Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Support for Internet Censorship in China: An Elaboration of the Theory of Reasoned Action

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates young people’s support for Internet censorship in China within the broad conceptual approach of the theory of reasoned action (TRA). Two concepts, authoritarian personality and third-person perception, were scrutinized as part of our extension of the elaboration of the TRA model. We also closely examined dimensions pertinent to the unique social context of China such as party membership, Confucianism tradition, and one-child policy. A sample of 266 college students in a large metropolitan was surveyed and Structural Equation Modeling was employed in data analyses. Support for censorship based on TRA received general empirical evidence. So did the submissive dimension of authoritarian personality. Mixed findings were discussed and future research directions were suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In China, CNN is only accessible legitimately in starred hotels and illegitimately via personal satellite dish.

  2. Some families have more than one child legitimately through re-marriage. Others do it illegitimately through bribery, forgery of document, or paying heavy fines.

  3. With MLR estimation, both the indirection effect estimation with the delta method [20, 83–85] are not available in Mplus. Therefore, the mediation effects were not reported.

References

  1. Asia Week, An interview with Han Han, in Asia Week. 2010.

  2. Cao, J. 2009. The production of alternative media in mainland China: A case study of the journal friend exchange. Communication and Society 4: 75–102.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lynch, D.C. 1999. After the propaganda state: Media, politics, and “thought work” in reformed China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Feng, G. 2008. An empirical study on the blocking mechanisms of China’s Internet censorship. In 2008 Annual Conference of International Communication Association (ICA). Montreal, Canada.

  5. Hughes, C.R., and G. Wacker (eds.). 2003. China and the internet: Politics of the digital leap forward. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harwit, E., and D. Clark. 2001. Shaping the internet in China: Evolution of political control over network infrastructure and content. Asian Survey 41(3): 377–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Xinhua net. Chinese netizens staunchly support the government to eradicate a malignant Internet tumor (Zhongguo Wangmin Jianjue Zhichi Chanchu Wangluo Duliu). 2009-06-25 [cited 2009 Dec 5]; Available from: http://big5.cbg.cn/gate/big5/news.cbg.cn/content/2009-06/25/content_826744.ht.

  8. Rojas, H., D.V. Shah, and R.J. Faber. 1996. For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8(2): 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shah, D.V., R.J. Faber, and S. Youn. 1999. Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research 26(2): 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Huh, J., D.E. Delorme, and L.N. Reid. 2004. The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context: The case of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Communication Research 31(5): 568–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Youn, S., R.J. Faber, and D.V. Shah. 2000. Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology & Marketing 17(7): 633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wan, F., S. Youn, and R.J. Faber. 2001. Motivations underlying commercial web sites censorship: The third-person perception. In European advances in consumer research, ed. A. Groeppel-Klien and F.-R. Esch, 90–100. Provo: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  14. McLeod, J.M., et al. 1998. A model of public support for first amendment rights. Communication Law and Policy 3(4): 479–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Milgram, S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(4): 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Asch, S.E. 1955. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American 193: 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Noelle-Neumann, E. 1977. Turbulences in the climate of opinion: Methodological applications of the spiral of silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology December 51(6): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Deutsch, M., and H.B. Gerard. 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 51(3): 8.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cialdini, R.B., and M.R. Trost. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In The handbook of social psychology, ed. D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. Boston: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Harris, R.J. 2004. A cognitive psychology of mass communication. Mahwah: Richard Jackson Harris.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang, H., and S.-J. Ok. 2011. Comparative analysis of privacy concerns in website register process between China and Korea. Canadian Social Science 7(1): 100–109.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lu, W., and M. Zhang. 2008. The impact of Internet knowledge on college students’ intention to continue to use the Internet. Information Research 13(3): 348.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu, J. 2001. Theorization versus indigenization of Chinese communication research: The integrated theory of audiences and media effects as a case study. Mass Communication Research 68: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Adorno, T.W., and E.F. Brunswik. 1950. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Whitley, B.E. 1999. Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology July 77(1): 126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee, B., and R. Tamborini. 2005. Third-person effect and internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and internet self-efficacy. The Journal of Communication 55(2): 292–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Altemeyer, R. 2007. The Authoritarians. Robert Altemeyer.

  31. Altemeyer, R. 1996. The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard Univ ersity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hense, R., and C. Wright. 1992. The development of the attitudes toward censorship questionnaire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22(21): 1666–1675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fisher, R.D., I.J. Cook, and E.C. Shirkey. 1994. Correlates of support for censorship of sexual, sexually violent, and violent media, 229–240. Routledge.

  34. Wan, F., and S. Youn. 2004. Motivations to regulate online gambling and violent game sites: An account of the third-person effect. Journal of Interactive Advertising 5(1).

  35. Davison, W.P. 1983. The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly 47(1): 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Perloff, R.M. 1999. The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology 1(4): 353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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 32(6): 822–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meirick, P.C. 2004. Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance. Communication Research 31(2): 234–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Eveland, J.W.P., and D.M. McLeod. 1999. The effect of social desirability on perceived media impact: implications for third-person perceptions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 11(4): 315–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Brosius, H.-B., and D. Engel. 1996. The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8(2): 142–162.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cohen, J., et al. 1988. Perceived impact of defamation. Public Opinion Quarterly 52(2): 161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McLeod, D., J. Lambe, and H.-J. Paek. 2005. Antecedents to support for media restrictions: Individual differences, democratic principles and third-person perceptions. In Annual Meeting of International Communication Association. New York, NY: International Communication Association.

  43. Paul, B., M.B. Salwen, and M. Dupagne. 2000. The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society 3(1): 57–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Perloff, R.M. 1999. The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology 1(4): 353–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hoffner, C., et al. 1999. Support for censorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect and news exposure. Communication Research 26(6): 726–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hsü, I.C.Y. 2000. The rise of modern China, 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Oboler, E. 1973. Paternalistic morality and censorship. Library Journal 98(15): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  48. McLeod, D.M., and W.P. Eveland Jr. 1997. Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics. Communication Research 24(2): 153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mcleod, Detenber, and Eveland. 2001 Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication (12): 678–695.

  50. Golan, G.J., S.A. Banning, and L. Lundy. 2008. Likelihood to vote, candidate choice, and the third-person effect: Behavioral implications of political advertising in the 2004 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist 52(2): 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Boyle, M.P., D.M. McLeod, and H. Rojas. 2008. The Role of Ego Enhancement and Perceived Message Exposure in Third-Person Judgments Concerning Violent Video Games, 165–185.

  52. Salwen, M., and P. Driscoll. 1997. Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. The Journal of Communication 47(2): 60–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bary, W.Td., and W. Tu (eds.). 1998. Confucianism and human rights. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rojek, D.G. 1989. Social control in the People’s Republic of China. Criminal Justice Review 14(2): 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Slote, W.H., and G.A.D. Vos (eds.). 1998. Confucianism and the family. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Yeh, K.-H. 2003. The beneficial and harmful effects of filial piety: An integrative analysis. In Progress in Asian social psychology: Conceptual and empirical contributions, ed. K.-S. Yang, 67–82. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ho, D.Y.-F. 1994. Filial piety, authoritarian moralism and cognitive conservatism in Chinese societies. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs 120(3): 349.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ritchie, D., and M.A. Fitzpatrick. 1990. Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research 17(4): 523–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Chaffee, S., J. McLeod, and D. Wackman. 1973. Family communication patterns and adolescent political participation. In Socialization to politics: Selected readings, ed. J. Dennis. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Meadowcroft, J. 1986. Family communication patterns and political development: The Child’s role. Communication Research 13(4): 603–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Chow, E.N.-l., and S.M. Zhao. 1996. The one-child policy and parent–child relationships: A comparison of one-child with multiple-child families in China. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 16(12): 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Short, S.E., and F. Zhai. 1998. Looking locally at China’s one-child policy. Studies in Family Planning 29(4): 373–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Remez, L. 1991. China’s fertility patterns closely parallel recent national policy changes. International Family Planning Perspectives 17(2): 75–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sorensen, B. 2008. Only child experience and adulthood. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  65. Downey, D.B. 2001. Number of siblings and intellectual development: The resource dilution explanation. American Psychologist 56: 497–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Polit, D.F., and T. Falbo. 1987. Only children and personality development: A quantitative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family 49: 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Jefferson, T., J.H. Herbst, and R.R. McCrae. 1998. Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings. Journal of Research in Personality 32(4): 498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zhao, X., and X. Cai. 2008. From self-enhancement to supporting censorship: The third-person effect process in the case of internet pornography. Mass Communication and Society 11(4): 437–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zhao, X., and X. Cai. 2004. From optimistic bias to supporting censorship: The third-person effect process in the case of Internet pornography. Conference Papers – International Communication Association, 1.

  70. Scharrer, E. 2002. Third-person perception and television violence. Communication Research 29(6): 681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Golan, G.J., and S.A. Banning. 2008. Exploring a link between the third-person effect and the theory of reasoned action: Beneficial ads and social expectations. American Behavioral Scientist 52(2): 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sewell Jr., W.H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology 98(1): 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Junhao, H., and L. Huang. 2004. A split and swaying approach to building information society: The case of Internet cafes in China. Telematics and Infomatics 22(4): 377–393.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Mueller, M., and Z. Tan. 1997. China in the information age: Telecommunications and the dilemma of reform. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Qiu, J.L. 1999. Virtual censorship in China: Keeping the gates between the cyber-spaces. The International Journal of Communications Law and Policy winter(4): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Wang, N., Z. Guo, and F. Shen. 2011. Message, perception, and the Beijing Olympics: Impact of differential media exposure on perceived opinion diversity. Communication Research 38(3): 422–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Huang, L-l. 2007. M shape vs. bell shape: The ideology of national identity and its psychological basis in Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Psychology 49(4): 20.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Edwards, J.R., and M.E. Parry. 1993. On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. The Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1577–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Edwards, J.R. 1995. Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64(3): 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Cronbach, L.J., and L. Furby. 1970. How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin July 74(1): 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Peter, J.P., G.A. Churchill Jr., and T.J. Brown. 1993. Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research 19(4): 655–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Cheung, G. 2009. Introducing the latent congruence model for improving the assessment of similarity, agreement, and fit in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 12(1): 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Muthén, L.K., and B.O. Muthén. 2010. Mplus statistical analysis with latent variables; user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Sobel, M.E. 1982. Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology 13(ArticleType: primary_article / Full publication date: 1982 / Copyright © 1982 John Wiley & Sons): 290–312.

  85. Preacher, K.J., and A.F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Schell, B., and L. Bonin. 1989. Factors affecting censorship by Canadian librarians. Journal of Psychology 123(4): 357.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Gunther, A.C., and A.P. Hwa. 1996. Public perceptions of television influence and opinions about censorship in Singapore. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8(3): 248–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Salwen, M.B. 1998. Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship. Communication Research 25(3): 259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Sun, Y., L. Shen, and Z. Pan. 2008. On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research 35(2): 257–278.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Zhong, Z. 2008. The third-person effect and online game-play. Conference Papers – International Communication Association, 1–30.

  91. Lo, V-h, and A.R. Paddon. 2000. Third-person perception and support for pornography restrictions: Some methodological problems. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12(1): 80–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Chia, S., and K.-H. Lu. 2003. Protect the naive or punish the evil? An in-depth examination on the connection between third-person perception and support for media censorship. In International Communication Association. San Diego, CA: International Communication Association.

  93. Chia, S.C., K.-H. Lu, and D.M. McLeod. 2004. Sex, lies, and video compact disc: A case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship. Communication Research 31(1): 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Willnat, L., E. Tamam, and A. Aw. 2007. Perceptions of Foreign Media Influence in Asia: Cultural Self-Construal and the Third-Person Effect. In Annual Meeting of International Communication Association. International Communication Association.

  95. Wu, W., and S.H. Koo. 2001. Perceived effects of sexually explicit Internet content: The third-person effect in Singapore. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78(2): 260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Lee, C., and S. Yang. 1996. Third-Person Perception and Support for Censorship of Sexually Explicit Visual Content: A Korean Case. In The Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Anaheim, CA: AEJMC.

  97. Zheng, J., and B. Detenber. 2009. Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward Extreme Nationalistic Messages in Chinese Online Forums: A Third-Person Perspective. Conference Papers – International Communication Association, 1–33.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Journalism, School of Communication, Hong Kong Baptist University, Communication and Visual Arts Building, 5 Hereford Road, Kowloon Tong, KLN, Hong Kong

    Steve Guo

  2. School of Communication, Hong Kong Baptist University, Communication and Visual Arts Building, 5 Hereford Road, Kowloon Tong, KLN, Hong Kong

    Guangchao Feng

Authors
  1. Steve Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guangchao Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Guo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guo, S., Feng, G. Understanding Support for Internet Censorship in China: An Elaboration of the Theory of Reasoned Action. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 17, 33–52 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-011-9177-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-011-9177-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation