Advertisement

Wahrnehmungsphänomene

Chapter

Abstract

Wahrnehmungsphänomene haben vor allem in der sozialpsychologischen Forschung einen hohen Stellenwert, da sie zentrale Erklärungsansätze dafür liefern, wie Individuen ihre Umwelt wahrnehmen und sich in ihr verhalten. Das Potential einiger solcher Phänomene für die Erklärung von Medienwirkungen wurde bereits erkannt, medienspezifische Wahrnehmungsphänomene sind in der Kommunikationswissenschaft dementsprechend relativ gut erforscht (etwa der Third-Person-Effekt). Die Adaption anderer sozialpsychologischer Phänomene hingegen erfolgt nur langsam, theoretische Bezüge zwischen den Phänomenen werden selten hergestellt. Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt die wichtigsten psychologischen und medienspezifischen Wahrnehmungsphänomene vor und diskutiert ihre Relevanz für die Medienwirkungsforschung.

Schlagwörter

Wahrnehmungsphänomene Third-Person Effekt Hostile Media Effekt Optimistic Bias. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturtipps

  1. Huck, I. (2009). Wahrnehmungen und Wahrnehmungsphänomene im Agenda-Setting-Prozess. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The Influence of Presumed Influence. Journal of Communication 53, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Literatur

  1. Allport, F. H. (1924). Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Miff lin.Google Scholar
  2. Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (2002). When Predictions Fail: Th e Dilemma of Unrealistic Optimism. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Hrsg.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (S. 334–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Optimistic Bias in Adolescent and Adult Smokers and Nonsmokers. Addictive Behaviors 25, 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. M. (2008). Sozialpsychologie (4. Aufl.). München: Pearson Studium.Google Scholar
  5. Arpan, L. M., & Raney, A. A. (2003). An Experimental Investigation of News Source and the Hostile Media Effect. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 80, 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brosius, H.-B., & Engel, D. (1997). ‚Die Medien beeinfl ussen vielleicht die anderen, aber mich doch nicht‘: Zu den Ursachen des Third-Person-Effekts. Publizistik 42, 325–345.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, J. R. (2008). Explaining False Uniqueness: Why We Are Both Better and Worse Th an Others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2, 878–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, V. A., Lovegrove, H., Williams, A., & Macpherson, M. (2000). Unrealisltic Optimism and the Health Belief Model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 23, 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., Mutz, D. C., Price, V., & Gunther, A. C. (1988). Perceived Impact of Defamation. An Experiment on Third Person Effects. Public Opinion Quarterly 52, 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davison, W. P. (1983). The Third-Person-Effect in Communication. Public Opinion Quarterly 47, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dohle, M. & Hartmann, T. (2008). Alles eine Frage hoher Reichweite ? Eine experimentelle Untersuchung zur Ursache der Entstehung von Hostile-Media-Eff ekten. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 56, 21–41.Google Scholar
  12. Donsbach, W. (1991). Medienwirkung trotz Selektion. Einfl ussfaktoren auf die Zuwendung zu Zeitungsinhalten. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  13. Dunning, D., Chip, H., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed Self-Assessment. Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5, 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eiser, J. R. (1996). Positive-Negative Asymmetry. In A. S. R. Manstead, & M. Hewstone (Hrsg.), Th e Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (S. 499). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Esser, H. (2000). Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 2: Die Konstruktion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson & Company.Google Scholar
  17. Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public Beliefs about the Beliefs of the Public. Public Opinion Quarterly 40, 427–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedrich, J. (1993). Primary Error Detection and Minimization (PEDMIN) Strategies in Social Cognition: A Reinterpretation of Confirmation Bias Phenomena. Psychological Review 100, 298–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Foreign Newspapers. Journal of International Peace Research 2, 64–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerrard, M., & Luus, C. A. E. (1995). Judgments of Vulnerability to Pregnancy: The Role of Risk Factors and Individual Differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, G. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The Correspondence Bias. Psychological Bulletin 117, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Golan, G., & Day, A. (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 and Society 11, 539–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunther, A. C. (1992). Bias Press or Biased Public? Attitudes Toward Media Coverage of Social Groups. Public Opinion Quarterly 56, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gunther, A. C. (1998). The Persuasive Press Inference: Effects of Mass Media on Perceived Public Opinion. Communication Research 25, 486–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gunther, A. C., & Chia, S. C. (2001). Predicting Pluralistic Ignorance: The Hostile Media Perception and its Consequences. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gunther, A. C., & Christen, C. T. (2002). Projection or Persuasive Press ? Contrary Eff ects of Personal Opinion and Perceived News Coverage on Estimates of Public Opinion. Journal of Communication 52, 177–195.Google Scholar
  27. Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad Reach or Biased Source? Decomposing the Hostile Media Effect. Journal of Communication 56, 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The Influence of Presumed Influence. Journal of Communication 53, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hansen, G. J., & Kim, H. (2011). Is the Media Biased Against Me? A Meta-Analysis of the Hostile Media Effect Research. Communication Research Reports 28, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huck, I. (2009). Wahrnehmungen und Wahrnehmungsphänomene im Agenda-Setting-Prozess. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huck, I., & Brosius, H.-B. (2007). Der Third-Person-Effekt – Über den vermuteten Einfluss der Massenmedien. Publizistik 52, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huck, I., Quiring, O., & Brosius, H.-B. (2009). Perceptual phenomena in the agenda setting process. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 21, 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Hrsg.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour (S. 79–94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kepplinger, H. M., & Roth, H. (1978). Kommunikation in der Ölkrise des Winters 1973 / 74. Ein Paradigma für Wirkungsstudien. Publizistik 23, 337–356.Google Scholar
  35. Klapper, J. (1960). Effects of Mass Communication. Toronto: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The People’s Choice. How the Voter Makes Up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.Google Scholar
  37. Lo, V.-H., & Wei, R. (2002). Third-Person Effect, Gender, and Pornography on the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 46, 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten Years of Research on the False-Consensus Effect: An Empirical and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin 102, 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2003). Schrödergegen Stoiber – Nutzung, Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der TV-Duelle. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Meyer, W.-U., & Försterling, F. (2001). Die Attributionstheorie. In F. Dieter & M. Irle (Hrsg.), Th eorien der Sozialpsychologie. Band I: Kognitive Th eorien (2. Auf., S. 220–201). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  41. Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and Cause: American and Chinese Attributions for Social and Physical Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, 949–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mullen, B., Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, C., & Copper, C. (1992). Ingroup-Outgroup Differences in Social Projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28, 422–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mutz, D. C. (1989). The Influence of Perceptions of Media Influence: Third Person Effects and the Public Expression of Opinions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 1, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1980). Das doppelte Meinungsklima. Der Einfl uß des Fernsehens im Wahlkampf 1976. In E. Noelle-Neumann, Wahlentscheidung in der Fernsehdemokratie (S. 77 – 115). Freiburg, München: Alber.Google Scholar
  45. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). Öff entliche Meinung. Die Entdeckung der Schweigespirale. Frankfurt a. M.: Ullstein.Google Scholar
  46. Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural Similarities and Differences in Social Inference: Evidence from Behavioral Predictions and Lay Theories of Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation Bias. In R. F. Pohl (Hrsg.), Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory (S. 79–96). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-Negative Asymmetry in Evaluations: The Distinction Between Affective and Informational Negativity Effects. European Review of Social Psychology 1, 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perloff, M. R. (2009). Mass Media, Social Perception, and the Third-Person Effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Hrsg.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3. Aufl., S. 252–268.Google Scholar
  51. Riskey, D. R., & Birnbaum, M. H. (1974). Compensatory Effects in Moral Judgment: Two Rights Don’t Make Up for a Wrong. Journal of Experimental Psychology 103, 171–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise: The Case of „Th e Selling of the Pentagon“. American Political Science Review 70, 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roessing, T. (2011). Schweigespirale. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  54. Ross, L. (1977). The Intuitive Psychologist and his Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process. In L. Berkowitz (Hrsg.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (S. 174–214). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  55. Ross, L., Green, D., & House, P. (1977). The ‚False Consensus‘ Effect: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13, 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rossmann, C. (2010). Zur theorie- und evidenzbasierten Fundierung massenmedialer Gesundheitskampagnen. Public Health Forum 18, 16–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rothman, A. J., Klein, W. M., & Weinstein, N. D. (1996). Absolute and Relative Biases in Estimations of Personal Risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26, 1213–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rozin, P., & Royzman, B. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scherer, H., Tiele, A. & Naab, T. (2006). Die Theorie der Schweigespirale: methodische Herausforderungen und empirische Forschungspraxis. In W. Wirth, A. Fahr & E. Lauf (Hrsg.), Forschungslogik und -design in der Kommunikationswissenschaft, Band 2: Anwendungsfelder in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 107–138). Köln: Herbert von Halem.Google Scholar
  60. Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why Partisans see Mass Media as Biased. Communication Research 31, 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shepperd, J. A., Ouellette, J. A., & Fernandez, J. K. (1996). Abandoning Unrealistic Optimism: Performance Estimates and the Temporal Proximity of Self-Relevant Feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 844–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sun, Y., Shen, L., & Pan, Z. (2008). On the Behavioral Component of the Third-Person-Effect. Communication Research, 35, 257–278.Google Scholar
  63. Taylor, D. G. (1982). Pluralistic Ignorance and the Spiral of Silence. A Formal Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 46, 311–335.Google Scholar
  64. Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The Child in America. Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  65. Thompson, S. C. (1999). Illusions of Control: How We Overestimate Our Personal Influence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8, 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Bias Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, 577–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic Optimism about Future Life Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 806–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic Optimism about Susceptibility to Health Problems: Conclusions from a Community-Wide Sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 10, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weinstein, N. D. (1998). Accuracy of Smokers’ Risk Perceptions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 20, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2009). What Underlies the False Consensus Effect ? How Personal Opinion and Disagreement Affect Public Opinion Perception. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 21, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wolling, J. (1999). Politikverdrossenheit durch Massenmedien ? Der Einfl uss der Medien auf die Einstellungen der Bürger zur Politik. Opladen, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft und MedienforschungLudwig-Maximilian-Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations