Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Chinese Political Science
Erschienen in: Journal of Chinese Political Science 1/2012

01.03.2012 | Research Article

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

verfasst von: Steve Guo, Guangchao Feng

Erschienen in: Journal of Chinese Political Science | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

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

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
In China, CNN is only accessible legitimately in starred hotels and illegitimately via personal satellite dish.
 
2
Some families have more than one child legitimately through re-marriage. Others do it illegitimately through bribery, forgery of document, or paying heavy fines.
 
3
With MLR estimation, both the indirection effect estimation with the delta method [20, 83‐85] are not available in Mplus. Therefore, the mediation effects were not reported.
 
Literatur
1.
Asia Week, An interview with Han Han, in Asia Week. 2010.
2.
Cao, J. 2009. The production of alternative media in mainland China: A case study of the journal friend exchange. Communication and Society 4: 75–102.
3.
Lynch, D.C. 1999. After the propaganda state: Media, politics, and “thought work” in reformed China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
4.
Feng, G. 2008. An empirical study on the blocking mechanisms of China’s Internet censorship. In 2008 Annual Conference of International Communication Association (ICA). Montreal, Canada.
5.
Hughes, C.R., and G. Wacker (eds.). 2003. China and the internet: Politics of the digital leap forward. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
6.
Harwit, E., and D. Clark. 2001. Shaping the internet in China: Evolution of political control over network infrastructure and content. Asian Survey 41(3): 377–408.CrossRef
7.
8.
Rojas, H., D.V. Shah, and R.J. Faber. 1996. For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8(2): 163–186.
9.
Shah, D.V., R.J. Faber, and S. Youn. 1999. Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research 26(2): 240–267.CrossRef
10.
Gunther, A.C. 1995. Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication 45(1): 27–38.CrossRef
11.
Huh, J., D.E. Delorme, and L.N. Reid. 2004. The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context: The case of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Communication Research 31(5): 568–599.CrossRef
12.
Youn, S., R.J. Faber, and D.V. Shah. 2000. Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology & Marketing 17(7): 633.CrossRef
13.
Wan, F., S. Youn, and R.J. Faber. 2001. Motivations underlying commercial web sites censorship: The third-person perception. In European advances in consumer research, ed. A. Groeppel-Klien and F.-R. Esch, 90–100. Provo: Association for Consumer Research.
14.
McLeod, J.M., et al. 1998. A model of public support for first amendment rights. Communication Law and Policy 3(4): 479–514.CrossRef
15.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
16.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
17.
Milgram, S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(4): 371–378.CrossRef
18.
Asch, S.E. 1955. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American 193: 31–35.CrossRef
19.
Noelle-Neumann, E. 1977. Turbulences in the climate of opinion: Methodological applications of the spiral of silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 143–158.CrossRef
20.
Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology December 51(6): 1173–1182.CrossRef
21.
Deutsch, M., and H.B. Gerard. 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 51(3): 8.
22.
Cialdini, R.B., and M.R. Trost. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In The handbook of social psychology, ed. D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. Boston: Oxford University Press.
23.
Harris, R.J. 2004. A cognitive psychology of mass communication. Mahwah: Richard Jackson Harris.
24.
Zhang, H., and S.-J. Ok. 2011. Comparative analysis of privacy concerns in website register process between China and Korea. Canadian Social Science 7(1): 100–109.
25.
Lu, W., and M. Zhang. 2008. The impact of Internet knowledge on college students’ intention to continue to use the Internet. Information Research 13(3): 348.
26.
Zhu, J. 2001. Theorization versus indigenization of Chinese communication research: The integrated theory of audiences and media effects as a case study. Mass Communication Research 68: 1–21.
27.
Adorno, T.W., and E.F. Brunswik. 1950. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
28.
Whitley, B.E. 1999. Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology July 77(1): 126–134.CrossRef
29.
Lee, B., and R. Tamborini. 2005. Third-person effect and internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and internet self-efficacy. The Journal of Communication 55(2): 292–310.CrossRef
30.
Altemeyer, R. 2007. The Authoritarians. Robert Altemeyer.
31.
Altemeyer, R. 1996. The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard Univ ersity Press.
32.
Hense, R., and C. Wright. 1992. The development of the attitudes toward censorship questionnaire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22(21): 1666–1675.CrossRef
33.
Fisher, R.D., I.J. Cook, and E.C. Shirkey. 1994. Correlates of support for censorship of sexual, sexually violent, and violent media, 229–240. Routledge.
34.
Wan, F., and S. Youn. 2004. Motivations to regulate online gambling and violent game sites: An account of the third-person effect. Journal of Interactive Advertising 5(1).
35.
Davison, W.P. 1983. The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly 47(1): 1.CrossRef
36.
Perloff, R.M. 1999. The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology 1(4): 353.CrossRef
37.
Meirick, P.C. 2005. Rethinking the target corollary: The effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research 32(6): 822–843.CrossRef
38.
Meirick, P.C. 2004. Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance. Communication Research 31(2): 234–255.CrossRef
39.
Eveland, J.W.P., and D.M. McLeod. 1999. The effect of social desirability on perceived media impact: implications for third-person perceptions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 11(4): 315–333.CrossRef
40.
Brosius, H.-B., and D. Engel. 1996. The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8(2): 142–162.
41.
Cohen, J., et al. 1988. Perceived impact of defamation. Public Opinion Quarterly 52(2): 161.CrossRef
42.
McLeod, D., J. Lambe, and H.-J. Paek. 2005. Antecedents to support for media restrictions: Individual differences, democratic principles and third-person perceptions. In Annual Meeting of International Communication Association. New York, NY: International Communication Association.
43.
Paul, B., M.B. Salwen, and M. Dupagne. 2000. The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society 3(1): 57–85.CrossRef
44.
Perloff, R.M. 1999. The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology 1(4): 353–378.CrossRef
45.
Hoffner, C., et al. 1999. Support for censorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect and news exposure. Communication Research 26(6): 726–742.CrossRef
46.
Hsü, I.C.Y. 2000. The rise of modern China, 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
Oboler, E. 1973. Paternalistic morality and censorship. Library Journal 98(15): 4.
48.
McLeod, D.M., and W.P. Eveland Jr. 1997. Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics. Communication Research 24(2): 153.CrossRef
49.
Mcleod, Detenber, and Eveland. 2001 Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication (12): 678–695.
50.
Golan, G.J., S.A. Banning, and L. Lundy. 2008. Likelihood to vote, candidate choice, and the third-person effect: Behavioral implications of political advertising in the 2004 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist 52(2): 278–290.CrossRef
51.
Boyle, M.P., D.M. McLeod, and H. Rojas. 2008. The Role of Ego Enhancement and Perceived Message Exposure in Third-Person Judgments Concerning Violent Video Games, 165–185.
52.
Salwen, M., and P. Driscoll. 1997. Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. The Journal of Communication 47(2): 60–78.CrossRef
53.
Bary, W.Td., and W. Tu (eds.). 1998. Confucianism and human rights. New York: Columbia University Press.
54.
Rojek, D.G. 1989. Social control in the People’s Republic of China. Criminal Justice Review 14(2): 141–153.CrossRef
55.
Slote, W.H., and G.A.D. Vos (eds.). 1998. Confucianism and the family. Albany: State University of New York Press.
56.
Yeh, K.-H. 2003. The beneficial and harmful effects of filial piety: An integrative analysis. In Progress in Asian social psychology: Conceptual and empirical contributions, ed. K.-S. Yang, 67–82. Westport: Praeger.
57.
Ho, D.Y.-F. 1994. Filial piety, authoritarian moralism and cognitive conservatism in Chinese societies. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs 120(3): 349.
58.
Ritchie, D., and M.A. Fitzpatrick. 1990. Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research 17(4): 523–544.CrossRef
59.
Chaffee, S., J. McLeod, and D. Wackman. 1973. Family communication patterns and adolescent political participation. In Socialization to politics: Selected readings, ed. J. Dennis. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 16.
60.
Meadowcroft, J. 1986. Family communication patterns and political development: The Child’s role. Communication Research 13(4): 603–624.CrossRef
61.
Chow, E.N.-l., and S.M. Zhao. 1996. The one-child policy and parent–child relationships: A comparison of one-child with multiple-child families in China. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 16(12): 35.CrossRef
62.
Short, S.E., and F. Zhai. 1998. Looking locally at China’s one-child policy. Studies in Family Planning 29(4): 373–387.CrossRef
63.
Remez, L. 1991. China’s fertility patterns closely parallel recent national policy changes. International Family Planning Perspectives 17(2): 75–76.CrossRef
64.
Sorensen, B. 2008. Only child experience and adulthood. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRef
65.
Downey, D.B. 2001. Number of siblings and intellectual development: The resource dilution explanation. American Psychologist 56: 497–504.CrossRef
66.
Polit, D.F., and T. Falbo. 1987. Only children and personality development: A quantitative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family 49: 309–325.CrossRef
67.
Jefferson, T., J.H. Herbst, and R.R. McCrae. 1998. Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings. Journal of Research in Personality 32(4): 498–509.CrossRef
68.
Zhao, X., and X. Cai. 2008. From self-enhancement to supporting censorship: The third-person effect process in the case of internet pornography. Mass Communication and Society 11(4): 437–462.CrossRef
69.
Zhao, X., and X. Cai. 2004. From optimistic bias to supporting censorship: The third-person effect process in the case of Internet pornography. Conference Papers – International Communication Association, 1.
70.
Scharrer, E. 2002. Third-person perception and television violence. Communication Research 29(6): 681.CrossRef
71.
Golan, G.J., and S.A. Banning. 2008. Exploring a link between the third-person effect and the theory of reasoned action: Beneficial ads and social expectations. American Behavioral Scientist 52(2): 208–224.CrossRef
72.
Sewell Jr., W.H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology 98(1): 1–29.CrossRef
73.
Junhao, H., and L. Huang. 2004. A split and swaying approach to building information society: The case of Internet cafes in China. Telematics and Infomatics 22(4): 377–393.
74.
Mueller, M., and Z. Tan. 1997. China in the information age: Telecommunications and the dilemma of reform. Westport: Praeger.
75.
Qiu, J.L. 1999. Virtual censorship in China: Keeping the gates between the cyber-spaces. The International Journal of Communications Law and Policy winter(4): 1–25.
76.
Wang, N., Z. Guo, and F. Shen. 2011. Message, perception, and the Beijing Olympics: Impact of differential media exposure on perceived opinion diversity. Communication Research 38(3): 422–445.CrossRef
77.
Huang, L-l. 2007. M shape vs. bell shape: The ideology of national identity and its psychological basis in Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Psychology 49(4): 20.
78.
Edwards, J.R., and M.E. Parry. 1993. On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. The Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1577–1613.CrossRef
79.
Edwards, J.R. 1995. Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64(3): 307–324.CrossRef
80.
Cronbach, L.J., and L. Furby. 1970. How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin July 74(1): 68–80.CrossRef
81.
Peter, J.P., G.A. Churchill Jr., and T.J. Brown. 1993. Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research 19(4): 655–662.CrossRef
82.
Cheung, G. 2009. Introducing the latent congruence model for improving the assessment of similarity, agreement, and fit in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 12(1): 6.CrossRef
83.
Muthén, L.K., and B.O. Muthén. 2010. Mplus statistical analysis with latent variables; user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
84.
Sobel, M.E. 1982. Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology 13(ArticleType: primary_article / Full publication date: 1982 / Copyright © 1982 John Wiley & Sons): 290–312.
85.
Preacher, K.J., and A.F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.CrossRef
86.
Schell, B., and L. Bonin. 1989. Factors affecting censorship by Canadian librarians. Journal of Psychology 123(4): 357.
87.
Gunther, A.C., and A.P. Hwa. 1996. Public perceptions of television influence and opinions about censorship in Singapore. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8(3): 248–265.CrossRef
88.
Salwen, M.B. 1998. Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship. Communication Research 25(3): 259.CrossRef
89.
Sun, Y., L. Shen, and Z. Pan. 2008. On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research 35(2): 257–278.
90.
Zhong, Z. 2008. The third-person effect and online game-play. Conference Papers – International Communication Association, 1–30.
91.
Lo, V-h, and A.R. Paddon. 2000. Third-person perception and support for pornography restrictions: Some methodological problems. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12(1): 80–89.CrossRef
92.
Chia, S., and K.-H. Lu. 2003. Protect the naive or punish the evil? An in-depth examination on the connection between third-person perception and support for media censorship. In International Communication Association. San Diego, CA: International Communication Association.
93.
Chia, S.C., K.-H. Lu, and D.M. McLeod. 2004. Sex, lies, and video compact disc: A case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship. Communication Research 31(1): 109–130.CrossRef
94.
Willnat, L., E. Tamam, and A. Aw. 2007. Perceptions of Foreign Media Influence in Asia: Cultural Self-Construal and the Third-Person Effect. In Annual Meeting of International Communication Association. International Communication Association.
95.
Wu, W., and S.H. Koo. 2001. Perceived effects of sexually explicit Internet content: The third-person effect in Singapore. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78(2): 260.CrossRef
96.
Lee, C., and S. Yang. 1996. Third-Person Perception and Support for Censorship of Sexually Explicit Visual Content: A Korean Case. In The Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Anaheim, CA: AEJMC.
97.
Zheng, J., and B. Detenber. 2009. Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward Extreme Nationalistic Messages in Chinese Online Forums: A Third-Person Perspective. Conference Papers – International Communication Association, 1–33.
Metadaten
Titel
Understanding Support for Internet Censorship in China: An Elaboration of the Theory of Reasoned Action
verfasst von
Steve Guo
Guangchao Feng
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2012
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Chinese Political Science / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 1080-6954
Elektronische ISSN: 1874-6357
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-011-9177-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Journal of Chinese Political Science 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Research Article

China’s Political Stability: Global Comparisons

Book Review

Robert G. Sutter, U.S. – Chinese Relations: Perilous Past, Pragmatic Present

Book Review

Emilian Kavalski, ed. China and the Global Politics of Regionalization

Book Review

Mingjiang Li, ed. Soft Power. China’s Emerging Strategy in International Politics

Book Review

Michael A. Santoro, China 2020: How Western Business Can- and Should—Influence Social and Political Change in the Coming Decade

Book Review

Shalendra D. Sharma: China and India in the Age of Globalization

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise