Abstract

This article examines how US activists articulated the third-person effect, a widespread perception that others are more influenced by media messages than the self is. The discursive, qualitative approach used here contrasts with surveys and experiments prevalent in TPE research: groups watched a news program and responded to non-directional questions in a naturalistic setting. Group members, who reported feeling better informed about current events than the average person, alternately identified themselves as invulnerable and vulnerable to media influence. Discourse analysis showed participants using the pronoun ‘they’ to distinguish themselves from the mass audience; however, they also used ‘I’, ‘we’ and ‘you’ to convey first-person and second-person perceptions, suggesting multiple and shifting identifications. This study reveals three conversational strategies — role-playing, inventing dialogue and posing hypothetical statements — through which even people who feel a sense of ‘media superiority’ over others imagine themselves being susceptible to mainstream news. The results, derived from a context allowing people to express mobile and conflicting identities, have implications both for communication scholarship and for social-change agents.