THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

Examining the Third-Person Perception on News Consumers Intention to Pay

Since the mid-1990s, news media organizations have wrangled with how to
incorporate the digital needs of news consumers in an economically sustainable way. This
effort began most notably with the introduction of news websites and has branched out into
mobile news applications (i.e., apps) in recent years. Yet, the business outlook for digital
content remains of major concern to the majority of news media organizations. As they try to
maintain their audiences, these organizations continue to search for new delivery platforms to
offset their shrinking revenues on legacy products. Most recently, they have begun adopting
paywalls on digital platforms (Adams, 2012; Edmonds, Guskin, Mitchell, & Jurkowitz, 2013).
As of May 2014, among nearly 1,400 daily newspapers in North America, more than 450 had
erected some form of online paywall (News&Tech, 2014). While newspaper publishers
believe the success of paywalls could play a central role in the drive for newspaper
sustainability and that trade publications tend to frame such experiments as success stories
(Jurkowitz & Mitchell, 2013; Wells, 2013), the actual number of digital subscribers has been
either underwhelming when reported or concealed entirely from the public (Edmonds, 2013a;
Roberts, 2013). Academic research also suggests that most news consumers are reluctant to
pay for online content (Chyi, 2012; Cook & Attari, 2012). In contrast, the print edition
remains the core product, accounting for more than 85% of advertising revenue (Newspaper
Association of America, 2012a). Moreover, despite declines in print circulation, many

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

newspapers have raised the price of their print edition to increase circulation revenue
(Edmonds, 2013a; Wells, 2013).
News consumers general resistance to digital subscriptions, albeit understandable
(Who wants to pay for what was once free if they dont have to?), provides an opportunity to
test and extend a well-established communication theorythe third-person effectto a new
territorymedia economics. Davison (1983) discovered an interesting inconsistency in
peoples perception of themselves and others nearly three decades ago, noting that
individuals tend to think other people are more likely to be negatively influenced by mass
media than they are. This perceptual disparity between self and others is generally known in
communication research as the third-person perception. Such perceptual distortion has
been found to be consistent in a variety of contexts, with a wide range of behavioral
implications (Perloff, 1993; Price, Tewksbury, & Huang, 1998; Sun, Pan & Shen, 2008;
Tsfati & Cohen, 2003), but it has never been tested in the area of media economics.
Integrating principles from media economics and communication research, this exploratory
study examines the inconsistency between news consumers willingness to support news
media through the acceptance of paywalls and their perceptions of others to do the same.
To examine the value of traditional versus digital news products as perceived by news
consumers, a national survey of more than 700 Internet users was conducted to empirically
investigate the effect of the third-person perception on paying intent for different news
products (print, Web, and apps). In doing so, this study yields suggestive results that extend

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

third-person research to media economics and offers a stronger understanding of the way in
which consumers evaluate multiplatform news products when money is on the line.
Literature Review
Third-Person Perception & Self-Enhancement Bias
Third-person research examines the disparate perception of media effects on self versus
others (also known as third-person perception, or TPP) and subsequent behavioral
consequences (also known as third-person effect, or TPE) (Sun, Pan & Shen, 2008). Its
central argument is that people tend to believe persuasive communication in mass media has
a greater effect on other people (e.g., those outside of ones own social group) than
themselves (Davison, 1983; Gunther, Perloff & Tsfati, 2008). While disagreement exists
regarding the psychological underpinnings of such an effect (Paul et al., 2000), the general
consensus encompasses two ideas: (1) most people are more likely to perceive themselves as
different from, if not superior to, others (Perloff, 2009), and (2) this tendency extends to a
wide range of situations and human behaviors (Kogut & Beyth-Marom, 2008; Messick,
Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985; Salwen & Driscoll, 1997). Contextually, the thirdperson perception is often moderated by (1) the perceived negativity or undesirability of a
message, (2) an assumption of others vulnerability, (3) an abstraction of others that comes
with social distance, and (4) the prevalence of a message (Eveland & McLeod, 1999; Perloff,
2009).
The third-person perception originated from peoples general belief that they are more
intelligent and more in control of their own lives than other people. Moreover, implicit in

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

traditional third-person studies is the assumption that being persuaded by mass media is
undesirable and harmful, which in turn makes those who can resist mass media influences
appear superior to others (Hoorens & Ruiter, 1996). For example, advertising studies have
found that people perceive others to be more influenced by commercials for household
products, liquor and beer, and cigarettes (Gunther & Thorson, 1992; Shah, Faber, & Youn,
1999). In communication studies, people consistently report that they believe others to be
more negatively influenced by pornography, antisocial rap music lyrics, and television
violence (Gunther, 1995; Lee & Tamborini, 2005; Lo & Wei, 2002; McLeod, Eveland, &
Nathanson, 1997; Salwen & Dupagne, 1999; Scharrer, 2002; Wu & Koo, 2001). Most thirdperson findings deal with the perceived impact of mass media messages, yet the theoretical
framework has been extended to non-mediated contexts such as interpersonal communication
and personal experience (Chapin, 2008; Hu, 2000; Johansson, 2005; Mason, 1995). Such
findings put forth the argument that key drivers of the third-person phenomenon have more
to do with psychological determinants of self-other evaluations in regards to undesirable
behaviors, and are not confined to attribution of message effects.
While the psychological underpinning of the third-person perception is contestable and
intricate (Brosius & Engel, 1996; David & Johnson, 1998; Lambe & McLeod, 2005), selfenhancement bias has emerged in the literature as one of many explanations for the observed
disparity between the self-other perception (McLeod, Detenber, & Eveland, 2006; Meirick,
2005; Johansson, 2005; Perloff, 1999; Perloff, 2009; Tal-Or, Tsfati, & Gunther, 2009). Selfenhancement bias refers to individuals desire to have a favorable view of themselves, which
motivates them to evaluate themselves more favorably than others (Duck & Mullin, 1995;

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

Gunther & Thorson, 1992). For example, people may believe that they are more resistant to
media influences because this allows them to feel good about themselves.
Self-enhancement is highly correlated with another similar concept, self-serving bias
(Krueger, 1998; Wei, Lo, & Lu, 2007). Research finds that people are more likely to rate
themselves in the top 50 percent of a variety of desirable skills such as driving, managerial
prowess, and productivity (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997). The common denominator
among third-person effects, self-enhancement bias, and self-serving bias is the perceptual
disconnect between peoples view of themselves and others (Li, 2008).
Self-Other Discrepancy in Economic Decision-Making
Does the aforementioned self-other discrepancy apply to economic behavior? In his
original study, Davison (1983) hinted at such possibility:
In times when supplies of consumer goods are irregular, there are always some
people who will rush to the stores the moment they heard reports of any possible
shortage. If you ask them why, the answer is likely to be that they are concerned
about the effects of these reports on other people. They want to stock up before the
hoarders remove all goods from the shelves (p. 13).
Traditionally, neo-classical economists study human behavior based on the
assumption that people are rational and capable of calculating costs and benefits when
making choices. The assumption has successfully helped identify a sizeable number of highly
predictable patterns of economic choices. For example, the laws of supply and demand
predict the relationship between price and quantity, which serve as the foundation of
microeconomics. Yet, rational choice framework has largely ignored the role of intrinsic
motivations in decision-making. To address such weaknesses, a group of behavioral
economists has further increased the explanatory power of economics by incorporating

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

psychological insights into consumer behavior research (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Rabin,
2004). Some such studies have documented the impact of the self-other discrepancy on
economic decision-making. For example, self-serving bias is found to be a key determinant
of bargaining impasse (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997). Other studies indicate buyers and
sellers tend to differ in their valuation of the same product item (Carmon & Ariely, 2000;
Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1990). A recent study finds that owners underestimate the
average selling price demanded by other owners, but buyers overestimate the average
purchase price offered by other buyers (Kurt & Inman, 2013). Along these lines, this study
seeks to examine whether the self-other discrepancy affects consumers intention to pay for
news products in various formats.
Paywalls and Recent Initiatives
Online news publishers search for a viable business model began in the mid-1990s.
Having experimented with the advertising model, the transactional model, and the bundled
model (Mings & White, 2000) with limited or no success, the news industry remained
interested in charging users for online content, as reflected in the long-time debate on the
feasibility of the subscription model for general interest news (American Press Institute, 2009;
Chyi, 2012; Herbert & Thurman, 2007; Outing, 2002). But until recently, most online news
was offered for free.
In light of substantial declines in advertising revenue during the recent recession
(Newspaper Association of America, 2012a), some newspapers started experimenting with
digital subscriptions, or paywalls, in 2011 (Jenner & Fleming, 2011). The most prominent
cases were The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times. On March 8, 2011, The

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

Dallas Morning News started charging online users $16.95 per month for a digital package
that included Web and apps (Doctor, 2011). On March 28, 2011, The New York Times
adopted a metered model, requiring online users who viewed more than 20 (10 since April
2012) articles per month to pay $15, $20, or $35 per month depending on the number of
platforms chosen (Sulzberger, 2011). Many more newspapers followed suit. As of 2014,
more than 450 newspapers charge for online content (Adams, 2012; Edmonds, Guskin,
Mitchell, & Jurkowitz, 2013; News&Tech, 2014).
The initial economic consequences of paywall implementation seem mixed (Burrell,
2010; Edmonds, Guskin, Mitchell, & Jurkowitz, 2013; Jurkowitz & Mitchell, 2013; Wells,
2013). For example, the 2012 fourth-quarter earnings report from The New York Times
Company indicated an 8.6 percent increase of circulation revenues but did not reveal how
much of that 8.6 percent came from new digital revenue and how much from an increase in
the price of the print edition (Roberts, 2013). The same report indicated that The Boston
Globe, which launched the paywall site in September 2011, had 28,000 online subscribers, an
eight percent increase from the previous quarter, but still a fraction of its total circulation.1
Similarly, Gannetts paywall plan, launched in February 2012, is touted as part of its
spectacular success, yet, with 80 community papers in the group, the 46,000 new digitalonly subscriptions translate into fewer than 2,000 per paper (Edmonds, 2013a). Overall,
subscription rates for most local newspaper sites lingered in the single digits (Mutter, 2013),
and digital-only circulation revenue accounted for only 1 percent of total circulation revenue
1

Its weekday circulation, which includes print and digital subscriptions, was 245,572 during the six-month
period ended in March 2013 (Borchers, 2013).

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

in 2012 (Newspaper Association of America, 2013). Sooner than most had expected, major
metro papers such as The Dallas Morning News and The San Francisco Chronicle put an end
to their short-lived paywall experiment by the end of 2013. The Boston Globe also dropped
its hard paywall, which attracted nearly 60,000 digital-only subscribers since 2011, and
replaced it with the metered model in March 2014, hoping to bring in more paying readers
(Beaujon, 2014). The New York Times metered model yields better resultsapproximately
799,000 paid digital-only subscribers by the end of the first quarter of 2014a 5.1% increase
from the previous quarter (New York Times, 2014). But the Times is by no means a typical
U.S. newspaper and the growth of digital subscribers began to plateau in mid-2013 (Doctor,
2013a). Overall, the performance of digital paywalls has been underwhelming. In contrast,
more than 44 million Americans are still paying for the print edition during the week (and 48
million on Sundays) despite circulation declines and recent price spikes (Newspaper
Association of America, 2012b).
From a media economics perspective, most newspapers manage a cross-media
product portfolio (Picard, 2005), offering news products in multiple formats (e.g., print, Web,
and apps). While demand for the print edition is known to be insensitive to price change
(Lewis, 1995), online news is subject to an extremely high degree of price elasticity,2
suggesting that erecting paywalls around online content would result in a substantial decline
in demand. A survey of U.S. newspaper publishers reported that the number of online
subscriptions is typically 1 percent to 3 percent of print circulation, regardless of price

Price elasticity of demand is defined as percentage change in quantity demanded divided by percentage change
in price.

