نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد ارتباطات و تبلیغ ،گروه ارتباطات، دانشکده فرهنگ وارتباطات،دانشگاه سوره، تهران، ایران.

2 ، دانشیار گروه ارتباطات، دانشکده فرهنگ وارتباطات، دانشگاه سوره، تهران، ایران (نویسنده مسئول)

چکیده

تلویزیون، در جهان امروز، بر نگرش‌، گرایش‌ و رفتارهای انسان‌ها تأثیری غیرقابل‌انکار دارد. به‌علاوه، همۀ ما، باورها و ادراکاتی دربارۀ میزان تأثیرپذیری خود و دیگران از تلویزیون داریم. یکی از نکات مهم دربارۀ این ادراکات، این است که ما میزان تأثیرپذیری خودمان از تلویزیون را با میزان تأثیرپذیری دیگران از آن مقایسه می‌کنیم و در چنین مقایسه‌ای، معمولاً دیگران را بیش از خود، تحت‌تأثیر رسانه‌ها می‌پنداریم. هدف این تحقیق، بررسی میزان اثر سوم‌شخص، از منظر والدین دانش‌آموزان تهرانی، دربارۀ برنامه‌های سیما است. در این تحقیق که به روش پیمایشی و با نمونه‌گیری خوشه‌ای از والدین دانش‌آموزان ساکن دو منطقۀ تهران (386نفر) انجام شد، این نتایج به دست آمد: نخست، اثر سوم‌شخص در جامعۀ آماری شهر تهران رخ می‌دهد و تفاوت‌های موجود بین این شهر و جوامع غربی، مانع پیدایش این اثر نیستند (اگرچه تفاوت‌هایی در اندازۀ اثر وجود دارد)؛ دوم، نحوۀ تأثیرپذیری از محتوا (مطلوبیت/ نامطلوبیت) بر پیدایش و اندازۀ اثر سوم‌شخص، اثرگذار است؛ سوم اینکه با افزایش فاصلۀ اجتماعیِ ادراک‌شده بین خود و دیگری، اندازۀ اثر سوم‌شخص نیز افزایش می‌یابد؛ نکتۀ چهارم اینکه، بین سوگیری خوش‌بینانه و اثر سوم‌شخص، رابطه‌ای معنادار برقرار نیست و پنجم اینکه، بین تمایلات رفتاری برای محدود کردن دسترسی به رسانه و اندازۀ اثر سوم‌شخص ادراکی، رابطه‌ای معنادار با قدرت متوسط برقرار است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Validation of Third Person Effect on the Audience of IRIB(Parental Attitudes on TV Programs in Tehran)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Forogh Qouhestani 1
  • Omid Ali Masoudi 2

1 M.A. in Communication and Propaganda, Department of Communication, Faculty of Culture and Communication, Soore University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Communication, Faculty of Culture and Communication, Soore University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author)

چکیده [English]

 
Television, has an undeniable influence on human’s attitude, tendencies & behavior in the world today. Besides, all of us, have beliefs & perceptions between ourselves & others about the extent of being influenced by television. Literally, the important issue on these beliefs is the comparison we make on the extent of influence between ourselves & others. Usually, in such comparisons we take others as being more influenced by media rather than ourselves. The goal of this research is to survey on the amount of influence exerted by a third person. This is done from the perspective of student’s parents in Tehran about TV programs. The research methodology is survey by cluster sampling from student’s parents in two districts of Tehran (386 person). The findings are: The influence of third person occurs in Tehran’s statistical population and persisting differences between this city and western societies cannot prevent the emergence of this effect (Though there are differences in the effect’s size); secondly, the manner of receiving the influence from the content (desirability/undesirability) on the emergence & size of third person effect, is influential. Thirdly, by increasing perceived social distance between the self & others, the size of third person effect increases; fourthly, optimistic bias and third person effect do not have a meaningful relation and the fifthly, between behavioral tendencies for limiting access to media and the size of perceptual third person effect, a meaningful relation with moderate power exists. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Third Person Effect
  • desirability/undesirability
  • social distance
  • IRIB
دلاور، علی (1388). احتمالات و آمار کاربردی، چاپ سوم، انتشارات رشد.
Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Media violence and the American public revisited. American Psychologist, 57, 448-450.
 
Anderson, P. A.; Hecht, M. L.; Hoobler, G. D. & Smallwood, M. (2003). Nonverbal CommunicationAcross Cultures. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-Cultural and InterculturalCommunication (pp. 73-90). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
 
Andsager, J. L. & White, H. A. (2007). Self versus others: Media, messages, and the thirdperson effect. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
 
Brosius, H.-B. & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized negative attitudes toward media influence? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 142–162.
 
Carnagey, N. L. & Anderson, C. A. (2005).The effects of reward and punishment in violent videogames on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychological Science, 16, 882-889.
 
Colwell, J. (2007). Needs met through computer game play among adolescents. Personality andIndividual Differences, 43(8), 2072-2082.
 
Conners, J. L. (2005).Understanding the third-person effect. Communication Research Reports, 24, 3–22.
 
Duck, J. M. & Mullin, B. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsideringthethird-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77–93.
 
Dupagne, M.; Salwen, M. B. & Paul, B. (1999).Impact of question order on the third-personeffect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11, 334–345.
 
Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition, 2nd. NY: McGraw-Hill.
 
Giles, D. (2003). Media Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lea.
 
Gibbon, P. & Durkin, K. (1995). The third person effect: Social distance and perceived media bias. European Journal of Social Psychology25(5), 597-602.
 
Golan, G. J. & Day, A. G. (2008). The first-person effect and its behavioral consequences: A new trend in the twenty-five year history of third-person effect research. MassCommunication& Society, 11, 539-556.
 
Hitchon, J. C.; Chang, C. & Harris, R. (1997). Should women emote? Perceptual bias and opinion change in response to political ads for candidates of different genders. PoliticalCommunication, 14, 49–69.
 
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific journal of management1(2), 81-99.
 
Hofstede, G. H. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 
Hoorens, V. & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: Beyond the third-personeffect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 599–610.
 
Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). American and Chinese: Passage to Differences. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
 
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.
 
McLeod, D. M.; Eveland, W. P. & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violentand misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third person effect. Communication Research,24, 153–174.
 
Paul, B.; Salwen, M. B. & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis ofthe perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 57–85.
 
Peiser, W. & Peter, J. (2001, April). Explaining individual differences in third-person perception: A limits/possibilities perspective. Communication Research, 28, 156–180.
 
Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353–378.
 
Rucinski, D. & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The “other” as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person effect in the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign. International Journal of PublicOpinion Research, 2, 345–368.
 
Salwen, M. B. & Driscoll, P. D. (1997).Consequences of third person perception in supportof press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47, 60–77.
 
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
 
White, H. A. & Dillon, J. F. (2000). Knowledge about others’ reaction to a public service announcement: The impact on self persuasion and third-person perception. Journalism &Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 788–803.
 
Whitaker, J. L. & Bushman, B. J. (2009). A review of the effects of violent video games on childrenand adolescents. Washington & Lee Law Review, 66, 1033-1052.