Third-Person Effect

Davison's hypothesis

Davison (1983) recounted a World War II episode in which Japanese forces dropped leaflets on a U.S. unit with many Black soldiers, claiming the war was a white man's war; although the soldiers themselves were not swayed, their white officers withdrew the unit. He argued that people believe persuasive messages affect "them", third persons, more than "me" or "you", and act on that belief. The hypothesis has two parts: the perceptual hypothesis, that people judge the influence on others to be greater than on themselves, and the behavioral hypothesis, that this perception leads to actions such as support for censorship.

Why it occurs

The most cited explanation is self-enhancement: wanting to see oneself as smarter and less gullible than others, people attribute the influence of undesirable messages to others, a pattern linked to the self-serving bias. Gunther (1991) reported that overestimating others' exposure and vulnerability also plays a role. A social distance corollary has been reported, in which the perceived effect grows for groups seen as socially distant, and Duck, Hogg and Terry (1995) showed that political identification led people to see out-group voters as more swayed by campaign ads. Eveland and colleagues (1999) reinterpreted part of this distance effect as stemming from expectations that such groups are more exposed to the message. Conversely, for desirable messages such as public service campaigns, a first-person effect appears in which people see themselves as more influenced (Golan and Day, 2008).

Meta-analyses and behavioral consequences

Reviewing early research, Perloff (1993, 1999) concluded that the perceptual hypothesis is very consistently supported while the behavioral hypothesis is weaker. Meta-analyses by Paul, Salwen and Dupagne (2000) and by Sun, Pan and Shen (2008) likewise found the third-person perception robust and larger for less desirable messages. On the behavioral side, Gunther (1995) showed that the more harm people saw pornography doing to others, the more they supported censorship. Gunther and Storey (2003) broadened this into the influence of presumed influence model, in which the mere assumption that media affect others changes people's behavior. Jang and Kim (2018) reported that people who saw greater fake news effects on others differed in their support for regulation versus interventions such as media literacy education. The concept is studied in media effects research alongside agenda-setting theory, cultivation theory and the spiral of silence.

FAQ

What is the third-person effect in simple terms?

It is the tendency to think that ads or fake news will not fool me but will fool other people. This belief can change actual behavior, such as supporting regulation or censorship.

Does the third-person effect always appear?

The perception that others are more influenced is consistently confirmed in meta-analyses, but it varies with the type of message. The gap is larger for harmful or undesirable messages, and for desirable messages such as public service campaigns, a first-person effect may appear in which people see themselves as more influenced.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15.
2. Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research, 18(3), 355–372.
3. Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27–38.
4. Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983–1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5(2), 167–184.
5. Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1(4), 353–378.
6. Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 57–85.
7. 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(2), 195–215.
8. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H., & McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception. Communication Research, 26(3), 275–302.
9. Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199–215.
10. Sun, Y., Pan, Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 280–300.
11. 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. Mass Communication & Society, 11(4), 539–556.
12. Jang, S. M., & Kim, J. K. (2018). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 295–302.