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

(American Press Institute & ITZBelden, 2009), and a Pew study indicated that only 18
percent of U.S. Internet users have ever paid for a newspaper, magazine, journal article or
special report (Jansen, 2010). An empirical study (Chyi, 2012) found news consumers were
not receptive to online models that required payment regardless of the payment system (e.g.,
micropayment, metered system, day pass, etc.), indicating the difficulties in transplanting a
revenue model that works for the print product to digital content. A recent national
longitudinal survey examined readers perception of the New York Times paywall before its
implementation in March 2011 and their reaction 11 weeks later (Cook & Attari, 2012). The
results indicated most readers planned not to pay (and ultimately did not), perceived the
paper as of lesser value, visited its Web site less frequently, and used loopholes, especially
those who believed the paywall would lead to inequality.
Given news publishers enthusiasm about the paywall model and users reluctance
against it, this unwillingness to pay for online news phenomenon has not received
sufficient scholarly attention, and a systematic examination of paying intent is essential.
Hypotheses
With diversification of news platforms comes different perceptions of multiplatform
products. Despite declines in circulation, the print edition remains the key product that
accounts for most of the subscription revenue. In contrast, online news is perceived as
inferior (Chyi & Yang, 2009), less useful (De Waal, Schoenbach, & Lauf, 2005), less
satisfactory (Online Publishers Association, 2004), and less preferred (Chyi & Lasorsa, 2002;
Chyi & Lee, 2012) when compared side-by-side with traditional news formats. A recent
study conducted by McKinsey & Consultants suggests that 92 percent of time spent on news

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

10

consumption is from legacy platforms such as newspapers and magazines (35%), television
(41%), and radio (16%). Digital platforms such as desktop/laptop and mobile devices get
only 8 percent of the share (Edmonds, 2013b). Given that the print format outperforms digital
formats in terms of preference and use (Chyi & Lee, 2013), this study hypothesizes the same
pattern regarding news consumers paying intent across traditional and digital platforms:
H1: News consumers are more likely to pay for news in traditional (print) than in
digital formats (Web and app).
On the theoretical front, this study seeks to examine the aforementioned self-other
discrepancy factor in consumers perception about their own and others intention to pay for
news products. Based on third-person perception research, it is reasonable to postulate that
consumers would believe that others are more likely to pay for news than they are because
paying is less desirable than not paying, given self interest and rational thinking.
Confirming this line of thinking is research on the self-other gap in consumer behavior.
Specifically, Kurt and Inman (2013) find through experiments that buyers tend to believe
other buyers are more likely to pay a higher price (i.e., over 20% higher) for the same good.
Juxtaposing these cross-discipline findings, this study hypothesizes that:
H2: News consumers perceive others as having higher paying intent for news than
themselves.
In addition, third-person perception presupposes a self-other evaluative discrepancy
that is contingent on the social undesirability of a behavior (Eveland & McLeod, 1999; Perloff,
2009). In other words, the more undesirable a behavior is, the greater the self-other evaluative
discrepancy would be. Given digital news platforms are perceived as less favorable than the

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

11

traditional news platform (Chyi & Lee, 2012, 2013; Chyi & Yang, 2009; De Waal,
Schoenbach, & Lauf, 2005), paying for news in digital formats would be perceived as less
desirable than paying for news in the traditional format, leading to greater third-person
perception. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H3: The degree of observed self-other disparity strengthens from traditional (print) to
digital formats (Web and app).
Method
To test the three hypotheses, this study relied on a Web-based survey conducted in
August 2010, and the sample consisted of 767 adult U.S. Internet users. The survey asked
respondents about their use, preference, and paying intent for print and online news products.
Survey Sampling International (SSI), a survey research provider with more than 30
years of experience that also provided samples for the Pew Research Centers media
consumption survey (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2012), was
commissioned to administer the survey. Operating a U.S. online panel with more than 1.4
million active households, SSI actively seeks to reach both highly visible and hard-to-reach
groups on the Internet to ensure sample quality (Survey Sampling International, 2008). The
survey, with participation incentives, was sent to SSIs panelists via email notifications,
allowing respondents the flexibility to choose when and where to participate. The completion
rate3 was 84.5%.

The completion rate is the number of people who completed the survey divided by the number of people who
responded to the survey invitation.

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

12

The sample used in this study over-represented females and those with lower income
in the U.S. To ensure the results were comparable to the U.S. Internet population, we took a
common post-survey adjustment approachstandard demographic weightingand weighted
the data to gender and income (see Table 1).
Insert Table 1 here
Survey Instrument
Respondents paying intent for multiplatform newspaper products was measured by
this question: Some newspapers are considering charging users for content online in the near
future. How likely is it that you personally would pay for news and information on the
following platforms (1 is Very unlikely and 5 is Very likely)?
Print newspaper ___
Website (via the computer or mobile devices) ___
App (via mobile devices) ___
The next question measured respondents evaluation of other peoples paying intent:
How likely do you think other people would be to pay for news and information on the
following platforms (1 is Very unlikely and 5 is Very likely)?
Print newspaper ___
Website (via the computer or mobile devices) ___
App (via mobile devices) ___
Regarding the impact of question order on the third-person effect findings, Price and
Tewksbury (1996) found no significant differences between asking the self question before
the other question or the reverse order of those two items.
Results

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

13

Table 2 presents the proportions of respondents who demonstrated the self-other

perceptual discrepancy and those who did not across three news formats. As existing
literature (Conners, 2005) suggested, third-person effects are not found among all
respondents. Specifically, about a third of the respondents (30.8%) believed others to be
more likely to pay for news in print than themselves, whereas 44 percent of respondents
believed others to be more likely to pay for news in the Web edition than themselves, and
about half the respondents (47.5%) believed others to be more likely to pay for news apps
than themselves.
Insert Table 2 Here
Table 3 presents descriptive statistics. Across all three news formats (print, Web, and
app), paying intent for the print edition was the highest, and paying intent for the app was the
lowest. In addition, across all three news formats, people believe others are more likely to
pay for these news products than they are.
Insert Table 3 Here
To test H1-3, a two-way within-subject repeated measures ANOVA was conducted.
Mauchlys test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated for the main
effects of newspaper format, 2 (2) = 353.37, p < .001, and the interaction of newspaper
format and self-other disparity, 2 (2) = 339.49, p < .001. Therefore, degrees of freedom
were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (e = .72 for the main effect
of newspaper format and .73 for the interaction between newspaper format and self-other
disparity).

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

14

H1 proposed that news consumers are more likely to pay for news in traditional (print)
than in digital formats (Web and app). Results indicated a significant main effect of
newspaper format on paying intent, F(1.44, 1032) = 165.17, p <.001, p2= .19. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons (with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons) revealed that
paying intent for the print edition was significantly higher than for the Web edition (mean
difference = .59, p <.001) and news apps (mean difference = .74, p <.001). Paying intent for
the Web edition was also significantly higher than for news apps (mean difference = .15, p
<.001). Therefore, H1 is supported.
H2 proposed that news consumers perceive others as having higher paying intent for
news than themselves. Results indicated a significant main effect of the self-other disparity
on paying intent across all newspaper formats, F (1, 717) = 227.75, p <.001, p2= .24.
Specifically, people perceived others to be more likely to pay for news than themselves
(mean difference = .56, p <.001). Therefore, H2 is also supported.
H3 suggested that the degree of observed self-other disparity strengthens from
traditional (print) to digital formats (Web and app). Results indicated a significant interaction
effect between newspaper format and the self-other perspective, F (1.45, 1040.95) = 73.97, p
<.001, p2= .09. Figure 1 illustrates the widening gap in paying intent across different news
formats (print < Web < app). For each news format, people reported others are more likely to
pay for each service, notably to a greater degree, when it comes to news on the Web and on
apps. In other words, the third-person perception for paying intent strengthens from news in
print to the Web, and from news on the Web to apps. H3 is supported.
Insert Figure 1 Here

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

15

Discussion
Theoretical Contributions
When Davison first articulated the third-person effect in 1983, he considered the
empirical findings interesting but of minor theoretical significance (Davison, 1996; Paul
et al., 2000). Yet, the existence of the effect itself has rarely been questioned. In fact, a
number of studies have not only replicated the findings in various communication contexts
but also identified similar effects in non-communication areas (e.g., Gunther, 1995; Gunther
& Thorson, 1992; Johansson, 2005; McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997; Sun, Pan, &
Shen, 2008). The present study sought to extend the scope of the theory further by examining
such an effect on economic decision-making. Based on the results presented here, the attempt
was successful.
From a media economics standpoint, this study also contributes to the literature by
examining willingness to pay from a novel perspective: the self-other distinction plays a role
when it comes to paying intent. Further, the findings indicate that the degree of such selfother discrepancy (or the magnitude of the third-person perception) increases when the news
product changes from news in print to the Web, and from news on the Web to news apps.
Such interaction effects suggest that news consumers do not perceive different news
platforms equally.
Is Paying for the News Socially Undesirable?
One possible explanation for the presence of self-other asymmetries lies in selfenhancementthat is, in peoples desire to feel better about themselves in relation to others.
In other words, the third-person effect tends to occur when the behavior under scrutiny is

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

16

considered socially undesirable (e.g., being duped by advertising or negatively affected by

pornography) (Eveland & McLeod, 1999). This study suggests that the third-person
perception is apparent when it comes to general paying intent for the newsthat a significant
portion of the respondents believed other people are more likely to pay for the news than they
are, which raises a question about peoples implicit perceptions about paying for the news: Is
paying for news products, especially those on digital platforms, socially undesirable? If so,
such consumer psychology offers a potential explanation for news organizations inability to
monetize online news and raises questions about the industrys recent attempt to shift from
the advertising model (i.e., delivering news consumers to advertisers) to the subscription
model (i.e., charging news consumers directly).
Charging for digital content is a relatively new practice. While some success stories
exist (e.g., iTunes and Netflix) and are often considered replicable by news practitioners (e.g.,
Isaacson, 2009), it is problematic to assume such models apply to digital news (Mutter, 2011;
Shirky, 2009). For one thing, entertainment-driven content is more enticing and less generic
than general interest news. The real challenge facing news organizations is how to make
consumers believe paying for the news is a self-enhancing behavior (i.e., worthy or desirable).
Making people pay for what was once free is in and of itself difficult, but the key, as findings
from this study suggest, lies in the economic nature, or perceived value, of multiplatform
news products.
Is Online News Inferior to Print News?
Expanding on the third-person argument surrounding paying intent, this study also
found that the third-person perception strengthens when comparing peoples perceptual gap

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

17

in paying intent from print to Web to apps. If the third-person perception implies the
perceived social undesirability of a given behavior, then does the heightened belief that other
people are more likely to pay for news on the Web or in apps than they are, compared to
paying for news in print, imply a perceptual inferiority of news delivered online? Such logic
extrapolation echoes the findings from previous research on the perceived inferiority of
online news (Chyi & Lee, 2012; Chyi & Yang, 2009) and is consistent with the Pew
Research Centers finding that people are uncommitted to paying for the news online despite
a surge in use of mobile devices for news (Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in
Journalism, 2011). Even after many paywalls were introduced during 2012-2013, a recent
survey conducted by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism shows that, despite
growth in news access through mobile devices (31% of U.S. respondents access news
through smartphones at least once a week in 2014, and 19% through tablets), the percentage
of paying subscribers has remained stagnant (11%), suggesting industry activity does not
necessarily translate into more subscribers (Lichterman, 2014). Whats more intriguing,
while most newspapers grant print subscribers free access to digital content that includes
Web, smartphone, tablet, and e-editions, most subscribers dont use the digital products much,
if at all (Doctor, 2013b).
These findings help explain why the news industry has found it difficult to attain a
large number of subscribers with their digital offerings. While news consumers may enjoy
the convenience and accessibility of online news, they may not perceive news delivered on
digital platforms as equally valuable. The Internet, with its capacity for distributing digitized
content at minimal cost, has replaced information scarcity with information surplus (Chyi

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

18

2009), which has led to the commoditization of news content. And the value of such
journalistic workas determined by the consumerdeclines dramatically because of
diminishing marginal utility (Picard, 2006).
If self-enhancement and budgetary constraints are taken into consideration, a smart
purchase is one that justifies money well spent. Therefore, news organizations should work
to find ways to reinstate the value of news. Otherwise, enforcing a paywall is asking news
consumers to pay for what is, in their minds, a commodity or inferior product, which works
against the principle of self-enhancement that underlies human psychology and contributes to
the third-person perception.
While the discussion of what makes news valuable may be outside of the scope of
this study, Picard (2006) suggests that functional, emotional and self-expressive benefits are
central to the creation of news value, and future studies should investigate whether they
moderate or mediate the observed gap in third-person perception from print to Web to apps.
In sum, news consumers believe that other people are more likely to pay for news
content than they are. Moreover, this third-person perception widens from print to Web to
apps, demonstrating just how resistant news consumers are to paying for online-based
content.
To pay or not to pay? As media organizations continue to struggle with the
economic viability of their digital news products, it is important to consider the psychoeconomics of online news from the consumers perspective.
Limitations of the Study

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

19

The results of this study were drawn from responses to a survey distributed through
the Internet, thus all respondents were Internet users. While this excludes people without
Internet accessan increasingly dwindling populationhad the survey been able to include
people without Internet access, paying intent for digital formats would likely have been even
lower than what was documented here.
Albeit the high completion rate (84.5%) and relatively large sample size (N=767) of
the survey used in this study contributed to the power of its statistical analyses and soundness
of its statistical inferences, online panel surveys are ultimately based on non-probability
sampling, and its generalizability remains contestable at best. As a common post-survey
adjustment strategy, weights were applied to achieve a more comparable sample to that of the
U.S. online population. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that those who answered the
survey questions (e.g., those whose answers are being weighted) are representative of those
who did not. Therefore, the results of this study should be considered with this factor in mind.
Nonetheless, employing within-subject designs, this studys primary purpose is hypothesis
testing as opposed to making claims of generalizability. Future studies are encouraged to
replicate this study using surveys with probability sampling to build upon this burgeoning
area of empirical research.
It is acknowledged that the iPad was only in its infancy at the time the survey was
conducted, but even in 2014 the penetration of tablets for news access has just reached
19%up from 16% in 2013 (Lichterman, 2014). The Pew Research Center also reported that
not a single local newspaper in the United States sells more than 50,000 tablet app editions
per day (Pew Research Journalism Project, 2014). As online users lukewarm response to

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

20

fee-based news products continues, the results presented here might hold if we replicate the
study today.
In addition, while respondents in the pretest indicated mastery of the survey questions
regarding paying intent, the findings from this study are limited by the fact that the survey
questions lack content specification notwithstanding this studys focus on news platforms. In
other words, respondents paying intent may differ depending on the newspaper in question
(e.g., it is possible that perceived favorability of a newspaper may influence perceived paying
intent for different news platforms). Future studies are encouraged to expand on this study to
explore the possible moderating effects of content typesthat is, whether the observed thirdperson perception differs when comparing different types of newspapers (e.g., national vs.
local newspapers or general-interest vs. niche publications). Moreover, future studies are
encouraged to experiment with survey questions adopting various time frames to further
uncover purchase intent (e.g., the likelihood to purchase the product) and willingness to
pay (how much money one is willing to pay for the product) and to conduct experiments for
tests of causal inferences.
Despite these limitations, this exploratory study uncovered the existence of self-other
discrepancy in online news paying intent, which extended third-person research to the area of
media economics and offered a better understanding of the way consumers evaluate
multiplatform news products.
Drawing on the third-person perspective, this exploratory study examined the selfother discrepancy in online news paying intent and interpreted the findings from that
theoretical perspective. Other explanations from different disciplines may exist and

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

21

contribute to a more holistic understanding of the relationship between consumer psychology

and news paying intent. Nonetheless, as one of the first studies to document the self-other
discrepancy in online news paying intent, this study calls for more interdisciplinary research
on consumer valuation of multiplatform news products.

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

22

References
Adams, R. (2012, March 4). Newspapers put faith in paywalls. Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203833004577251822
631536422.html
American Press Institute, & ITZBelden. (2009). Online revenue initiatives. Retrieved from
http://www.newspapernext.org/OnlineRev2009FINAL.pdf
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (1994). Social psychology: The heart and the
mind. New York: NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of selfserving biases. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 109126. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138254
Beaujon, A. (2014, March 4). Boston Globe drops paywall, adds meter. Poynter. Retrieved
from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/242132/boston-globe-dropspaywall-adds-meter-instead/
Borchers, C. (2013, May 1). Globe circulation rises on wave of digital subscriptions. The
Boston Globe. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/04/30/globe-circulation-rises-wave-digitalsubscriptions/5Nuz9OJpA7Zsmw91CPh1vK/story.html
Brosius, H., & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism,
impersonal impact, or generalized negative attitudes towards media influence?
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 142-162. doi:
10.1093/ijpor/8.2.142
Burrell, I. (2010, September 2). Has Rupert Murdochs paywall gamble paid off? The
Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/hasrupert-murdochs-paywall-gamble-paid-off-2067907.html
Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in behavioral
economics. Princeton University Press.
Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2000). Focusing on the forgone: How value can appear so
different to buyers and sellers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 360370. doi:
10.1086/317590
Chapin, J. R. (2008). Third-person perception and racism. International Journal of
Communication, 2, 100-107. doi: 1932-8036/20080100
Chyi, H. I. (2009). Information surplus and news consumption in the digital age: Impact and
implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Journalism and citizenship: New agendas (pp.
91-107). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Chyi, H. I. (2012). Paying for what? How much? And why (not)? Predictors of paying intent
for multiplatform newspapers. International Journal on Media Management, 14(3),
227-250. doi: 10.1080/14241277.2012.657284
Chyi, H. I., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2002). An explorative study on the market relation between
online and print newspapers. Journal of Media Economics, 15(2), 91106. doi:
10.1207/S15327736ME1502_2

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

23

Chyi, H. I., & Lee, A. M. (2012, May). Will the Internet disrupt? A reality check on format
preference for traditional and digital content across five media. Paper presented at the
10th World Media Economics & Management Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Chyi, H. I., & Lee, A. M. (2013). Online news consumption: A structural model linking
preference, use, and paying intent. Digital Journalism, 1(2), 194211. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2012.753299.
Chyi, H. I., & Yang, M. J. (2009). Is online news an inferior good? Examining the economic
nature of online news among users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
86(3), 594612. doi: 10.1177/107769900908600309
Conners, J. L. (2005). Understanding the third-person effect. Communication Research
Trends, 24(2), 1-22. Retrieved from cscc.scu.edu/trends/v24/v24_2.pdf
Cook, J. E., & Attari, S. Z. (2012). Paying for what was free: Lessons from the New York
Times paywall. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(12), 682
687.
David, P., & Johnson, M. (1998). The role of self in third-person effects about body image.
Journal of Communication, 48, 37-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02769.x
Davison, W. P. (1996). The third-person effect revisited. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 8, 113119. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/8.2.113
De Waal, E., Schoenbach, K., & Lauf, E. (2005). Online newspapers: A substitute or
complement for print newspapers and other information channels? Communications,
30, 5572. doi: 10.1515/comm.2005.30.1.55
Doctor, K. (2011, March 7). Nine questions on the Dallas Morning News pay plan.
Newsonomics. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from
http://newsonomics.com/ninequestions-on-the-dallas-morning-news-pay-plan/
Doctor, K. (2013a, October 31). Its not quite Facebook, but Mark Thompsons NYT can say
up. Newseconomics. Retrieved June 6, 2014 from http://newsonomics.com/its-notquite-facebook-but-mark-thompsons-nyt-can-say-up/
Doctor, K. (2013b, November 14). The newsonomics of the surprisingly persistent appeal of
newsprint. Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved December 26, 2013, from
http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/11/the-newsonomics-of-the-surprisingly-persistentappeal-of-newsprint/
Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B. A. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering
the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77-93. doi:
10.1002/ejsp.2420250107
Edmonds, R. (2013a, February 5). The case for paywalls: Gannett gains while Digital First
experiments. Poynter. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.poynter.org/latestnews/business-news/the-biz-blog/202897/the-case-for-paywalls-gannett-gains-whiledigital-first-experiments/#.UR1tVzwgVv0.email
Edmonds, R. (2013b, May 16). New research finds 92 percent of time spent on news
consumption is still on legacy platforms. Poynter. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/business-news/the-biz-blog/212550/newresearch-finds-92-percent-of-news-consumption-is-still-on-legacy-platforms/

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

24

Edmonds, R., Guskin, E., Mitchell, A., & Jurkowitz, M. (2013). Newspapers: Stabilizing, but
still threatened. The State of the News Media 2013. Retrieved from
http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/newspapers-stabilizing-but-still-threatened/
Eveland, W. P., Jr., McLeod, D. M. (1999). The effect of social desirability on perceived
media implications for third-person perception. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 11, 315-333. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/11.4.315
Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the thirdperson effect. Communication Research, 18, 355-372. doi:
10.1177/009365091018003004
Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for
censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 451(1), 27-38.
Gunther., A. C., Perloff, R. M., & Tsfati, Y. (2008). Public opinion and the third person
effect. In W. Donsbach & M. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion
research (pp. 184-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. doi: 10.1177/009365092019005002
Herbert, J., & Thurman, N. (2007). Paid content strategies for news websites. Journalism
Practice, 1(2), 208226. doi: 10.1080/17512780701275523
Hoorens, V., & Ruiters, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: Beyond the third person
effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 599-610. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199607)26:4<599::AID-EJSP773>3.0.CO;2-7
Hu, Y. (2000). Communication behavior as a critical factor on the third-person effect. Paper
presented at the Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Isaacson, W. (2009, February 5). How to save your newspaper. Time Magazine. Retrieved
from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1877402,00.html
Jansen, J. (2010). 65% of internet users have paid for online content. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Paying-for-Content/Report/2Demographic-factors.aspx
Johansson, B. (2005). The third-person effect: only a media perception? Nordicom Review,
26(1), 81-94.
Jenner, M., & Fleming, K. (2011, April 26). The push to paid: Attitudes of publishers toward
paid content. Reynolds Journalism Institute, University of Missouri. Retrieved from
http://www.niemanlab.org/pdfs/rjipaidcontent.pdf
Jurkowitz, M., & Mitchell, A. (2013, February 11). Newspapers turning ideas into dollars.
Journalism.org. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from
http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/newspapers_turning_ideas_dollars
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment
effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 13251348.
Kogut, T., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2008). Who helps more? How self-other discrepancies

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

25

influence decisions in helping situations. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(8), 595606.
Lambe, J. L., & McLeod, D. M. (2005). Understanding third-person perception processes:
Predicting perceived impact on self and others for multiple expressive contexts.
Journal of Communication, 55, 277291.
Lee, B., & Tamborini, R. (2005). Third-person effect and Internet pornography: The
influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55,
292-310.
Lewis, R. (1995). Relation between newspaper subscription price and circulation, 1971-1992.
Journal of Media Economics, 8(1), 25.
Li, X. (2008). Third-person effect, optimistic bias, and sufficiency resource in Internet use.
Journal of Communication, 58, 568-587.
Lichterman, J. (2014, June 11). More people are the world are getting news on phones, but
paying for it is still rare. Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved from
http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/06/more-people-around-the-world-are-getting-newson-phones-but-paying-for-it-is-still-rare/
Lo, V., & Wei, R. (2002). Third-person effect, gender, and pornography on the Internet.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 13-33.
Kurt, D., & Inman, J. F. (2012). Mispredicting others valuations: Self-other difference in the
context of endowment. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 78-89.
Mason, L. (1995). Newspaper as repeater: An experiment on defamation and third-person
effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(3), 610-620.
McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2006). Behind the third-person
effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of
Communication, 51(4), 678-695. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02902.x
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of
violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect.
Communication Research, 24, 153-174. doi: 10.1177/009365097024002003
Meirick, P. C. (2005). Self-enhancement motivation as a third variable in the relationship
between first- and third-person effects. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 17(4), 473-483. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh077
Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., & Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer
than others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480500. doi:
10.1016/0022-1031(85)90031-9
Mings, S. M., & White, P. B. (2000). Profiting from online news: The search for viable
business models. In B. Kahin & H. R. Varian (Eds.), Internet publishing and beyond:
The economics of digital information and intellectual property (pp. 6296).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mutter, A. D. (2011, February 16). iTunes subscriptions wont stop free news. Reflections of
a Newsosaur. Retrieved from http://newsosaur.blogspot.tw/2011/02/itunessubscriptions-wont-stop-free.html

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

26

Mutter, A. D. (2013, September 25). How many people really pay for digital news?
Reflections of a Newsosaur. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from
http://newsosaur.blogspot.ca/2013/09/how-many-people-really-pay-for-digital.html
New York Times. (2014). The New York Times Company Reports 2014 First-Quarter
Results. Retrieved from http://investors.nytco.com/investors/investor-news/investornews-details/2014/The-New-York-Times-Company-Reports-2014-First-QuarterResults/default.aspx
News&Tech. (2014, May 16). Updated: N.A. papers with paywalls. Retrieved May 20, 2014,
from http://www.newsandtech.com/stats/paywalls.html
Newspaper Association of America. (2012a). Advertising expenditures. Retrieved from
http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/Advertising-Expenditures/Annual-AllCategories.aspx
Newspaper Association of America. (2012b). Newspaper circulation volume. Retrieved
March 18, 2013, from http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/CirculationVolume/Newspaper-Circulation-Volume.aspx
Newspaper Association of America. (2013). The American newspaper media industry
revenue profile 2012. Retrieved from http://www.naa.org/Trends-andNumbers/Newspaper-Revenue/Newspaper-Media-Industry-Revenue-Profile2012.aspx
Online Publishers Association. (2004, February). Multi-channel media brands: Attitudinal
and usage study. Retrieved from
http://onlinepubs.ehclients.com/images/pdf/140_W_opa_multichannel_media_brand_
study_nov03.pdf
Outing, S. (2002, August 14). Examining paid contents future [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/features_columns/stop_archiv
e.jsp
Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of
the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 5785. doi:
10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04
Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 19831992: A review and synthesis.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5(2), 167184. doi:
10.1093/ijpor/5.2.167
Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In J. Bryant
& M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 252-268).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2012, September 27). About the media
consumption survey data. Retrieved April 28, 2013, from http://www.peoplepress.org/2012/09/27/about-the-media-consumption-survey-data/
Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2011). Survey: Mobile news &
paying online. Retrieved from http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/mobile-survey/
Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2012). The state of the news
media: An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved from
http://stateofthemedia.org/overview-2012/

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

27

Pew Research Journalism Project. (2014). Top 5 U.S. newspapers with paid tablet editions.
Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/top-5-u-s-newspaperswith-paid-tablet-editions/
Picard, R. G. (2005). The nature of media product portfolios. In R. G. Picard (Ed.), Media
product portfolios: Issues in management of multiple products and services (pp. 1
22). Hoboken: Routledge.
Picard, R. G. (2006). Journalism, value creation and the future of news organizations. Joan
Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public: Harvard University. Retrieved
from http://www.robertpicard.net/PDFFiles/ValueCreationandNewsOrgs.pdf
Price, V. & Tewksbury, D. (1996). Measuring the third-person effect of news: The impact of
question order, contrast, and knowledge. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 8(2), 120-141. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/8.2.120
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Huang, L. (1998). Third-person effects on publication of a
holocaust-denial advertisement. Journal of Communication, 48(2), 3-26. doi:
10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02745.x
Roberts, J. J. (2013, February 7). New York Times posts ho-hum numbers, slow digital
growth. paidContent. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from
http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/07/not-good-enough-new-york-times-posts-ho-humnumbers-slow-digital-growth/
Salwen, M. B. & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support
of press restrictions in the O.J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47(2), 6075. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02706.x
Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (1999). The third-person effect: Perceptions of the medias
influence and immoral consequences. Communication Research, 26, 523-549. doi:
10.1177/009365099026005001
Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual
dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26, 240-267.
doi: 10.1177/009365099026002006
Shirky, C. (2009, February 9). Why small payments wont save publishers. Retrieved from
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont-savepublishers/comment-page-2/
Sulzberger, A. O. (2011, March 17). A letter to our readers about digital subscriptions.
NYTimes.com. Retrieved June 30, 2011, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/l18times.html
Sun, Y., Pan, Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence
from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58, 280-300. doi:10.1111/j.14602466.2008.00385.x
Survey Sampling International. (2008). ESOMAR 26. Retrieved from
http://www.surveysampling.com/en/forms/ssi-information
Tal-Or, N., Tsfati, Y. & Gunther, A. C. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence:
Origins and implications of the third-person perception. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

28

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 99-112). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Tsfati, Y. & Cohen, J. (2003). On the effect of the "third person effect": Perceived influence
of media coverage and residential mobility intentions. Journal of Communication, 53
(4), 711-727. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02919.x
Wei, R., Lo, V., & Lu, H. (2007). Reconsidering the relationship between the third-person
effect and optimistic bias. Communication Research, 34, 665- 684. doi:
10.1177/0093650207307903
Wells, C. K. (2013, February 20). Publishers say paywalls, price hikes are working for
newspapers. Poynter. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.poynter.org/latestnews/mediawire/204794/publishers-say-paywalls-price-hikes-are-working-fornewspapers/
Wu, W., & Koo, S. H. (2001). Perceived effects of sexually explicit Internet context: The
third-person effect in Singapore. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78,
260274.

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

29

Table 1
A Comparison of the Sample and the U.S. Internet Population
Internet
populationa
(%)

Sample
unweighted
(%)

Sample
weighted
(%)

48.4
51.6

35.7
64.3

50.7
49.3

33.0
41.2
25.8

29.9
45.2
24.9

28.8
44.6
26.6

Income
Less than $50,000
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $149,999
$150,000 +

36.6
21.0
30.7
11.7

64.3
18.0
14.7
3.0

35.8
20.9
31.0
12.4

Education
Did not attend college
Attended college
Graduated college plus

40.2
29.8
30.0

35.3
33.4
31.3

28.0
31.3
40.7

223,672,000

767

776

Gender
Male
Female
Age
18-34
35-54
55+

N
a

Source: Mediamark Research & Intelligence data published by the U.S. Census Bureau, based on adults 18+
years old with Internet access as of fall 2008.

Table 2
Overview of Self-Other Perceptual Discrepancy in Paying Intent

Self < Other (Third-Person Effect)

Self = Other
Self > Other
Total
N = 776.

Print
30.8
53.4
15.8
100.0

%
Web
44.0
46.2
9.8
100.0

App
47.5
47.8
4.8
100.0

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

Table 3
Average Paying Intent across Newspaper Formats: Mean (SD)
Self
Other

Print
2.69 (1.62)
2.90 (1.37)

Web
1.89 (1.25)
2.52 (1.25)

App
1.65 (1.12)
2.47 (1.26)

Note. 1 is Very unlikely and 5 is Very likely. N = 718.

Figure 1
Self-Other Disparity on Paying Intent for News Formats

30

THIRD-PERSON PERCEPTION AND INTENTION TO PAY

31

Author Biographies
Hsiang Iris Chyi (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an associate professor in the
School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research on the economics of
digital media addresses key issues (and troubles) facing the online news industry. Her work
has appeared in major journalism and media economics journals and has received a number
of research awards. She also serves on the editorial board of several academic journals, such
as Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Journalism Studies, Digital Journalism,
Newspaper Research Journal, and International Journal on Media Management. To know
more about her research, visit irischyi.com.
Angela M. Lee (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant professor in the Emerging Media and Communication program at the University of Texas at Dallas. Her research
focuses on the intersection among audience behavior, emerging technology, and ethics. She
has published in peer-reviewed journals such as Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Digital Journalism, and Communica- tion
Research, among others. Her work has won a number of research awards. She is on Twitter
as @angelamlee.
Avery E. Holton (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant professor in the
Depart- ment of Communication at the University of Utah. His interests are primarily in the
changing dynamics and functions of mass communication, particularly the news media, in
light of social and mobile media. His studies focus broadly on emerging audience
expectations, the reformu- lation of journalism as a practice, emergent trends and practices of
news producers and consu- mers, and the networks through which they are bound. He is on
Twitter as @averyholton.