain information provided by an individual or group of individuals that has the intention of contributing valuable information to the public.
This study intends on expanding on the existing knowledge about first- and third-person effect by addressing the following research questions and hypotheses.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The ultimate goal of this study is to answer the following:
RQ1: What is the relationship between the intimacy of the source of a message and the perceived influences of the effect of the message on the self and on others?
Salwen (1998) found newspaper readers to consider themselves more intelligent than observers of other types of media and positive relationships have been found between newspaper reading and the use of the web for surveillance purposes (Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000). Because of the similar nature of and uses for newspapers and blogs, the following has been proposed:
H1: Readers of blogs will consider themselves to be smarter than others who read different forms of news media.
This assumption on behalf of the respondents strengthened the results of the third-person effect. People who read newspapers, feeling that others are less intelligent, concluded that others were more susceptible to propagandistic messages. However, it has been found that when a source is trustworthy, the message is more desirable (Cohen, et al, 1988; Gunther, 1991). This could lead to a reverse of the third-person effect into a first-person effect, whereby one believes that they are more likely to be positively influenced by a message than others, because others are not as competent (Chapin, 2000; Duck et al., 1995; Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996; Meirick, 2002). Therefore:
RQ2a: Does blog readership produce a first person effect?
RQ2b: Does blog readership produce a third person effect?
Research Rationale
This study holds merit in both the scholarly and the social spheres.
The contributions to academia involve adding to the current pool of knowledge in the areas of first- and third-person effect research. The third-person perceptual hypothesis has been broadly researched and the support for the theory is overwhelming. This study will offer another piece to the continually developing hypothesis of third-person effect. As of yet, there is no research available that discusses the effects of blogging as a medium on third-person effect data. Similarly, very little research exists regarding the influence of a source that people feel familiar with. Many studies have addressed trustworthiness of sources, but few have looked into feelings of perceived subjective proximity. This study will fill that knowledge gap.
Socially, this study will offer information beneficial to media outlets and marketers. If news blogs are found to support the first-person effect hypothesis, then it would be prudent for message senders to look to the blog world as a new medium to distribute information. A first-person effect would indicate that people feel more inclined to taking to heart the information that they are being presented with. If a third-person effect is found, then it will be clear that news outlets should stay away from blogging as a news tool.
The researchers personal justifications for this study revolve around an interest in the great blog debate, which asks, “Is blogging journalism?” It is out of the scope of this study, and also far too brash, to answer this question. However, it will give the researcher insight into what large majorities of people think regarding this issue.
Exemplary Review of the Literature
Before discussing the method of this survey, a review of the relevant literature is necessary. All of the literature included in this review was obtained through Rochester Institute of Technology’s Journal Database. This database pointed to the following resources: ComAbstracts, EBSCO Host and RIT’s own bound print periodicals and microfilm collection. The search of the resources was preformed between early September of 2006 and late October of 2006.
This review will discuss the first- and third-person effect hypotheses, as well as the impact of the source on effect size.
The Third-person Perceptual Hypothesis
In 1983 Davison published the first study that named and defined the phenomenon of third-person effect. His study included four experiments. Each experiment supported the hypothesis, but the first three are of particular interest, as they seem to have been the most important in strengthening and solidifying the theory.
The first of Davison’s (1983) experiments was conducted in 1978 following an election and a large strike that shut down three major newspapers. A survey was distributed to 33 Columbia University graduate students and questioned them on the influence of media surrounding the two recent events and how they believed it effected “New Yorkers in general” and then how they felt it effected them personally. This first study found 48% of the students answered in such a way that supported the hypothesis that individuals would perceive others to be more influenced by the media (p. 5).
The second study in 1981 (Davison, p. 5) switched the approach and asked about the self before the others. 25 graduate students were queried on how they felt media exposure affected their requests for material things that they normally wouldn’t have asked of their parents (p. 6). A similar question was then asked about other people’s children. Regarding other people’s children, not one subject answered “not at all” in response to the question. 68% felt that other’s children were influenced “quite a lot” (p. 6). This is an extreme example of third-person effect.
The first two experiments concerned propagandistic material - the first was about political campaigning and the second about product advertising. The third study, however, was mostly focused on news reports about the campaigning prior to the 1980 election. In this case, not one respondent felt that they would be influenced “quite a lot,” but felt that the results of others being influenced would have an impact on the outcome of the election (p. 7). This third experiment is important because it demonstrates the breadth of the theory. It shows that it isn’t just persuasive media that produces this perceptual effect.
In fact, since Davison’s research, the third-person effect hypothesis has been applied to many types of messages, including pornography (Gunther, 1995), rap music (McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997), political advertising (Cohen & Davis, 1991; Gunther and Thorson, 1992), product advertising (Duck, Hogg, & Terry, 1998; Gibson & Durkin, 1995), and news (Perloff, 1989; Salwen & Dupagne, 1999). This research has revealed how robust the third-person perceptual hypothesis is and has opened doors for further study by suggesting new areas to research, including meta-analytical type research.
Meta-analyses look at large amounts of data about a particular field of research and find patterns and meaning in the data. For example, Paul, Salwen and Dupagne (2000) performed a meta-analysis of the third-person effect. They looked at the data from 32 different studies and considered the effects of eight moderators : source, method, sampling, respondent, country, message desirability, medium, and message. Of the conclusions that the researchers came to, one of the most surprising and profound had do with desirability of message. This was not found to be a significant moderator (p. 77), despite the large pool of research concerning message desirability. The research that exists on message desirability often discusses the parallel phenomenon to the third-person effect called the first-person effect and seems to indicate that message desirability does play a large role in how pronounced the effect is.
The First-person Effect and Source Intimacy
The first-person effect is the name that was given to findings of those such as Hoorens & Ruiter (1996) who predicted and found that messages that are considered desirable to be influenced by will result in a reverse of the third-person effect (p. 609). This reversal means that people will perceive themselves more likely to be positively influenced by a message than others. The authors attribute this to an “optimum impact phenomenon”, which explains both third- and first-person effects by suggesting that perceived self-other differences are based on an attempt to “bolster self-esteem” (p. 609).
Meirick (2004, 2005) also looked at first-person perceptions. His study (2004) is one of the few that studies the size of the third- or first-person effect when the affinity of the source is manipulated. Meirick (2004) looked at political ads and the influence an in-group candidate, or a candidate that is favored by the respondent group, would minimize the third-person effect, and, in fact, produce a first-person effect. This is because the in-group candidate is favored by the respondent group, and therefore delivers desirable messages. As was discussed above, self-benefiting messages are desirable to be influenced by.
The previous research opens up opportunity to look further into source affinity, or as this study calls it, source intimacy. Again, an intimate source is defined as a source whose message sender is familiar and able to be identified. An example of this type of source is a news blog.
Method
Respondents and Sample Procedure
An Internet survey of Rochester Institute of Technology students in Rochester, New York will be distributed. A convenience sample of 400 of RITs undergraduate students will be emailed. A list of all RIT’s students will be obtained from the campus’ Registrar . From this list, a skip interval method will be used to gather names to which the survey will be emailed. The sample will be stratified according to college size to assure a representative sample of the population. Once the names are chosen, they will be input into a Microsoft Outlook Mail program while on the campus Internet network. The Outlook programs on campus are pre-loaded by the University with the email addresses of all of the students .
The survey will be distributed via ClipBoard, an online survey tool. Participants will be notified through email that there is a survey awaiting them and that if they complete the survey, they will have a chance to win a gift certificate to the campus bookstore. The survey will prompt the participant for their unique student ID number, which will control for multiple submissions. Once the survey is completed, the data will be accessible to the distributor of the survey.
The Survey Instrument
The instrument opens with a brief description of the research and introduction of the researcher. Also included are explanations of various terms used in the survey, as well as a request for consent.
The first term that is defined in the introduction is news, which reads, “When the survey asks about news, it is referring to “any type of information that provides the public with a better understanding of the subject that is being discussed.” Next, the introduction presents news blogs: “When the survey discusses news blogs, it is referring to any type of blog website that includes information about subjects other than the author’s personal accounts (such as love life, work gripes, etc).” The term, others, is explained as referring to, “those other than yourself and those with whom you are well acquainted.” And finally, an explanation of the terms that deal with the intimacy of the source is provided: “When the survey suggests that you are “familiar with,” “know,” or feel “close to” a source, it means that you know, for example, the name of the person who is delivering you the message. This is in opposition to an anonymous source that does not have an identifiable person behind it.”
Once the respondent reads the introduction and provides consent, the survey begins. The material in this instrument was designed specifically for this research.
Part I addresses the first research question. The respondent is given instructions on how to answer the Semantic Differential-Type Scale. The survey lists 10 potential news sources, which are as follows: newspaper, friend, professor, news pundit (Bill O’Reilly, James Carville), talk radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh), news radio, television news anchor (Katir Couric, Dan Rather), satirist (Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert), news website (cnn.com, bbc.com) and news blog. The respondent is asked to rate each source, on a 7-point semantic differential scale, by how familiar they feel with the source in respect to the definition of “familiar” given in the introduction. One end of the scale is “anonymous,” and the opposite end is “familiar.” Following that question is a question that asks the respondent to list their top three sources of news from the list in the first question.
The second section to Part I lists the same sources, but asks the survey taker to mark as they feel another person would answer. The method is the same as in the first questions. Again, the respondent is asked to list the top three sources of news, except this time for others, rather than themselves.
The third section to Part I, which is still concerned with research question 1, gives four statements having to do with perceived effects of messages from both intimate sources and non-intimate sources. The respondent is asked to answer, on a Likert scale from 0-4, 0 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree, how much they agree with the statement. The first statement says, “I feel that I make better decisions because of the information I obtain from the sources I feel familiar with.” The second statement is the same format, but for non-familiar sources. The third and fourth statements follow the structure of the first two, but refer to bad decision making due to intimate and non-intimate sources.
Following that, the same four statements are provided and the respondent is asked to answer how they feel others would answer.
At this point, the survey taker is notified that questions about blogging are next and if they do not read blogs, they need not continue the survey. When the instrument is fed into ClipBoard, there will be a question that asks if the respondent reads blogs .If they do, they will be provided with the remainder of the survey. If they do not, the survey will terminate.
If the respondent is a blog reader, then Part II begins. Part II addresses the first hypothesis and the remaining research questions.
The first section in Part II is concerned with attitudes of blog readers. There are four statements, rated with a Likert scale of 0-4 (0 being strongly disagree to 4 being strongly agree). The first statement suggests that blogs contain information that cannot be found in other media. The second statement reinforces this, saying, “Those who don’t read blogs don’t have access to the same amount of information as I do.” The third statement proposes that blogs offer more thorough coverage of news and the fourth statement concludes this section, saying, “Overall, I am more informed than others who don’t read blogs.”
The second section in Part II deals with perceived effects of media. There are two questions: the first asks how influenced the respondent’s decisions are by blog messages, and the second asks how influenced their attitudes are. The next two questions also ask about decisions and attitudes, but instead, ask how influenced others are. These four questions are also rated on a 0-4 Likert scale.
Following this section is an open-ended question asking the respondent why they read blogs and a question asking for the names of the blogs that the respondent reads.
The instrument ends with four demographic questions, sex, age, major and ethnicity, and a page for the respondent to leave any additional comments or thoughts.
Primary Measures
The first section in Part I of the instrument, asking about source intimacy, will demonstrate and reinforce what is considered to be an intimate source. An average will be calculated for each source option based on all of the survey respondents’ ratings. This average will be compared to the frequency of answers in the second question, which asks which news sources they most often seek.
Asking the respondent to answer the same questions for others will show whether or not individuals feel that others seek news from intimate sources or non-intimate sources.
An example conclusion would look like this: If respondents seek news primarily from the sources that they marked as intimate, and perceive others to seek news from sources that they perceive others to consider non-intimate, then a first-person effect is taking place.
This first section also serves to prepare the respondent for the questions following. It introduces the respondent to the idea of an intimate source and solidifies in their head what they consider, and what they think others consider, to be a familiar source, so that the answers to the subsequent questions are more readily available in their heads.
The next section in Part I directly asks the respondent about the influence of the messages that come from familiar and non-familiar sources. These questions are rated on a 0-4 Likert scale. The 0 end indicates a strong disagreement, 1 disagree, 2 neutral, 3 agree and 4 strongly agree. These questions also concern the first research question. Four combinations -- better decisions from intimate source, better decisions from non-intimate source, worse decisions from intimate source and worse decisions from non-intimate source -- are included. The same four questions are posed for others. This set of eight questions will reveal the size of the effect.
This is the point at which non-blog readers will discontinue the survey. Their data is still relevant because it provides information for the first research question. The second part of the survey will address the research hypothesis and remaining research questions.
The first section in Part II will provide a score for intelligence attitudes regarding blog reading. Four statements are posed, again using a 0-4 Likert scale, which will indicate whether or not the respondent feels more informed, and therefore more intelligent, than consumers of other news media.
