Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wahrnehmungsphänomene

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbuch Medienwirkungsforschung

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturtipps

  • Huck, I. (2009). Wahrnehmungen und Wahrnehmungsphänomene im Agenda-Setting-Prozess. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The Influence of Presumed Influence. Journal of Communication 53, 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Literatur

  • Allport, F. H. (1924). Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Miff lin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arnett, J. J. (2000). Optimistic Bias in Adolescent and Adult Smokers and Nonsmokers. Addictive Behaviors 25, 625–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. M. (2008). Sozialpsychologie (4. Aufl.). München: Pearson Studium.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, V. A., Lovegrove, H., Williams, A., & Macpherson, M. (2000). Unrealisltic Optimism and the Health Belief Model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 23, 367–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, W. P. (1983). The Third-Person-Effect in Communication. Public Opinion Quarterly 47, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Donsbach, W. (1991). Medienwirkung trotz Selektion. Einfl ussfaktoren auf die Zuwendung zu Zeitungsinhalten. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Esser, H. (2000). Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 2: Die Konstruktion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public Beliefs about the Beliefs of the Public. Public Opinion Quarterly 40, 427–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, J. (1993). Primary Error Detection and Minimization (PEDMIN) Strategies in Social Cognition: A Reinterpretation of Confirmation Bias Phenomena. Psychological Review 100, 298–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The Correspondence Bias. Psychological Bulletin 117, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 539–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, A. C. (1992). Bias Press or Biased Public? Attitudes Toward Media Coverage of Social Groups. Public Opinion Quarterly 56, 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, A. C. (1998). The Persuasive Press Inference: Effects of Mass Media on Perceived Public Opinion. Communication Research 25, 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad Reach or Biased Source? Decomposing the Hostile Media Effect. Journal of Communication 56, 449–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The Influence of Presumed Influence. Journal of Communication 53, 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck, I. (2009). Wahrnehmungen und Wahrnehmungsphänomene im Agenda-Setting-Prozess. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huck, I., & Brosius, H.-B. (2007). Der Third-Person-Effekt – Über den vermuteten Einfluss der Massenmedien. Publizistik 52, 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck, I., Quiring, O., & Brosius, H.-B. (2009). Perceptual phenomena in the agenda setting process. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 21, 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kepplinger, H. M., & Roth, H. (1978). Kommunikation in der Ölkrise des Winters 1973 / 74. Ein Paradigma für Wirkungsstudien. Publizistik 23, 337–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapper, J. (1960). Effects of Mass Communication. Toronto: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lo, V.-H., & Wei, R. (2002). Third-Person Effect, Gender, and Pornography on the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 46, 13–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten Years of Research on the False-Consensus Effect: An Empirical and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin 102, 72–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2003). Schrödergegen Stoiber – Nutzung, Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der TV-Duelle. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, C., & Copper, C. (1992). Ingroup-Outgroup Differences in Social Projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28, 422–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). Öff entliche Meinung. Die Entdeckung der Schweigespirale. Frankfurt a. M.: Ullstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roessing, T. (2011). Schweigespirale. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossmann, C. (2010). Zur theorie- und evidenzbasierten Fundierung massenmedialer Gesundheitskampagnen. Public Health Forum 18, 16–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., & Royzman, B. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why Partisans see Mass Media as Biased. Communication Research 31, 623–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., Shen, L., & Pan, Z. (2008). On the Behavioral Component of the Third-Person-Effect. Communication Research, 35, 257–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. G. (1982). Pluralistic Ignorance and the Spiral of Silence. A Formal Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 46, 311–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The Child in America. Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. C. (1999). Illusions of Control: How We Overestimate Our Personal Influence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8, 187–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1960). On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic Optimism about Future Life Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 806–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic Optimism about Susceptibility to Health Problems: Conclusions from a Community-Wide Sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 10, 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D. (1998). Accuracy of Smokers’ Risk Perceptions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 20, 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolling, J. (1999). Politikverdrossenheit durch Massenmedien ? Der Einfl uss der Medien auf die Einstellungen der Bürger zur Politik. Opladen, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft und Medienforschung, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München, München, Deutschland

    Christina Peter & Prof. Dr. Hans-Bernd Brosius

Authors
  1. Christina Peter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Dr. Hans-Bernd Brosius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Peter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ilmenau, Thüringen, Germany

    Wolfgang Schweiger

  2. Inst. f. Kommunikationswiss. u. Medienf., Univ. München, Oettingenstr. 67, München, 80538, Germany

    Andreas Fahr

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peter, C., Brosius, HB. (2013). Wahrnehmungsphänomene. In: Schweiger, W., Fahr, A. (eds) Handbuch Medienwirkungsforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18967-3_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18967-3_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-18158-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-18967-3

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation