third person in research paper

We Vs. They: Using the First & Third Person in Research Papers

Writing in the first , second , or third person is referred to as the author’s point of view . When we write, our tendency is to personalize the text by writing in the first person . That is, we use pronouns such as “I” and “we”. This is acceptable when writing personal information, a journal, or a book. However, it is not common in academic writing.

Some writers find the use of first , second , or third person point of view a bit confusing while writing research papers. Since second person is avoided while writing in academic or scientific papers, the main confusion remains within first or third person.

In the following sections, we will discuss the usage and examples of the first , second , and third person point of view.

First Person Pronouns

The first person point of view simply means that we use the pronouns that refer to ourselves in the text. These are as follows:

Can we use I or We In the Scientific Paper?

Using these, we present the information based on what “we” found. In science and mathematics, this point of view is rarely used. It is often considered to be somewhat self-serving and arrogant . It is important to remember that when writing your research results, the focus of the communication is the research and not the persons who conducted the research. When you want to persuade the reader, it is best to avoid personal pronouns in academic writing even when it is personal opinion from the authors of the study. In addition to sounding somewhat arrogant, the strength of your findings might be underestimated.

For example:

Based on my results, I concluded that A and B did not equal to C.

In this example, the entire meaning of the research could be misconstrued. The results discussed are not those of the author ; they are generated from the experiment. To refer to the results in this context is incorrect and should be avoided. To make it more appropriate, the above sentence can be revised as follows:

Based on the results of the assay, A and B did not equal to C.

Second Person Pronouns

The second person point of view uses pronouns that refer to the reader. These are as follows:

This point of view is usually used in the context of providing instructions or advice , such as in “how to” manuals or recipe books. The reason behind using the second person is to engage the reader.

You will want to buy a turkey that is large enough to feed your extended family. Before cooking it, you must wash it first thoroughly with cold water.

Although this is a good technique for giving instructions, it is not appropriate in academic or scientific writing.

Third Person Pronouns

The third person point of view uses both proper nouns, such as a person’s name, and pronouns that refer to individuals or groups (e.g., doctors, researchers) but not directly to the reader. The ones that refer to individuals are as follows:

• Hers (possessive form)
• His (possessive form)
• Its (possessive form)
• One’s (possessive form)

The third person point of view that refers to groups include the following:

• Their (possessive form)
• Theirs (plural possessive form)

Everyone at the convention was interested in what Dr. Johnson presented. The instructors decided that the students should help pay for lab supplies. The researchers determined that there was not enough sample material to conduct the assay.

The third person point of view is generally used in scientific papers but, at times, the format can be difficult. We use indefinite pronouns to refer back to the subject but must avoid using masculine or feminine terminology. For example:

A researcher must ensure that he has enough material for his experiment. The nurse must ensure that she has a large enough blood sample for her assay.

Many authors attempt to resolve this issue by using “he or she” or “him or her,” but this gets cumbersome and too many of these can distract the reader. For example:

A researcher must ensure that he or she has enough material for his or her experiment. The nurse must ensure that he or she has a large enough blood sample for his or her assay.

These issues can easily be resolved by making the subjects plural as follows:

Researchers must ensure that they have enough material for their experiment. Nurses must ensure that they have large enough blood samples for their assay.

Exceptions to the Rules

As mentioned earlier, the third person is generally used in scientific writing, but the rules are not quite as stringent anymore. It is now acceptable to use both the first and third person pronouns  in some contexts, but this is still under controversy.  

In a February 2011 blog on Eloquent Science , Professor David M. Schultz presented several opinions on whether the author viewpoints differed. However, there appeared to be no consensus. Some believed that the old rules should stand to avoid subjectivity, while others believed that if the facts were valid, it didn’t matter which point of view was used.

First or Third Person: What Do The Journals Say

In general, it is acceptable in to use the first person point of view in abstracts, introductions, discussions, and conclusions, in some journals. Even then, avoid using “I” in these sections. Instead, use “we” to refer to the group of researchers that were part of the study. The third person point of view is used for writing methods and results sections. Consistency is the key and switching from one point of view to another within sections of a manuscript can be distracting and is discouraged. It is best to always check your author guidelines for that particular journal. Once that is done, make sure your manuscript is free from the above-mentioned or any other grammatical error.

You are the only researcher involved in your thesis project. You want to avoid using the first person point of view throughout, but there are no other researchers on the project so the pronoun “we” would not be appropriate. What do you do and why? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

I am writing the history of an engineering company for which I worked. How do I relate a significant incident that involved me?

Hi Roger, Thank you for your question. If you are narrating the history for the company that you worked at, you would have to refer to it from an employee’s perspective (third person). If you are writing the history as an account of your experiences with the company (including the significant incident), you could refer to yourself as ”I” or ”My.” (first person) You could go through other articles related to language and grammar on Enago Academy’s website https://enago.com/academy/ to help you with your document drafting. Did you get a chance to install our free Mobile App? https://www.enago.com/academy/mobile-app/ . Make sure you subscribe to our weekly newsletter: https://www.enago.com/academy/subscribe-now/ .

Good day , i am writing a research paper and m y setting is a company . is it ethical to put the name of the company in the research paper . i the management has allowed me to conduct my research in thir company .

thanks docarlene diaz

Generally authors do not mention the names of the organization separately within the research paper. The name of the educational institution the researcher or the PhD student is working in needs to be mentioned along with the name in the list of authors. However, if the research has been carried out in a company, it might not be mandatory to mention the name after the name in the list of authors. You can check with the author guidelines of your target journal and if needed confirm with the editor of the journal. Also check with the mangement of the company whether they want the name of the company to be mentioned in the research paper.

Finishing up my dissertation the information is clear and concise.

How to write the right first person pronoun if there is a single researcher? Thanks

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Editing and Style

How to Write in Third Person

Last Updated: May 10, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Alicia Cook . Alicia Cook is a Professional Writer based in Newark, New Jersey. With over 12 years of experience, Alicia specializes in poetry and uses her platform to advocate for families affected by addiction and to fight for breaking the stigma against addiction and mental illness. She holds a BA in English and Journalism from Georgian Court University and an MBA from Saint Peter’s University. Alicia is a bestselling poet with Andrews McMeel Publishing and her work has been featured in numerous media outlets including the NY Post, CNN, USA Today, the HuffPost, the LA Times, American Songwriter Magazine, and Bustle. She was named by Teen Vogue as one of the 10 social media poets to know and her poetry mixtape, “Stuff I’ve Been Feeling Lately” was a finalist in the 2016 Goodreads Choice Awards. There are 7 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 1,139,119 times.

Writing in third person can be a simple task, with a little practice. For academic purposes, third person writing means that the writer must avoid using subjective pronouns like “I” or “you.” For creative writing purposes, there are differences between third person omniscient, limited, objective, and episodically limited points of view. Choose which one fits your writing project.

Writing Third Person Point of View

The third-person point of view discusses the person or people being talked about in academic or creative writing. In this perspective, you’d shift focus from subject to subject. Use pronouns like he/him, she/her, they/them, or it/itself.

Writing in Third Person Academically

• Third person helps the writing stay focused on facts and evidence instead of personal opinion.

• Third person pronouns include: he, she, it; his, her, its; him, her, it; himself, herself, itself; they; them; their; themselves.
• Names of other people are also considered appropriate for third person use.
• Example: “ Smith believes differently. According to his research, earlier claims on the subject are incorrect.”

• First person pronouns include: I, me, my, mine, myself, we, us, our, ours, ourselves. [3] X Research source
• The problem with first person is that, academically speaking, it sounds too personalized and too subjective. In other words, it may be difficult to convince the reader that the views and ideas being expressed are unbiased and untainted by personal feelings. Many times, when using first person in academic writing, people use phrases like "I think," "I believe," or "in my opinion."
• Incorrect example: “Even though Smith thinks this way, I think his argument is incorrect.”
• Correct example: “Even though Smith thinks this way, others in the field disagree.”

• Second person pronouns include: you, your, yours, yourself. [4] X Research source
• One main problem with second person is that it can sound accusatory. It runs to risk of placing too much responsibility on the shoulders of the reader specifically and presently reading the work.
• Incorrect example: “If you still disagree nowadays, then you must be ignorant of the facts.”
• Correct example: “Someone who still disagrees nowadays must be ignorant of the facts.”

• Indefinite third person nouns common to academic writing include: the writer, the reader, individuals, students, a student, an instructor, people, a person, a woman, a man, a child, researchers, scientists, writers, experts.
• Example: “In spite of the challenges involved, researchers still persist in their claims.”
• Indefinite third person pronouns include: one, anyone, everyone, someone, no one, another, any, each, either, everybody, neither, nobody, other, anybody, somebody, everything, someone.
• Incorrect example: "You might be tempted to agree without all the facts."
• Correct example: “ One might be tempted to agree without all the facts.”
• This is usually done in an attempt to avoid the gender-specific “he” and “she” pronouns. The mistake here would be to use the “they” pronoun with singular conjugation. [5] X Research source
• Incorrect example: “The witness wanted to offer anonymous testimony. They was afraid of getting hurt if their name was spread.”
• Correct example: “The witness wanted to offer anonymous testimony. They were afraid of getting hurt if their name was spread.”

Writing in Third Person Omniscient

• For instance, a story may include four major characters: William, Bob, Erika, and Samantha. At various points throughout the story, the thoughts and actions of each character should be portrayed. These thoughts can occur within the same chapter or block of narration.
• Writers of omniscient narratives should be conscious of “head-hopping” — that is, shifting character perspectives within a scene. While this does not technically break the rules of Third Person Omniscience, it is widely considered a hallmark of narrative laziness.

• In a sense, the writer of a third person omniscient story is somewhat like the “god” of that story. The writer can observe the external actions of any character at any time, but unlike a limited human observer, the writer can also peek into the inner workings of that character at will, as well.
• Know when to hold back. Even though a writer can reveal any information they choose to reveal, it may be more beneficial to reveal some things gradually. For instance, if one character is supposed to have a mysterious aura, it would be wise to limit access to that character's inner feelings for a while before revealing his or her true motives.

• Do not use first person and second person points of view in the narrative or descriptive portions of the text.
• Correct example: Bob said to Erika, “I think this is creepy. What do you think?”
• Incorrect example: I thought this was creepy, and Bob and Erika thought so, too. What do you think?

Writing in Third Person Limited

• The thoughts and feelings of other characters remain an unknown for the writer throughout the duration of the text. There should be no switching back and forth between characters for this specific type of narrative viewpoint.
• Unlike first person, where the narrator and protagonist are the same, third person limited puts a critical sliver of distance between protagonist and narrator. The writer has the choice to describe one main character’s nasty habit — something they wouldn’t readily reveal if the narration were left entirely to them.

• In other words, do not use first person pronouns like “I,” “me,” “my,” “we,” or “our” outside of dialog. The main character's thoughts and feelings are transparent to the writer, but that character should not double as a narrator.
• Correct example: “Tiffany felt awful after the argument with her boyfriend.”
• Correct example: “Tiffany thought, “I feel awful after that argument with my boyfriend.”
• Incorrect example: “I felt awful after the argument with my boyfriend.”

• Note that the writer can offer insight or guesses regarding the thoughts of other characters, but those guesses must be presented through the perspective of the main character.
• Correct example: “Tiffany felt awful, but judging by the expression on Carl's face, she imagined that he felt just as bad if not worse.”
• Incorrect example: “Tiffany felt awful. What she didn't know was that Carl felt even worse.”

• Correct example: “Tiffany watched from the window as Carl walked up to her house and rang the doorbell.”
• Incorrect example: “As soon as Tiffany left the room, Carl let out a sigh of relief.”

Writing in Episodically Limited Third Person

• Limit the amount of pov characters you include. You don't want to have too many characters that confuse your reader or serve no purpose. Each pov character should have a specific purpose for having a unique point of view. Ask yourself what each pov character contributes to the story.
• For instance, in a romance story following two main characters, Kevin and Felicia, the writer may opt to explain the inner workings of both characters at different moments in the story.
• One character may receive more attention than any other, but all main characters being followed should receive attention at some point in the story.

• Multiple perspectives should not appear within the same narrative space. When one character's perspective ends, another character's can begin. The two perspectives should not be intermixed within the same space.
• Incorrect example: “Kevin felt completely enamored of Felicia from the moment he met her. Felicia, on the other hand, had difficulty trusting Kevin.”

• In a novel-length work, a good time to switch perspective is at the start of a new chapter or at a chapter break.
• The writer should also identify the character whose perspective is being followed at the start of the section, preferably in the first sentence. Otherwise, the reader may waste too much energy guessing.
• Correct example: “Felicia hated to admit it, but the roses Kevin left on her doorstep were a pleasant surprise.”
• Incorrect example: “The roses left on the doorstep seemed like a nice touch.”

• For instance, if Kevin had a talk with Felicia's best friend about Felicia's feelings for him, Felicia herself would have no way of knowing what was said unless she witnessed the conversation or heard about it from either Kevin or her friend.

Writing in Third Person Objective

• There does not need to be a single main character to focus on. The writer can switch between characters, following different characters throughout the course of the narrative, as often as needed.
• Stay away from first person terms like “I” and second person terms like “you” in the narrative, though. Only use first and second person within dialog.

• Imagine that you are an invisible bystander observing the actions and dialog of the characters in your story. You are not omniscient, so you do not have access to any character's inner thoughts and feelings. You only have access to each character's actions.
• Correct example: “After class, Graham hurriedly left the room and rushed back to his dorm room.”
• Incorrect example: “After class, Graham raced from the room and rushed back to his dorm room. The lecture had made him so angry that he felt as though he might snap at the next person he met.”

• Correct example: “When no one else was watching her, Isabelle began to cry.”
• Incorrect example: “Isabelle was too prideful to cry in front of other people, but she felt completely broken-hearted and began crying once she was alone.”

• Let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. Present the actions of the character without analyzing them or explaining how those actions should be viewed.
• Correct example: “Yolanda looked over her shoulder three times before sitting down.”
• Incorrect example: “It might seem like a strange action, but Yolanda looked over her shoulder three times before sitting down. This compulsive habit is an indication of her paranoid state of mind.”

Examples of Third Person POV

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://stlcc.edu/student-support/academic-success-and-tutoring/writing-center/writing-resources/point-of-view-in-academic-writing.aspx
• ↑ http://studysupportresources.port.ac.uk/Writing%20in%20the%20third%20peson.pdf
• ↑ http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/third_person.htm
• ↑ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/use-the-singular-they/
• ↑ Alicia Cook. Professional Writer. Expert Interview. 11 December 2020.
• ↑ https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/point-of-view-first-second-third-person-difference
• ↑ https://ojs.library.dal.ca/YAHS/article/viewFile/7236/6278

About This Article

To write in third person, refer to people or characters by name or use third person pronouns like he, she, it; his, her, its; him, her, it; himself, herself, itself; they; them; their; and themselves. Avoid first and second person pronouns completely. For academic writing, focus on a general viewpoint rather than a specific person's to keep things in third person. In other types of writing, you can write in third person by shifting your focus from character to character or by focusing on a single character. To learn more from our Literary Studies Ph.D., like the differences between third person omniscient and third person limited writing, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Jul 31, 2016

Did this article help you?