The second section of Part II asks directly, again, about media influences on decision-making and attitudes for both the self and others, this time specifically regarding blogs. Once again, the respondent is provided with a 0-4 Likert scale to rate their opinion on. The scores from this section will show either a first- or third-person effect.
The next section asks open-ended questions about blog-reader motivation. This question is included for use in a pre-test that will be conducted prior to the actual distribution of the survey. This will provide the researcher with information that may have been otherwise overlooked. The question regarding which blogs are read is primarily statistical, and will also assure the researcher that the blogs that the respondents are referring to are of the same type and quality with which the research is concerned.
The concluding demographic questions are for statistical purposes. They are included at the end of the survey so as to avoid any trepidation that they could cause if presented prior to the rest of the survey.
Conclusion
In order to determine a relationship between an intimate source and first- and third-person effect, a survey of university students will be conducted. The survey will inquire about perceived influence on self and others and blog usage. This study calls upon former, related research that has determined that the source does indeed act as a moderator in first- and third-person effect size. The results of this study will add to the current research that exists on this subject by providing an additional dimension of information regarding the source. This study also has implications for news distributors and marketers.
Limitations, Heuristics, Validity and Reliability
It is out of the scope of this study to consider specific types of news messages. It would be beneficial to perform combined analyses of the effect of source intimacy on, say, political campaign messages presented through blogs by the candidates themselves. This would provide a better understanding of the impact of blog news media.
Additionally, this study was only able to survey those belonging to a technical university, where blog usage is likely to be more frequent and saturated. It is speculated that casual blog readers of the general public would provide different results than this study will. They are a demographic that should be studied in the future.
Similarly, some respondents will be students of communication who will be able to identify the theory used, which will have an impact on their answers.
The reliability of this test depends on a coefficient of .05 or greater for blog readers or non-blog readers to conclude that any significant effect is being produced. The questions included in the survey hold face validity in that, to the researcher, they appear as if they will provide the data needed to achieve the required reliability.
References
Althaus, S. L. & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17, 21-45.
Chapin, J.R. (2000). Not like me: Self vs. other distinctions in first-person perception. Communication Research Reports. 17 (3, Summer), 320-330.
Cohen, J., Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political adverting. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 680-688.
Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V., & Gunther, A.. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly. 52 (2, Summer), 161-173.
Davison, W.P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
Duck, J.M., Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (1995). Me, us, and them: Political identification and the third person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195-215.
Gunther, A. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research. 18 (3, June), 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.C. & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574-596.
Hoorens, V., & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: Beyond the
third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 599-610.
Krejce, R.V., & Morganm D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
McLeod, D.M., Eveland, W.P., Jr., & Nathanson, A.I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis is of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153-174.
Meirick, P.C. (2002). Self-enhancement, self-affirmation and threats to self-worth: Three tests of a motivational explanation for first- and third person effects. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (6), 2037. (UMI No. 3056339)
Meirick, P.C. (2004). Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: Political advertising and first- and third-person effects. Communication Research. 31 (2, April), 234-255.
Meirick, P.C. (2005). Rethinking the target corollary: The effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research, Dec2005, Vol. 32 Issue 6, p822-843
Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A
meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and
Society, 3, 57-85.
Salwen, M.B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research. 25 (3, June), 359-285.
White, H.A., and Dillon, J.F. (2000). Knowledge about others' reaction to a public service announcement: The impact on self persuasion and third-person perception. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 77 (4, Winter), 788-803.
Appendix I: Survey
Intimacy of Media Sources and the Influence of the Messages They Deliver
A Survey
2006
Chelsea R Killam
Hello!
My name is Chelsea Killam. I am a Professional and Technical Communications senior and I am working on my undergraduate thesis. I am researching the effects of news sources on how individuals feel they and others are influenced by the messages they are receiving.
This survey will ask you a number of questions regarding how you feel about where you get your news. It is important to understand what the survey is asking; so to clarify, I will lay out a few important definitions that are relevant to this study.
When the survey asks about news, it is referring to any type of information that provides the public with a better understanding of the subject that is being discussed.
Therefore, when the survey discusses news blogs, it is referring to any type of blog website that includes information about subjects other than the author’s personal accounts (such as love life, work gripes, etc).”
The term others refers to those other than yourself and those with whom you are well acquainted.
When the survey suggests that you are “familiar with,” “know,” or feel “close to” a source, it means that you know, for example, the name of the person who is delivering you the message. This is in opposition to an anonymous source that does not have an identifiable person behind it.
And lastly, I ask that you please sign below giving your consent and acknowledgement that you are providing information that will be used as data in a research paper.
Name ____________________________ Date _________________________
Thank you!
Part I
First, I’d like you to tell me how acquainted you feel with the following list of sources. Leave an X on the continuum where you feel the source lies, between familiar and anonymous. How well do you feel you know these sources?
1. Please rate the following by the level of familiarity you feel toward them:
Anonymous Familiar
Newspaper < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Friend < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Professor < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
News Pundit < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Bill O'Reilly, James Carville)
Talk Radio < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(NPR, Rush Limbaugh)
News Radio < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Television News Anchor < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Katie Couric, Dan Rather)
Satirists < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert)
News Website < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Cnn.com, BBC.com)
News Blog < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Engadget.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com)
2. Please tell me which three of those listed above you are most likely to go to for your news, from first most likely to third most likely. If you do not use as many as three sources, only list as many as is appropriate:
1. ______________________________
2. ______________________________
3. ______________________________
3. Now, I’d like you to do the same thing, except answer how you think others would answer. How close do you think others feel to the following sources?
Please rate the following by the level of familiarity others feel toward them:
Anonymous Familiar
Newspaper < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Friend < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Professor < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
News Pundit < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Bill O'Reilly, James Carville)
Talk Radio < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(NPR, Rush Limbaugh)
News Radio < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
Television News Anchor < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Katie Couric, Dan Rather)
Satirists < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert)
News Website < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
(Cnn.com, BBC.com)
Blog < __ __ __ __ __ __ __ >
4. Please tell me which three of those listed above you think that others are most likely to go to for their news, from first most likely to third most likely:
1. ______________________________
2. ______________________________
1. ______________________________
Next, I’d like you to answer a few questions regarding how influenced you feel by these news sources. Please answer as honestly as possible, and keep in mind that there are no wrong answers.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
5. I feel that I make better < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information I obtain from the
sources I feel familiar with
6. I feel that I make better < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information I obtain from the
sources I don’t feel familiar with
7. I feel that my decisions < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
are negatively influenced by the
information I receive from the
sources I feel familiar with
8. I feel that my decisions < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
are negatively influenced by the
information I receive from the
sources I don’t feel familiar with
And again, do the same for how you feel others would answer:
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
9. Others make better < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information that they receive
from sources that
they feel familiar toward
10. Others make better < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information that they receive
from sources that
they don’t feel familiar toward
11. Others make bad < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information that they receive
from sources that
they feel familiar toward
12. Others make bad < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
decisions because of the
information that they receive
from sources that
they don’t feel familiar toward
-STOP-
The following section is for readers of blogs.
If you do not read blogs, please discontinue the survey now.
Thank you for your participation.
Part II
This section concerns itself with blogs that focus on spreading news as opposed to personal journal-type blogs that discuss the author’s love life or other personal information. Examples of the type of website that this survey is concerned with are Fark.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com, Anderson Cooper’s 360∞ Blog and Engadget.com. These types of blogs contain information that is helpful to the public.
First, please respond to the following statements:
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
13. I read blogs because the < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
information that they present
can’t be found in other news media
14. Those who don’t read < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
blogs don’t have access to the same
amount of information as I do
15. I feel that blogs present < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
news more thoroughly than
other news media
16. Overall, I am more < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
informed than others who
don’t read blogs
This second section includes questions about both yourself and others. Like before, please answer the first set of questions for you, and the second set for how you feel others would answer.
Not strong Not very Neutral Strong Very
at all strong Strong
17. How strong would you < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
rate the influence of the messages
you read in blogs on decisions you make?
18. How strong would you < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
rate the influence of the messages
you read in blogs on attitudes that you hold?
Not strong Not too Neutral Strong Very
at all strong strong
19. How strong would you < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
rate the influence of the messages
that others read in blogs on
decisions that they make?
20. How strong would you < 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >
rate the influence of the messages
that others read in blogs on attitudes
that they hold?
21. Next, in the space provided, could you please explain why you read blogs?
22. Could you please list the blog(s) that you read?
And lastly, please provide the demographic information requested below for statistical purposes.
I am:
q Male
q Female
The age I turned on my last birthday was: _____
My major is: _____________________________________________
I belong to the following ethnic group:
q African American or Black
q Asian or Pacific Islander
q Caucasian or White
q Multiracial
q Native American
If you have any additional notes or comments, please feel free to leave them in the space provided below.
This completes the survey.
Thank you very much for your time and information.