Let me start off by saying that I have never been in an accident. I
don’t think I am the best driver in the world, but I’d say that I’m probably
better than most drivers. However, if you were to do a poll most people would say the same. But then you might say “Chris, how is that possible? Part of being better than most drivers means that you are in the minority of above average drivers. So
how can the majority of people be in a minority?” Well skeptical reader, that
is because most people believe they
are better than other drivers whether or not they actually are. It’s a phenomenon
demonstrating this idea of the “third-person effect.”
Not to be confused with the third-person shooter, Mass Effect. |
Now when it comes to media, which the third-person effect actually
refers to, the way I would best summarize it would be the words of someone
else, W. Phillips Davison (the guy who wrote the book…or rather the paper on
it). “People will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have
on the attitudes and behaviors of others.” For instance, I know that that ad on
TV is just trying to convince me to buy their product, but most people aren’t as
astute as I am so it would not surprise me if people actually believed that Bounty
really is more absorbent than your
leading brand. Then you might say “Chris, just because people believe something
about others doesn’t mean that media is causing an effect on the public.” Well, incredibly astute, yet awfully impatient,
skeptical reader, the effect is in the reaction people have to these media
messages. Think about the current presidential election. When the Republican
campaign took the “you didn’t build that” sound bite from one of Obama’s
speeches, you may have thought, “well that was taken completely out of context.”
But that didn’t stop the Obama campaign from going out and clarifying his
remarks in that clip. The larger of society may have not been affected by that clip,
as shown by a lack of change in the polls following the speech, but the
opposition was fearful enough that such a message could influence voters that
they felt compelled to retaliate. The effect is in the response.
"We" as in myself, my investors, and the government with those roads and power plants. |
It begs the question, how much does our retaliation go? In
the past, people certainly have seen bars and even death for speaking out
against the government. Are we so afraid of the power of subversive media
messages that we will use forceful coercion to mitigate this perceived
influence? Perhaps we need to take a look at our society and see how to
mitigate our anxiety towards dissension rather than the dissenters themselves.
But I hate to leave you on a depressing existential questioning
of the role of the mass media, so here is an Onion article about the exaggerated effects of a media message if they were true. Enjoy.
Very entertaining read! I love your examples, but I like the first one a bit better. It shows that the third person effect isn't just prevalent in the media - it is an actual psychological phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to your "depressing existential question," do you think that intervention by a higher power [eg. government] would be necessary if these reactions and retaliations escalate off each other?
I know we already discussed your post in class, Chris, but again I found this amusing (particularly the Onion piece) and thoughtful. I'm afraid it's not just "in the past" that people have faced imprisonment and retaliation for suspected dissent, however, and nowadays suspicions are all too easily confirmed (see the case of a Chinese dissident who was jailed after Yahoo! provided the Chinese government with evidence of his email/forum use). This also complicates Kay's follow-up question, because in this case what higher power do we turn to in order to mitigate such actions (e.g. the global community)?
ReplyDelete