Jean Scicluna

Jan 31, 2021

Nov 4, 2016

Karen Evans

Aug 5, 2016

Oct 20, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

BibGuru Blog

Be more productive in school

• Citation Styles

How to write in third-person

Although there are three narratives you can use in any form of writing when it comes to your papers and anything academic you produce, it’s best to choose the third-person. It’s pretty simple with a bit of practice, but if you’re completely new to this writing style, here’s what you need to know about how to write in third-person.

What does writing in third-person mean?

Writing in third-person is one of the three styles you can use when describing a point of view. Even though you might not know it, chances are you’ve used first, second and third person in writing projects throughout your education.

It’s a narrative where you’re totally independent of the subject you’re analyzing and writing about. You don’t take sides. You don’t try to influence what readers feel. It’s a completely unbiased, objective way of writing that tells a story or dissects a topic right down the middle.

There’s a lot of information out there about how you can differentiate between the three in roundabout ways, making it unnecessarily complicated. Here’s a quick breakdown to understand the differences for when you write your following paper:

First-person

This is from the I/we perspective. It’s where we talk about us , ourselves, and our opinions. If we go down the first-person route, writing will include pronouns like I , me , myself, and mine .

Second-person

This point of view belongs to the person you’re addressing — so its a you perspective. In your writing, you’d use second-person pronouns such as you , your, and yourselves .

Third-person

The third-person point of view is aimed at the person or people being talked about, which is the type of writing you’d find in stories. In this perspective, you’d use pronouns like he , she , him , her , his , hers , himself , herself , it , them , their, and themselves . Or, you’d use a name. But that tends to happen more in stories than research papers.

Notice the difference between the three?

When to write in third-person

The third-person point of view tells the reader a story and it’s often the go-to when you’re taking an authoritative stance in your papers, which is why it’s so common in academic writing.

So, always choose the third-person stance when writing academic copy, such as essays and research papers.

The reason for this is it’ll make your papers less personal and more objective, meaning the objectivity will make you come across as more credible and less biased. Ultimately, this will help your grades as the third-person view keeps you focused on evidence and facts instead of your opinion.

You can break third-person perspectives into three other types, including omniscient, limited, and objective. Although they’re more associated with creative writing than academic work and essays, your writing is likely to fall under the third-person objective point of view.

A third-person objective point of view is about being neutral and presenting your findings and research in an observational way, rather than influencing the reader with your opinions.

How to use the third-person point of view

Rule number one: Never refer to yourself in your essay in the third-person. That’s a no-no.

For instance, here’s how you shouldn’t write a sentence in your essay if you’re writing about virtual learning as an example.

“I feel like students perform better at home because they have more freedom and are more comfortable.”

It’s a simple sentence, but there’s a lot wrong with it when you’re talking about research papers and adopting a third-person narrative. Why? Because you’re using first-person pronouns and, as it sounds like an opinion, you can’t back up your claims with a stat or any credible research. There’s no substance to it whatsoever.

Also, it isn’t very assertive. The person marking your work won’t be impressed by “I feel like,” because it shows no authority and highlights that it came from your brain and not anywhere of note.

By including terms like “I think” or “I feel” like in the example above, you’re already off to a bad start.

But when you switch that example to the third-person point of view, you can cite your sources , which is precisely what you need to do in your essays and research papers to achieve higher grades.

Let’s switch that sentence up and expand it using the third-person point of view:

“A psychological study from Karrie Goodwin shows that students thrive in virtual classrooms as it offers flexibility. They can make their own hours and take regular breaks. Another study from high school teacher, Ashlee Trip, highlighted that children enjoy freedom, the ability to work at their own pace and decide what their day will look like.”

With a third-person narrative, you can present evidence to the reader and back up the claims you make. So, it not only shows what you know, but it also shows you took the time to research and strengthen your paper with credible resources and facts — not just opinions.

6 tips for writing in third-person

1. understand your voice won’t always shine in your essays.

Every single piece of writing tends to have a voice or point of view as if you’re speaking to the reader directly. However, that can’t always happen in academic writing as it’s objective compared to a novel, for example. Don’t try to ‘fluff’ up your piece to try and cram your personality in, as your academic work doesn’t need it.

