Social Identity and Perceptions of Media Persuasion:

Are We Always Less influenced Than Others?‘

JULIEM. D L J C KMICHAEL
,~ A. HOGG,AND DEBORAH
J. TERRY
University of Queen-dand
Bri.ybane. A ustraliu

People typically perceive negative media content (e.g., violence) to have more impact on
others than on themselves (a third-person effect). To examine the perceived effects ofpos-
itive content (e.g.. public-service advertisements) and the moderating role of social identi-
ties, we examined students’ perceptions of the impact of AIDS advertisements on self.
students (in-group), nonstudents (out-group), and people in general. Perceived self-other
differences varied with the salience of student identity. Low identifiers displayed the typi-
cal third-person effect. whereas high identifiers were more willing to acknowledge impact
on themselves and the student in-group. Further, when intluence was normatively accrpt-
able within the in-group. high identifiers perceived self and students (us) as n70re intlu-
enced than nonstudents (them). The theoretical and practical implications of this reversal
in third-person perceptions are discussed.

A recent review of research (Perloff. 1993) indicates broad empirical support

for the third-person effect (Davison, 1983)-the tendency for people to assume
that persuasive communications, and mass media in general, have a stronger
effect on other people than on themselves. Presumably, people both overestimate
message effects on others and underestimate message effects on themselves,
resulting in a perceived self-other difference in persuasibility (Cohen, Mutz,
Price, & Gunther, 1988). The importance of this perceptual bias lies not only in
its links with related self-other differences (e.g., illusions of invulnerability to
negative life events; Perloff & Fetzer, 1986; Weinstein, 1980, 1982. 1984) and
other media perceptions (e.g.. the hostile-media phenomenon: Perloff, 1989;
Vallone, Ross, & Lepper, 1985), but also in its presumed effects on behavior
(e.g., media censorship; Gunther. 1995).
Theoretical accounts emphasize the self-serving nature of third-person per-
ceptions: People may be motivated to perceive themselves as less influenced than
others in order to maintain self-esteem and feelings of personal control. Indeed,
‘This research was supported by an ARC Postdoctoral Research Fellowship held by the first
author at the University of Queensland.
?Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julie Duck, Department of
Psychology. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia. e-mail:
,julied@’psy.uq.edu.au.

1879

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999, 29, 9 , pp. 1879-1899

Copyright 0 1999 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.
1880 DUCK ET AL.

given widespread public concern regarding the effects of a mass medium such as
television on a gullible and susceptible mass audience (Smith, 1986). people may
be strongly motivated to deny the personal impact of media messages. Moreover,
the ego-defensive motivation to deny personal persuasiblity may be particularly
pronounced when the media message promotes negative or socially undesirable
outcomes (e.g., violence. pornographytthe content that has traditionally domi-
nated discussion of, and research on. third-person effects (Perloff, 1993). In these
contexts, people may be motivated to view themselves both as less persuasible to
media influence and as less susceptible to negative outcomes (Gunther & Mundy,
1993).
As we have argued elsewhere (Duck, Terry, & Hogg. 1995), less is hnown
about the perceived impact of positive messages that advocate personally benefi-
cial and socially desirable outcomes (e.g., public-service advertisements for
health and safety issues) and, theoretically, the situation in such contexts i s more
complex. I n the interests of self-presentation, people may be motivated to per-
ceive themselves as relatively responsive to intelligent and beneficial mes-
sages-that is, they may display a reverse third-person effect in which self is
perceived as more, rather than less. influenced than others. It is also possible that
a general reluctance to acknowledge personal persuasibility w-orks against, and
perhaps outweighs, any such desire. Indeed, research comparing the perceived
effects of different types of persuasive content has shown that third-person per-
ceptions are more pronounced and more pervasive with respect to negative con-
tent. but it remains unclear whether third-person perceptions are evidenced in any
systematic way for positive content (Duck & Mullin, 1995; Gunther & Mundy,
1993; Gunther & Thorson, 1992; lnnes & Zeitz. 1988). For instance, o u r own
evidence (Duck, Terry, et a]., 1995) indicates that people may perceive them-
selves as more or less influenced than others by public-service advertiseincnts for
safer sex and protection against AIDSIHIV, depending on the strength of their
personal beliefs in the benefits of such advertising and on their perceptions of the
quality of the advertisements under consideration. Given the ambiguity of find-
ings in the context of positive message content, as well as the social importance
of research on the perceived impact of public-service advertisements. further
research of this type is required.
Drawing on insights gained from more traditional social influence topics.
recent research has reemphasized the role of social groups in the persuasion pro-
cess (e.g.. Mackie. Gastardo-Conaco, & Skelly, 1992: Mackie, Worth, & Asuncion,
1990; McGarty, Haslam. Hutchinson, & Turner, 1994; van Knippenberg &
Wilke, 1992; Wilder, 1991). Like Turner (1991), these researchers have stressed
that the process of persuasion involves more than just information processing,
because “information processing has a social-normative aspect . . . [and] . . . is
affected by social relationships between self and others within varying social
contexts, embodied in one’s social identity and group memberships” (pp. 172-
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1881

I 73). More specifically, recognizing that in-group attitudes and opinions are par-
ticularly influential in determining how we construct and define our social reality
(e.g., Festinger, 1953; Heider, 1958), researchers have concentrated on specify-
ing the processes that mediate the persuasive advantage of messages representing
in-group opinions. According to current theories of group membership, such as
social identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-
categorization theory (Turner, 1982, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987). the validity of information is psychologically established by in-
group norms, and the basic influence process is one where the normative position
of people categorized as similar to oneself is accepted as subjectively valid
(Turner, 199 1).
Recent research has also reemphasized the role of social groups in the third-
person effect (i.e., in perceptinns of the persuasive impact of messages on self
and other). The third-person effect has typically been demonstrated by compar-
ing people’s perceptions of media influence on self with their perceptions of
media influence on a single generalized other (e.g., “voters in general,” Davison,
1983; “other viewers.” Lasorsa, 1989; “most Americans,” Rucinski & Salmon,
1990). However, there is a growing recognition that the magnitude of perceived
self-other differences depends, at least in part, on who the comparison others are.
For instance, researchers have noted that perceived effects on others are niagni-
fied as the definition of others becomes progressively more broad, vague, or
socially distant (e.g.. Cohen et al., 1988; Duck & Mullin, 1995; Gibbon &
Durkin, 1995: Gunther, 1991). In our own research (Duck. Hogg, & Terry.
1995), we have drawn attention to the neglected “us-them’’ or in-group-out-
group distinction implicit in Davison’s ( 1983) original specification of the third-
person effect. Drawing on social identity theory and self-categorization theory,
we have reasoned that, as with the process of persuasion per se, perceived self-
other differences in persuasion reflect the social psychological relationships
between self and others within varying social contexts.
According to social identity and self-categorization theories. an important
part of the self-concept is derived from membership in social groups. Although
people often view themselves as individual or unique persons, different from all
others, there are many social contexts in which people view themselves predomi-
nantly as group members with a shared social identity. In these contexts, a pro-
cess of self-categorization “depersonalizes” the perception of self and other in
terms of relevant group prototypes (norms, stereotypes). People view themselves
and others as group members rather than as individuals (“I” becomes “we,” and
“me vs. you” becomes “us vs. them”), and they accentuate prototypical similari-
ties between self and in-group members and prototypical differences between in-
group and out-group members. Moreover, since social identities have important
self-evaluative consequences (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Turner, 1982), when
social identity is salient, group members tend to evaluate self-categories
1882 DUCK ET AL.

positively and to make intergroup comparisons that favor the in-group (e.g.,
Brewer. 1979; Brewer & Kramer. 1985; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Contextual fac-
tors influence the degree to which people identify themselves as group members
rather than individuals (Hogg, 1992)-the stronger the social identification, the
more pronounced the tendencies toward group-based perceptual accentuation and
in-group favoritism.
From this perspective, we have proposed that the third-person effect should
occur to differing degrees according to the categorization of self and other into
in-group and out-group categories and to the accentuation of similarities within
and differences between those categories. To the extent that comparison others
are judged as out-group members. they should be contrasted to the perceiver’s
identity, evaluated. and represented unfavorably-as relatively vulnerable to
(negative) media influence. In contrast, to the extent that comparison others are
judged as in-group members. they should be assimilated to the perceiver’s iden-
tity, evaluated, and represented favorably, like the self-as relatively invulner-
able to influence. Moreover, the extent of self-in-group assimilation and in-
group-out-group contrast displayed should vary according to the perceiver’s
level of identification with the relevant social category.
We found some support for these predictions in our research on perceptions
of media campaign impact during the 1993 Australian federal election (Duck,
Hogg, et al., 1995). Although respondents who identified with one of the two
major political parties perceived themselves to be less influenced than others
(political in-group, political out-group, voters in general) by campaign content in
general, perceived self-other differences were more pronounced with respect to
political out-group than political in-group others. Moreover. this pattern of in-
group-out-group contrast was exaggerated in respondents who identified
strongly with their preferred political party. Our results also indicated that,
although politically identified respondents perceived self and in-group others to
be less influenced than others by campaign material that explicitly favored the
“wrong” side of the political fence. they perceived self and in-group others t o be
more influenced than political out-group others by campaign content that esplic-
itly favored the “right” side (in a reversal of the typical third-person effect).
Taken together, these results suggest that perceived self-other differences in
persuasibility depend not only on how we perceive others in terms of relevant
group memberships (i.e., as in-group or out-group others), but also on the extent
to which persuasibility on a specific content dimension is considered normative
or desirable for the salient in-group. When it is socially acceptable to resist
persuasion, people should see themselves and members of their in-group as
highly resistant and others as less so (a third-person effect). But, when i t is
socially acceptable to think of oneself as influenced, people may see themselves
and members of their in-group as quite yielding and others as less so (a reverse
third-person effect). In contrast to other theoretical accounts which emphasize
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1883

the role of social desirability in third-person perceptions (e g., Gunther & Mundy,
I993), this proposal emphasizes that the social desirability of influence on partic-
ular content dimensions is defined in terms of salient group norms and, hence,
that perceived self-other differences in media influence reflect social-normative
processes.
This study is designed to explore further these issues. We aim to examine uni-
versity students’ perceptions of the impact of televised AIDS advertisements not
only on self and on people in general (cf. Duck, Terry, et al., 1995), but also on
students in general (in-group others) and on nonstudents (out-group others).
AIDS is one of the most pressing current health problems and is an issue of par-
ticular relevance to university students. Research shows that students engage in
sexual practices that lead to increased exposure to HIV infection (e.g., Crawford,
Turtle, & Kippax, 1990; Rosenthal. Hall, & Moore. 1992; Struckman-Johnson,
Gilliland, Struckman-Johnson, & North, 1990). and many of the HIV campaigns
promoting safer sex have explicitly targeted people in this age bracket. The
issues of AIDS and safer sex are frequently discussed in student newspapers. and
student unions promote safer sex through the distribution of free condoms and
information about AIDS/HIV during university orientation weeks. Hence, we
reason that students who identify strongly with the student community would
perceive it as socially acceptable to acknowledge the impact of AIDS advertise-
ments. However, given a general reluctance to admit persuasibility, especially to
mass-media messages, we reason that students who do not identify with the stu-
dent community would perceive it as personally undesirable to acknowledge
such influence. This presents an interesting scenario where identification with a
relevant reference group might serve to reverse typical third-person perceptions.
Specifically, based on self-categorization theory, we predict that perceptions
of media influence on self and on others (students, nonstudents, and people in
general) would vary with the perceiver’s level of identification with the student
in-group; that is, with the salience of student identity. We expect that low identifi-
ers would perceive themselves as less influenced than others (students, nonstu-
dents, and people in general) in a typical third-person effect, whereas high
identifiers would perceive self and students (in-group members) as more influ-
enced than nonstudents (out-group members; Hypothesis 1). We expect that high
identifiers, compared with low identifiers, would perceive more influence on self
and students (Hypothesis 2), less difference between the level of influence on self
and on students (Hypothesis 3), and more difference between the level of
influence on students and nonstudents (Hypothesis 4). These predictions follow
from the assumptions that the salience of self-categorization accentuates the per-
ceived similarity between self and in-group others (an sssimilation effect); accen-
tuates the perceived differences between in-group and out-group (a contrast
effect); and motivates respondents to judge their self-category positively (posi-
tive distinctiveness).
1884 DUCK ET AL.

We also reason that the effects of social identity would be clearer the stronger
the student norm for acknowledgment of personal influence and, given wide vari-
ation in the quality and character of AIDS advertisements, that this norm would
be stronger for some advertisements than for others. Hence, we predict that our
hypotheses would be supported more clearly when we focus on the perceived
impact of a subset of AIDS advertisements which students identify as being
desirable to be influenced by. This improvement in support of our predictions
would be unique to this subset of advertisements and not hold for other subsets of
advertisements judged as, for instance. the better or more informative advertise-
ments.

Method

Participants

Participants were 58 third-year psychology students at a large Australian uni-

versity who completed the task in their practical class. There were 38 female and
20 male participants (Mag, = 23.14 years, SD = 5.73 years).

Materials

The stimulus was a videotape of 1 1 commercials produced by the Australian

National Council on AIDS. These commercials, presented in chronological order,
covered the range of advertisements produced by the Council since commence-
ment of the AIDS campaign in 1987-that is. the stimulus set comprised all of
the television AIDS/HIV advertisements available at that point in time. A short
description of each advertisement is provided-fuller descriptions ha1.e been
reported elsewhere (Duck, Terry, et al., 1995):
1. Grim reaper. A disturbing advertisement with scenes of grim reapers in a
bowling alley bowling down men. women, and children. The message is that
AIDS can kill everyone and that people should have one safe partner or always
use a condom.
2 . Shotgun. A serious advertisement likening intravenous drug use to playing
Russian roulette. The advertisement focuses on a young couple with a syringe
hesitating over who will go first. The message is that one shot from a contami-
nated needle is enough to kill you.
3. Informution brochures. A humorous advertisement for various AIDS bro-
chures on safer sex, condoms, and talking to children about AIDS.
4. Beach party. An advertisement showing young people at a beach party and
focusing on a girl who turns down the offer of a shared needle.
5 . Playing footsie. A humorous advertisement focusing on a couple in bed,
giggling and playing footsie. The message is “No condom, no sex.”
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1885

6 . Beds I. A serious advertisement that contrasts the romantic scene of a cou-

ple in bed with a broader shot of couples in multiple beds. The message is that
you should always use a condom because you can never be sure just how many
people you are really going to bed with.
7 . Everybody. An advertisement emphasizing that AIDS can affect all Aus-
tralians and that AIDS prevention is everybody’s responsibility.
8 . Beds ZI. A dramatic advertisement featuring a young couple about to go to
bed on a bed that is covered with upright syringes. The message is to use a con-
dom because your partner could have slept with someone who has been doing
drugs and has shared needles.
9. Sex. Two humorous (and very similar) advertisements in which a popular
Australian comedian asks a series of young people about sex and condom use.
The message is that condoms can be fun and that it is okay to carry them around
with you.
10. Testimonials. A series of four short, emotional advertisements in which
four AIDS victims (in silhouette to protect their identity) speak in turn about how
they contracted the AIDS virus.
1 1 . Experts. A series of three statements by experts from different back-
grounds who explain that AIDS cannot be contracted from casual everyday con-
tact and who counsel against unnecessary fear of, and prejudice against, those
with AIDS.

Procedure

Participants were tested in two sessions with approximately 30 students in

each session. They watched and evaluated each of the 1 1 commercials in turn.
First, participants rated the commercial on four 9-point bipolar scales: emo-
tional-unemotional, pleasant-unpleasant, informative-uninformative, and efec-
tive-inefective. Second, they rated how much each of four targets (self, students
in general, nonstudents, and people in general) would be influenced by the com-
mercial, on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (not influenced at all) to 9 (extremely
influenced).3 Ratings of media influence on these four targets were completed in
this one fixed order. Although it was less relevant theoretically, the target “people
in general” was included for comparability with previous third-person studies.
After all 1 1 commercials were shown, participants responded to a single item
asking “How much do you identify with being a university student?’ on a 9-point

)In studies of third-person perceptions, respondents are typically asked to estimate the extent to
which certain types of media content will influence their attitudes and the attitudes of others.
Although it is possible that the word “influence” encourages third-person perceptions. alternative
approaches to measuring perceived media impact (e.g., by asking respondents to estimate the percent-
age o f neutral viewers who would become more negative to Israel after viewing news coverage of the
Beirut massacre; Vallone et al., 1985) have also revealed third-person effects.
1886 DUCK ET AL.

scale ranging from 1 (not much at all) to 9 (ven, much). Previous research (e.g.,
Hogg & Hains, 1996; Terry & Hogg, 1996) has shown that this item is a good
indicator of identification. In factor analyses of multiple items measuring identi-
fication, this single item (with a factor loading of approximately 0.80) usually
defines the factor.
In a subsequent session, 1 week later, 40 students from the original sample
were also asked the extent to which university students in general would think
that it is good to be influenced by each of the 11 advertisements, on a %point
scale ranging from 1 (not much at alI) to 9 (very much). The task was introduced
by suggesting that although students may believe that AIDS commercials in
general are a good thing, they may think that some AIDS advertisements are
more relevant and appropriate than are others. Participants were asked to recall
each of the 1 1 advertisements in turn (prompted by short titles, e.g., “Grim
Reaper,” “Shotgun”) and to indicate the extent to which university students in
general would think that it is good to be influenced by each advertisement. We
were not interested in memory or recall per se. Rather, we reasoned that the col-
lection of these ratings of normative acceptability at a subsequent session. rather
than in the original testing session, would serve to reduce possible demand char-
acteristics. The stimulus advertisements were vivid, familiar, and limited in num-
ber, and students reported no difficulty in recalling and evaluating them in this
manner.

Selection of Subsets oJ’Advertisements

Normative acceptance ofinfluence. Mean ratings of each advertisement on

the item asking whether students think it is good to be influenced by this adver-
tisement revealed the following rank order: Advertisement 10 (Testimonials, M =
7.35), 8 (Beds 11, M = 6.98), 6 (Beds I, M = 6.88), 5 (Playing footsie, M = 6.75),
9 (Sex, M = 6.70), 1 1 (Experts, M = 6.15). 7 (Everybody, M = 5.97), 2 (Shotgun,
M = 5.68). 3 (Information Brochures, M = 5 . 3 3 ) , 1 (Grim Reaper, M = 4.98), and
4 (Beach party, M = 3.43). Using a median split, Advertisements 10, 8 , 6 , 5 , and 9
were classified as the advertisements for which normative acceptance of influ-
ence was strongest.4

lMean responses to the same item obtained from an independent sample o f 140 first-year psy-
chology students (55 males and 85 females; Magc= 18.63 years. SD = 1.03) indicated a similar rank
order: Advertisement 10 (Testimonials, .\I= 7.32). 8 (Beds II. .&.I=
7.28). 6 (Beds I. M = 7.25). 9 (Sex,
.U = 6.91), 5 (Playing footsie, A4 = 6.81), 1 (Grim Reaper, M = 6.72), 2 (Shotgun, M = 6.63). I 1
(Experts. M = 6.37). 7 (Everybody. M = 5.71 ), 3 (Information Brochures, M = 5.22), and 4 (Beach
Party, M = 5.00). Using a median split. Advertisements 10. 8, 6, 5, and 9 were again classified as the
advertisements for which normative acceptance of influence was strongest-and this selection held
for both male and female participants. despite some significant gender differences in the ratings of
particular advertisements.
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1887

Other defining characteristics. Items assessing the advertisements in terms of

the characteristics, emotional-unemotional, pleasant-unpleasant, effective-
ineffective, informative-uninformative were subjected to principal components
analysis. Two components with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted
accounting for 94% of the variance. The first factor accounted for 69% of the
variance (eigenvalue = 2.75) and the second for 25% (eigenvalue = 1.01). The
two factors differentiated between perceived emotional tone (defined in terms of
emotionality and pleasantness) and perceived informativeness (defined in terms
of informativeness and effectiveness). The mean response to the two items defin-
ing each factor was used to describe the advertisements in terms of these two fea-
tures. Using a median split on these measures, advertisements I0 (Testimonials).
1 1 (Experts), 6 (Beds I), 8 (Beds II), 7 (Everybody), and 9 (Sex) were classified
as the informative advertisements, and advertisements I (Grim Reaper), 2 (Shot-
gun), 8 (Beds II), 10 (Testimonials), and 6 (Beds I ) were classified as the emo-
tional advertisements.
It should be noted that, while there was necessarily a deal of overlap in the
three subsets of stimulus advertisements thus formed (e.g., Advertisements 10, 8.
and 6 featured in all three classifications). However, these subsets distinguished
between advertisements that were chosen simply on the basis of being the ones
students would say it is best to be influenced by, or on the basis of being the most
emotional advertisements, or on the basis of being the most informative adver-
tisements.

Classification ofthe Participants

Using a median split on scores on the item measuring identification with uni-
versity students ( M = 5.98, SD = 2.37, Mdn = 6), participants were classified as
low identifiers ( n = 30) or high identifiers ( n = 28). As intended, low and high
identifiers differed significantly in their strength of identification with the student
in-group (Ms = 4.13 and 7.96), ((56)= - 10.48, p < .001. Preliminary checks also
indicated that identification was correlated with age, r(S7) = -.47, p < .OO 1, such
that younger students identified more strongly with the student community. Thus,
in the following analyses, steps were taken to demonstrate that any effects of group
identification on perceptions of media influence were not confounded with age.

Results

Perceived lnfltrence of the I1 AIDS Advertisements

Using influence ratings averaged across all 11 commercials, the effects of iden-
tification (low, high) on perceptions of influence on self, students, nonstudents,
and people in general (target) were examined in a 2 x 4 mixed ANOVA with
1888 DUCK ET AL

8
6'01
5.8

-2
2
B
5.6

.-
i
$1
5.4

'E
5.2

5.0
LOW High
Identification
Target 19 Self
69 Students
Non-suknts
Pboplc

Figure I . Mean perceived influence of 1 1 AIDS commercials on self, students. nonstu-

dents, and people in general.

repeated measures on the second factor.5 There was no significant main effect for
identification, F( I , 56) = 1.4 I , ns, or for target, F ( 3 , 168) = 2.03, ns. but as
expected, there was a significant Identification x Target interaction, F(3, 168) =
3.06, p < .05 (Figure I ). Results of planned contrasts indicate that low identifiers
displayed the typical third-person effect perceiving themselves ( M = 5.17) as less
influenced than the target others ( M s = 5.50 students, 5.66 nonstudents, and 5.57
people in general; p < .05; Hypothesis 1 ). By contrast, high identifiers perceived
self and others to be equally influenced by AIDS advertising, and there was no evi-
dence to indicate that high identifiers perceived self ( M = 5.7 l ) and students ( M =
5.66) as more influenced than nonstudents ( M = 5.63). As expected (Hypothesis
2), high identifiers were more willing than low identifiers to acknowledge the
influence of AIDS advertising on themselves (Ms = 5.7 1 and 5.17, p < .05) and, to
a lesser extent, on the student in-group ( M s = 5.66 and 5.50), although this latter
difference was not significant. Moreover, consistent with Hypothesis 3, high iden-
tifiers also differentiated less clearly between self and in-group others (Ms = 5.71
and 5.66, ns) than did low identifiers ( M s = 5.17 and 5.50, p < .05). However,
5Preliminary analyses including gender of the subject as a between-subject variable indicated a
significant main effect for sex, F( I , 53) = 1 0 . 9 4 . ~< .01. but no interactions with identification or tar-
get. Overall. female respondents perceived the AlDSiHlV advertisements to have more influence
than did male respondents (M.v = 5.74 and 5.19).
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1889

contrary to expectations (Hypothesis 4), there was no evidence to suggest that high
identifiers differentiated more clearly than low identifiers between in-group and
out-group others (Ms = 5.66 and 5.63, ns, high identifiers; Ms = 5.50 and 5.66. p <
.lo, low identifiers).
When age was included as a covariate in this analysis, the effect of age was
nonsignificant, F( 1, 5 5 ) = 1.31, ns. Moreover, correlational analyses revealed
that age was unrelated to perceptions of influence on self (Y = -.Ol), students (Y =
-.23). and nonstudents (Y = -.22) and only weakly related to perceptions of influ-
ence on people in general ( Y = -.28, p < .05).

Perceived Influence of Advertisements for Which Influence Is Normatively

Acceptable

A second analysis focused on the perceived impact of the subset of five AIDS
commercials that students thought it was best to be influenced by, and, as
expected, patterns in this context were more consistent with theoretical predic-
tions. As in the first analysis, there was no significant main effect for identifica-
tion, F( 1 , 5 6 ) = 1.55, ns, or for target, F(3, 168) = 1.27, ns, but there was a
significant Identification x Target interaction, F(3, 168) = 3 . 5 1 , < ~ .05 (Figure
2). Results of planned contrasts indicate, as expected (Hypothesis I ) , that low
identifiers displayed the typical third-person effect perceiving self ( M = 5.69) as
less influenced than others by AIDS advertising ( M s = 6.21 students, 6.30 non-
students, and 6.25 people in general, p < .05). By contrast, high identifiers tended
to perceive self(M= 6.48) and students ( M = 6.46) as somewhat more influenced
than nonstudents ( M = 6 . 2 4 , ~ < .lo). As expected (Hypothesis 2). compared with
low identifiers, high identifiers were more willing to acknowledge the influence
of AIDS advertising on themselves ( M s = 6.48 and 5 . 6 9 , < ~ .05) and on the stu-
dent in-group ( M s = 6.46 and 6.21, ns), although this latter difference was not
significant. Consistent with Hypotheses 3 and 4, respectively, high identifiers
also differentiated less clearly between self and in-group others ( M s = 6.48 and
6.46, ns) than did low identifiers (Ms = 5.69 and 6.21, p < .05), and differentiated
more clearly between in-group and out-group others (Ms = 6.46 and 6.24, p < .05
high identifiers; Ms = 6.2 1 and 6.30, ns, low identifiers).
When age was included as a covariate in this analysis. the effect of age was
nonsignificant, F( I , 5 5 ) = 0.23, ns. Moreover, correlational analyses revealed that
age was unrelated to perceptions of influence on self ( Y = .05, ns), or on others
(Y = -.18, ns, students; r = -. 13, ns, nonstudents; and -.23, ns, people in general).

Perceived Influence of the Informative and Emotional Advertisements

Similar analyses also were performed using influence ratings averaged across
the six informative and five emotional advertisements, respectively. The mean
1890 DUCK ET AL.

5.6
LOW High
Identification
Target 61 self
Students
Non-studcnu
People

Figure 2. Mean perceived influence o f five negatively acceptable AIDS commercials on

self. students. nonstudents. and people in general.

perceived influence of these advertisements on the four targets is prescnted in

Table 1. As expected, analyses based on these subsets of advertisements were not
as supportive of predictions as analyses based on the subset of advertisements
chosen on the basis of normative acceptability.
In the analysis of the perceived impact of the informative advertisements,
there was no significant main effect for identification, F( I , 56) = 0.15, ns, or for
target, F(3, 168) = 1.85, ns, but there was a significant Identification x Target
interaction, F ( 3 , 168) = 2.98, p < .05. Results of planned contrasts indicate that
low identitiers perceived themselves ( M = 5.66) as less influenced than the target
others ( M s = 5.98 students, 6.17 nonstudents, and 6.17 people in general, [ J < .05;
Hypothesis 1). However, although there was some tendency for high identifiers
to differentiate less clearly between self and in-group others ( M s = 6.15 and 5.99,
ns) than low identifiers ( M s = 5.66 and 5.98, p < . l o ; Hypothesis 3), other
planned contrasts were not significant.
In the analysis of the perceived impact of the emotional advertisements, there
was a marginally significant main effect for identification, F( I , 56) = 3.42, p <
.lo, and no main effect for target, F(3. 168) = 0.17, ns. The Identification x Tar-
get interaction was marginally significant, F ( 3 , 168) = 2.44, p < . l o , and,
although planned comparisons between means were generally in the expected
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1891

Table 1

Mean Perceived lnjluence of Informative and Emotional AIDS Advertisements on

the Four Targets as a Function of Strength of Student Identification

Target
Non- People in
Self Students students general
Informative advertisements
Low ( n = 30) 5.66 5.98 6.17 6.17
High ( n = 28) 6.15 5.99 6.00 6.16
Emotional advertisements
Low ( n = 30) 5.79 6.05 6.19 5.95
High ( n = 28) 6.54 6.42 6.29 6.42
Note. Scale range is 1 (not influenced at all) to 9 (extremely influenced).

directions, only one planned contrast was significant: High identifiers were more
willing than low identifiers to acknowledge the influence of AIDS advertising on
themselves ( M s = 6.54 and 5.79, p < .05).

Discussion

Taken together, these results provide evidence for the role of group processes
in third-person perceptions. Although based on a relatively small sample, our
findings suggest that perceived self-other differences in persuasion reflect both
the social psychological relationship between self and other and in-group norms
concerning the acknowledgment of persuasive influence. Indeed, by demonstrat-
ing perceptions of unique invulnerability to AIDS messages on the part of stu-
dents who did not identify strongly with the student community (low identifiers).
and a tendency toward perceptions of relative vulnerability on the part of
students who identified strongly with the student in-group (high identifiers), our
results provide some indication of the potential importance of the social-nornia-
tive context in determining both the magnitude and direction of perceived self-
other differences. To this extent, our results support and extend Davison’s (1 983)
early speculation that “the concept of reference groups may prove useful in
explaining the third-person effect” (p. 12) and accord with our theoretical empha-
sis (viz. social identity theory and self-categorization theory) on the interdepen-
dence of individual cognition and social influence (e.g., Turner, 1991).
As expected, analysis of respondents’ perceptions of the impact of 1 1 AIDS
advertisements on self and other provided some support for hypotheses drawn
1892 DUCK ET AL

from current theories of group membership. Respondents’ perceptions of media

impact on the four targets (self. students. nonstudents. people in general) varied
according to their level of identification with the student in-group. Respondents
who did not identify strongly with the student in-group (low identifiers) dis-
played the typical third-person effect (Hypothesis 1). perceiving themselves as
less influenced than others. Respondents who identified strongly with the student
in-group (high identifiers) did not perceive self and students as more influenced
than nonstudents (cf. Hypothesis 1 )-however, compared with low identifiers,
high identifiers were more willing to acknowledge the impact of AIDS commer-
cials on themselves (Hypothesis 2 ) and, to a lesser extent, on the student in-
group. They also differentiated less clearly between self and in-group others (an
assimilation effect; Hypothesis 3 ) . although there was no evidence of an accom-
panying intergroup contrast between in-group and out-group members (cf.
Hypothesis 4).
Consistent with our predictions, there was stronger support for our hypothe-
ses in a second analysis which examined the perceived impact of a subset of five
advertisements for which influence was deemed to be most acceptable within the
student in-group. As in the first analysis. respondents’ perceptions of media
influence on the four targets varied significantly according to their level of iden-
tification with the student in-group. Low identifiers perceived themselves as less
influenced than others in a typical third-person effect. whereas high identifiers
showed some tendency to perceive self and students as ,nore influenced than
nonstudents (Hypothesis 1). Compared with low identifiers, high identifiers were
more willing to acknmvledge the impact of AIDS commercials on themselves
and, to a lesser extent, on the student in-group (Hypothesis 2). They ditf‘erenti-
ated less clearly between self and in-group others (an assimilation effect;
Hypothesis 3). and somewhat more clearly between in-group and out-group (a
contrast effect: Hypothesis 4). In short. their perceptions of media influence
revealed “us-them” distinctions, with “us” being portrayed as more influenced
than “them” by these normatively acceptable advertisements.
Moreover, results of a third set of analyses that examined the perceived
impact of subsets of informative and emotional advertisements did not yield the
same improved level of support for our predictions-a finding that is notable,
given the overlap that existed in the groups of advertisements that were classified
as normatively acceptable, informative, and emotional. The use of a limited pool
of existing AIDS/HIV advertisements precluded selection of advertisements that
differed only on the dimension of normative acceptability. The decision to collect
ratings of normative acceptability in a subsequent session and from only a por-
tion of the original sample precluded the use of a covariance approach in our
analyses. In an attempt to address this potential confounding more systematically,
future research might use analyses which examine the relations among identi-
fication. normative acceptability, and perceived influence after controlling for
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1893

perceived emotionality and perceived informativeness (and indeed for other

potential confounding factors such as perceived vividness of the advertisements).
Our results suggest that, in comparative contexts where personal identity is
salient, people perceive themselves to be unique and different from others. Stu-
dents who do not identify strongly with the student community perceive them-
selves to be uniquely invulnerable to the influence of AIDS advertisements. A
general reluctance to admit personal persuasibility may underlie such percep-
tions, even in the context of public-service campaigns that promote personally
beneficial and socially desirable outcomes-hence, the ubiquity of the third-
person effect (cf. Perloff, 1993). The strength of this tendency may reflect both a
cultural emphasis on individual freedom and self-determination (cf. Triandis,
1990; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990), and a particular reluctance to deny per-
sonal persuasibility in the context of mass-media messages. Indeed, as noted by
Rosenthal et al. (1992), although television and other media are the most com-
mon sources of information about HIV/AIDS, they are also considered by ado-
lescents to be the least trustworthy. Of course, low identifiers may be sexually
active and practice safer sex, but they perceive that the safer-sex message has
reached them via sources other than media advertising (cf. Gunther & Mundy,
1993). It is also possible that respondents who do not identify with the student in-
group perceive that they are less influenced than others (including students in
general) because they have a sexual lifestyle that makes AIDS advertising less
relevant to them, personally.
Reports suggest that university students tend to be sexually active. have multi-
ple partners, and be a high-risk group for AIDS transmission (e.g., Goodwin &
Roscoe, 1988).This image may prompt dis-identification on the part of students
who are in a committed, safe relationship (e.g., older respondents who have been
married for some time) or in a relationship that does not involve sex (e.g., students
who, for religious or moral reasons, do not believe in sex before marriage). How-
ever, results from a more extensive survey of 140 first-year psychology students
(see Footote 4) indicated that, although low identifiers did perceive AIDS adver-
tising as less relevant to them personally (Ms = 5.61 and 7.21), t( 135) = - 4 . 5 2 , ~<
.001, on a 9-point rating scale, there were no significant differences in self-
reported sexual lifestyle for respondents low and high in identification (e.g., in
terms of the number who had had sexual intercourse, x2(1) = 0.03. in terms of
the number of sexual partners during the last 12 months. x2( 1) = 0.00. or in terms
of the number who reported that they had sex exclusively within a safe rela-
tionship, x2( 1) = 0.14. Moreover, low identifiers saw themselves as being more at
risk of contracting the HIV virus (Ms = 2.71 and 2.12), t( 135) = 1.95, p = .053,
and as being less aware of the need to practice safer sex (Ms = 7.96 and 8.54),
t( 135) = -2.58, p < .05. Thus, perceptions of self as uniquely invulnerable to
AIDSIHIV advertising may be veridical, reflecting the fact that respondents who
do not identify with the student community have resisted the safer-sex message.
1894 DUCK ET AL.

By contrast, our results suggest that, in comparative contexts where social

identity is salient, people’s perceptions of media impact on self and others reflect
a shared social rather than a unique individual identity. High identifiers were
more willing to acknowledge the impact of AIDS advertisements on themselves
and, to a lesser extent, on their student in-group, consistent with our rationale that
it is socially acceptable to acknowledge the impact of AIDS advertisements
within the student community. These results are encouraging from a practical
angle since people who are willing to acknowledge the impact of AIDS adver-
tisements are more likely to be amenable to the desired behavioral and attitudinal
change. However. it must be stressed that a perception of self and in-group others
as more influenced than out-group others was only apparent in the context of a
subset of advertisements for which normative acceptance of influence was
clear-the perception of relative vulnerability and the anticipated “us-them” dis-
tinction was not apparent in judgments of the impact of the 1 1 advertisements
overall, or in judgments of subsets of advertisements classified as informative or
emotional. High identifiers did not merely perceive self and students as more
responsive than nonstudents to AIDS advertisements in general, perhaps because
the social identity. student, was only indirectly related to the issue at hand, AIDS
advertising. Rather, respondents perceived self and students as more responsive
than nonstudents to those AIDS advertisements which students say it is good to
be influenced by-advertisements which focused on young people with whom
university students might identify. These results parallel previous findings (Duck,
Hogg, et al., 1995) which showed that “us-them” distinctions in judgments of
political campaign impact were more pronounced when respondents considered
the impact of campaign content which explicitly favored one or other political
side--content for which normative beliefs about the acknoNledgment (or denial)
of influence were presumably unambiguous within the political in-group.
At a theoretical level. these results suggest that. when message content is
related to a salient social categorization, perceivers accentuate both the similari-
ties between self and in-group others in terms of level of impact (an assimilation
effect) and the differences between in-group and out-group others (a contrast
effect), perceiving their in-group as positively distinct, relative to the out-group.
This is consistent with social identity theory’s positive distinctiveness (e.g.,
Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-esteem hypothesis (Hogg & Abrams, 1990), in
which evaluative bias in favor of own-group identities can be viewed as a conse-
quence of social identification-an extension of self-esteem at the group level
(e.g.. Brown, Collins, & Schmidt, 1988; Crocker, Blaine, & Luhtanen, 1993;
Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). Results also accord with self-categorization theory
in suggesting that evidence of in-group favoritism is more pronounced on evalua-
tive dimensions that are relevant to the social categorization (Turner et a]., 1987).
The results are also of importance at a practical or applied level. To the extent
that perceptions of relative vulnerability to influence reflect openness to attitude
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1895

change, it is important both to identify and understand those contexts in which

generalized perceptions of (unique) invulnerability are reversed. Our results sug-
gest that i t may be naive to assume that people are willing to acknowledge
(unique) vulnerability in the context of all public-service messages or cam-
paigns-concerns about vulnerability to media influence may simply be too
entrenched. Rather, our results underline the importance of producing media
advertisements that are “accepted” in a normative sense by target audiences such
as students, and hence that have the potential to counteract a more generalized
norm for the denial of personal persuasibility. However, even then, only audience
members who identify strongly with the salient reference group may acknowl-
edge the personal impact of these advertisements. At one level it is perhaps not
surprising to find that people are more likely to acknowledge personal influence
when messages are deemed socially acceptable. However, our results suggest
that social acceptability is not simply inherent in the type of persuasive content
(i.e.. AIDSIHIV advertisements) or even in the specific types of advertisements
(i.e., that the student group says it is good to be influenced by). Rather, willing-
ness to acknowledge influence may be a function of both strength of identifica-
tion with a salient reference group and normative acceptance of influence within
that group. That is, it may be a function of the specific social-normative context.
In conclusion, these results highlight the need to reemphasize the role of
social groups, not only in understanding persuasion per se, but also in under-
standing perceptions of the persuasive impact of messages on self and other. Our
findings suggest that perceptions of unique invulnerability to persuasion (third-
person effects) are not inevitable and universal-at least where the media mes-
sage is positive in nature (cf. Perloff, 1993). Our results are also consistent with
those on a related phenomenon-illusions of unique invulnerability to negative
life events-in indicating that perceived self-other differences are sensitive to
the psychological relationship between self and other (Perloff & Fetzer, 1986).
Moreover, our results extend this work by directing theoretical attention to the
importance of the social psychological relationship between self and other in
terms of salient group memberships. Finally, in suggesting that in-group norms
for the acknowledgment of personal influence can reverse typical third-person
perceptions, these results complement previous findings which have identified
contexts in which the third-person effect is eliminated or reversed (e.g., Duck &
Mullin, 1995; Duck, Terry, et al., 1995; Gunther & Mundy, 1993; Gunther &
Thorson, 1992).
Of course, the particular pattern of results obtained in the present study may
be specific to the nature of the association between the social category (univer-
sity students) and the media content (AIDS/HIV advertising), and different
hypotheses about the direction of perceived self-other differences in influence
might be drawn in different comparative contexts. Future research must consider
the perceived influence of AIDWHIV advertising in the context of other salient
1896 DUCK ET AL

or relevant social identities (e.g., gays or heterosexuals) and, more generally. to

examine in-group/out-group tendencies in a broader range of persuasive con-
texts. Nonetheless, this study contributes to mounting evidence from an ongoing
research project (Duck, Hogg. et al., 1995: Duck & Mullin, 1995) which indi-
cates that group processes underlie third-person perceptions. Our results suggest
that theoretical accounts of group processes (e.g.. social identity theory and self-
categorization theory) that have provided useful frameworks from u hich to
examine the influence of group membership on persuasion ( e g , McGarty et al.,
1994) also provide a useful theoretical basis from which to explore the role of
group processes in the third-person effect. Future research might seek to inte-
grate more closely findings from these two research domains, and thus provide a
more general account of the role of social-normative factors in the persuasion
process.

References

Brewer. M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cogni-

tive-motivational analysis. Psjrholo,qical Biilletin, 86, 307-324.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer. R. M. ( I 985). The psychology of intergroup attitudes
and behaviors. Anriiial Revie){,of Psjrhologj; 36, 2 19-244.
Brown, J . D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt. G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and direct
versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. JoiirmI of’Persorinlitynnd Social
P . ~ j ~ c h o l o55.
~ ~445-453.
.
Cohen, J.. Mutz. D., Price. V., & Gunther. A. (1988). Perceived impact ofdefa-
mat ion: An experiment on third-person effects. Pzihlic Opinion Qiiarit~rlj:52,
161-173.
Crawford. J.. Turtle, A.. & Kippax, S. (1990). Student-favoured strategies for
AIDS avoidance. Azistralian Journal qfPsychologv, 42, 123- 137.
Crocker, J., Blaine. B.. & Luhtanen, R. (1993). Prejudice, intergroup behaviour,
and self-esteem: Enhancement and protection motives. In M. A. Hogg & D.
Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 52-
67). London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and in-group bias.
Journal of Personality and Social Psvcliologv, 5 8 , 6 0 4 7 .
Davison. W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 47, 1 - 1 5.
Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. ( 1 995). Me, us, and them: Political iden-
tification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election.
European Joirrnal of Social Psychologv. 25, 195-2 15.
Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B-A. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media:
Reconsidering the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Pqrhol-
OD, 25, 77-93.
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1897

Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1995). The perceived influence of
AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media con-
tent. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17,305-325.
Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif & M. 0.
Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. 232-256). New York,
N Y Harper.
Gibbon, P., & Durkin, K. (1995). The third-person effect: Social distance and
perceived media bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25,597-602.
Goodwin, M . P., & Roscoe, B. (1988). AIDS: Students’ knowledge and attitudes
at a Midwestern university. Journal of American College Health, 36, 2 14-
222.
Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the
third-person effect. Communication Research, 18,355-372.
Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and
support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Con7mztnication, 45, 237-
238.
Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. ( 1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect.
Journalism Quarterlv, 70, 58-67.
Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product
commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new
domains. Communication Research, 19. 574-596.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychologv of interpersonal relations New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Hogg, M. A. ( 1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attrm-
tion to social identity. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A socialpsycholo,g~
of intergroup relations and group processes. London, UK: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem, and social
identity. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory. Con-
structive and critical advances (pp. 28-47). London, UK: Harvester Wheat-
sheaf.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity:
Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychologv, 70,295-309.
Innes, J. M., & Zeitz, H. (1988). The public’s view of the impact of the mass
media: A test of the “third person” effect. European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 18,457-463.
Lasorsa, D. (1989). Real and perceived effects of “Amerika.” Journalism Quar-
terly, 66, 373-378, 529.
Mackie, D. M., Gastardo-Conaco, M. C., & Skelly, J. J. (1992). Knowledge of
the advocated position and the processing of in-group and out-group persua-
sive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 92, 145- 1 5 1.
1898 DUCK ET AL.

Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G . (1990). Processing of persuasive

in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 8 1 2-822.
McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., & Turner. J. C. (1994). The
effects of salient group memberships on persuasion. Small Group Research,
25, 267-293.
Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer. B. K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vul-
nerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholom, 50,
502-5 10.
Perloff, R. M. ( 1989). Ego-involvement and the third-person effect of televised
news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research, 1983-1992: A review and
synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167- 184.
Rosenthal, D. A., Hall, C., & Moore, S. M. (1992). AIDS, adolescents, and sex-
ual risk-taking: A test of the Health Belief Model. Ausfralian Psychologist,
27, 166-171.
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. Inter-
national Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2. 345-368.
Smith, R. (1986). Television addiction. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Per-
spectives on media effects (pp. 109- 128). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Struckman-Johnson. C. J., Gilliland, R. C., Struckman-Johnson, D. L., & North,
T. C. (1990). The effects of fear of AIDS and gender on responses to fear-
arousing condom advertisements. Journal q f Applied Social Psychology, 20,
1396- 1410.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In
W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The socialpsychology of intergroup ivla-
tions (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior rela-
tionship: A role for group identification. Personalip and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 776-793.
Triandis, H. C. ( 1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In
J. Bennan (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989 (Vol. 37 [cross-
cultural perspectives], pp. 41-133). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. ( 1 990). Multimethod probes of indi-
vidualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 1006- 1020.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H.
Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social-cogni-
tive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group pro-
cesses: Theory and research (Vol. 2 , pp. 77-1 22). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND PERCEIVED PERSUASION 1899

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University

Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S.
( 1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford,
UK: Basil Blackwell.
Vallone, R., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon:
Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut
massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog?i,490, 577-585.
van Knippenberg, D., & Wilke, H. A. M. ( I 992). Prototypicality of arguments
and conformity to in-group norms. European Journal of Social Psycholou,
22, 141-155.
Weinstein, N. D. ( 1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychologi,, 39, 806-820.
Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health
problems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 44 1-460.
Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won’t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors
and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3,43 1-457.
Wilder, D. A. (1 99 1 ). Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-groups
and out-groups: Organization of information and attribution of independence.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 1202- I2 13.