2. Don’t focus on yourself or the reader — focus on the text

An academic piece of work always has a formal tone as it’s objective. When you write your next paper, focus on the writing itself rather than the writer or the reader.

3. Coach yourself out of using first-person pronouns

This is easier said than done if all you’ve ever done is first- or second-person writing. When you write your next paper, scan through it to see if you’ve written anything in first-person and replace it with the third-person narrative.

Here are a few regular offenders that pop up in academic papers — along with how you can switch the statements to third-person:

• I argue should be this essay argues
• I found that should be it was found that
• We researched should be the group researched
• I will also analyze should be topic X will also be analyzed

The same applies to second-person, as there are plenty of cases where it tends to slip through in academic writing. Again, it’s pretty straightforward to switch the more you practice. For instance:

• Your paper will be marked higher if you use a citation tool should be the use of a citation tool will improve one’s grades

4. Be as specific as possible

This is where things can get a little bit confusing. Writing in third-person is all about including pronouns like he, she, it, and they. However, using them towards the beginning of sentences can be pretty vague and might even confuse the reader — this is the last thing you want from your essay or paper.

Instead, try using nouns towards the beginning of sentences. For example, use the actual subject, such as the interviewer or the writer, rather than he, she, or they when you begin the sentence.

The same applies to terms like it. Start the sentence with the ‘it’ is that you’re describing. If it’s a citation tool, begin the sentence by referencing what you’re discussing, so you aren’t vague. Clarity is key.

5. Write in the present tense when using third-person

In any form of academic writing, you need to write your reports, essays, and research papers in the present tense, especially when introducing different subjects or findings.

So, rather than saying “This paper analyzed” (which does seem correct as technically that part was in the past and the writing is in the present), you should write “This report analyzes” — as if you’re analyzing right here and now.

However, the difference is when you highlight how you did the research, that should be in the past tense. This means you’d use third-person phrases like “The equipment that was used” or “The results were analyzed by”, for instance.

6. Avoid adding your own thoughts

If your report is on a subject that’s close to your heart, it can be super tempting to sprinkle in your own thoughts. It’s a challenge, but you need to coach yourself out of it.

In academic writing, you aren’t a commentator. You’re a reporter. You need to let readers draw their conclusions without over-analyzing them or making the reader lean one way or another.

The easiest way to get to grips with writing your academic papers in the third-person is to be consistent and practice often. Criticize your work and analyze it until it becomes the norm. Yes, it can be a little complex in the early days, but before you know it, you’d have mastered the technique, helping you take your papers and reports up a level.

Frequently Asked Questions about writing in third-person

In third-person, you’d use pronouns like he , she , him , her , his , hers , himself , herself , it , them , their, and themselves . Or, you’d use a name.

You is used in second person and is therefore not used in third person. The second person is used for the person that is being addressed.

The third-person point of view is aimed at the person or people being talked about, which is the type of writing you’d find in stories. When writing in third-person view, make sure to write in the present tense and avoid adding your own thoughts.

When writing in third person, you should actually always write in the present tense since you are mostly presenting results in this view.

The second person point of view belongs to the person you’re addressing — so its a you perspective. In your writing, you’d use second-person pronouns such as you , your, and yourselves .

Make your life easier with our productivity and writing resources.

For students and teachers.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Scholarly Voice: Point of View

Personal pronouns are used to indicate point of view in most types of writing. Here are some common points of view:

• A paper using first-person point of view uses pronouns such as "I," "me," "we," and "us."
• A paper using second-person point of view uses the pronoun "you."
• A paper using third-person point of view uses pronouns such as "he," "she," "it," "they," "him," "her," "his," and "them."

In scholarly writing, first-person and third-person point of view are common, but second-person point of view is not. Read more about appropriate points of view on the following pages:

• First-Person Point of View
• Second-Person Point of View

Pronouns Video

• APA Formatting & Style: Pronouns (video transcript)

Related Resource

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Varying Sentence Structure
• Next Page: First-Person Point of View
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• Master Your Homework
• Do My Homework

Research Papers: First or Third Person?

The use of first or third person when writing research papers is a stylistic choice that authors must make based on their particular context and purpose. This article examines the appropriateness of using each point-of-view for scholarly work, exploring both practical considerations as well as theoretical implications. Through an exploration of existing literature on this topic, the discussion will evaluate how academic convention impacts writerly decisions in terms of selecting one’s preferred narrative voice. Additionally, it will consider potential outcomes should different conventions be adopted by academics working within distinct fields. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide readers with greater insight into what constitutes suitable usage for either perspective when engaging in any type of scholarly inquiry.

I. Introduction to the Topic of Research Papers: First or Third Person?

Ii. definition and explanation of ‘first person’ in writing a research paper, iii. definition and explanation of ‘third person’ in writing a research paper, iv. pros & cons for using each perspective when composing a research paper, v. common mistakes made by writers when using first vs third-person points of view, vi. examples from academic journals demonstrating usefulness/limitations with respective perspectives, vii .conclusion on appropriate utilization of either point-of-view within the context of composition.

The question of whether to use first or third person when writing research papers is an important one, and has been the subject of much debate. As a rule, it is considered best practice to write in third person; however there are certain circumstances where first person can be used.

• Third Person

When writing in this style, all pronouns such as he/she/they should be avoided. The writer instead focuses on presenting facts without any subjective comments – e.g., “It was observed that…” rather than “I observed that…” This makes for more formal language which is generally favoured by academics as being authoritative and objective. It also allows writers to communicate their ideas clearly while providing evidence from reliable sources at the same time.

• First Person

Although not always permissible, using the pronoun ‘I’ may sometimes be necessary depending upon what type of paper you are required to submit (e.g., reflective essays). In these cases, employing personal experiences and feelings about a particular issue can give readers valuable insight into your opinion regarding something specific. For example: “In my experience working with children I noticed …” Can research papers still be written in first-person? Yes – but only under special conditions whereby referencing your own opinions can make useful contributions towards understanding an overall topic better.

When writing a research paper, it is important to understand the concept of ‘first person’. First person refers to the narrator in the story being referred to as “I” or “we.” This allows for a more personal approach and provides readers with insight into what was experienced by you during your research process.

By using first-person language, authors are able to convey their thoughts directly rather than relying on third-party narrators. Moreover, incorporating this type of language allows writers greater flexibility in expressing themselves without feeling constrained by external sources. Therefore, one can communicate ideas that may not be easily conveyed through other forms of narration.

• Can Research Papers Be In First Person?

Yes! Writing a research paper from the perspective of an individual’s experience will give it a unique flavor and provide additional depth when describing findings from various experiments or studies conducted throughout your journey as an academic researcher.

When writing a research paper, ‘third person’ is often used to refer to the perspective taken by the author. This form of writing means that the writer should use pronouns such as ‘he’, ‘she’, and ‘they’ rather than using first-person pronouns like ‘I’ or ‘we’. The goal when employing third person in a research paper is to provide an impartial, objective analysis of the subject.

The third-person approach also helps make your work more authoritative and professional; it gives readers an impression of credibility since you are not expressing opinionated views from personal experience. Additionally, while it’s possible for some papers to be written in first person – usually those relating closely with personal experiences – most scholarly works utilize third-person language exclusively. Furthermore, all citations must reference other authors within their text rather than citing yourself.

Given the wide range of research paper perspectives, it is important for authors to understand both the pros and cons associated with each when composing their work.

• Neutrality: An objective perspective often gives researchers more flexibility in terms of how they communicate ideas since there is no overt bias.
• Accessible Language: Objective writing allows authors to use simple language which can be more easily understood by readers.

Using a first person perspective also has its own benefits and drawbacks. = Positives of Using a First Person Perspective= strong>, li > > Li > Ul > Li : Since “I” statements are rarely used formally , incorporating them into academic papers runs counter cultural norms./I>. Li . UL

When writing in English, it is important to pay attention to which point of view you are using. First-person and third-person points of view can be used for different types of writing; however, there are some common mistakes that writers make when using these two perspectives:

• Not Knowing When To Use Each Point Of View

First-person perspective is typically used when a personal story or narrative is being told as the author will use ‘I’ or ‘we’ to narrate events. Third person should be employed in more formal contexts such as research papers where objectivity needs to be maintained throughout.

• Writing In The Wrong Tense

Writers sometimes forget that first person requires past tense while third person often utilizes present tense forms instead. Paying close attention to verb usage and sentence structure can help avoid this mistake.

A) Empirical Studies Empirical studies provide a range of evidence for the usefulness and limitations of different perspectives. For example, research papers have demonstrated that certain types of organizational communication strategies can improve employee engagement, while also illustrating how traditional techniques are often less effective. This suggests that there is merit in exploring multiple viewpoints to identify solutions or create meaningful change. Moreover, empirical studies can also be used to contrast theories against one another; this allows researchers to observe discrepancies between approaches which may not be as easily observed through qualitative methods such as interviews.

B) First-Person Narratives Can research papers be written in first person? Absolutely! First-person narratives offer valuable insight into experiences with regards to particular topics – whether it’s from an individual’s perspective on their work environment or struggles they faced when attempting something new. Such accounts contribute greatly towards understanding both useful aspects and potential drawbacks associated with each standpoint being studied; allowing us to analyze data objectively yet still appreciating the personal element behind the numbers presented by quantitative analysis alone.

In conclusion, the appropriate utilization of either first or third-person point-of-view within a composition is ultimately determined by the context. While both have their own merits and drawbacks that should be taken into account when creating any written work, it is important to remain mindful of which voice best suits your purpose in order to ensure effective communication with readers. Can research papers be written in first person? Generally speaking, most research paper formats require an objective tone throughout—meaning avoiding use of personal pronouns such as “I” and “we”. However, some disciplines may allow for a more subjective approach if it has been approved beforehand; always check with your professor before writing any paper.

• First Person: Uses words like “I”/”me,” which can create an intimate relationship between reader and author.
• Third Person: More formal than first person since it removes self from text; gives sense of objectivity.

No matter what you decide upon utilizing either point-of view during composition activities will help cultivate one’s understanding regarding how authorship can affect content delivery.

In conclusion, it is important to consider the formality of the situation when writing research papers and determine whether first or third person should be used. When in doubt, one should always consult with their professor regarding which style is preferred for a given paper. Ultimately, both have valid uses within academic discourse but understanding the implications of each can help make an informed decision about which approach works best for any particular project.

What is writing in the third-person or first-person? When do I use them and when not?

The first-person voice is from the writer's perspective and shares emotion, thought processes, personal experiences, and reflection. First-person writing uses pronouns such as I and me .

Example sentence in first person:

• Fifteen years in the restaurant business tells me that, after food quality, success is all about location.

The third-person voice is objective writing that is designed "to present information or communicate ideas without obvious bias or emotion" (McWhorter, 2012, p. 280). The author's personal perspective is removed, and therefore points and ideas made in the writing need to be more carefully defined and supported with evidence or proof.

Example sentences in third person:

• New restaurateurs frequently underestimate the importance of location to the success of their business. According to one restaurant owner, "having the right location can either make or break your restaurant" (10 restaurant mistakes, 2008, para. 4) while another says "no restaurant succeeds without...a great location" (Haden, 2012, para. 8).

The second-person voice makes use of the personal pronoun you and should be avoided in formal and academic writing.

In a nutshell:

The writing you do in college and in your professional life will be "less about yourself and more about ideas...less writing is done in the first person ( I, me ) and much more is done in the third person ( it, they, he, she ). When given a writing assignment, make sure it is clear how much of your personal experience and personal opinion, if any, is appropriate for the assignment" (McWhorter, 2012, p. 24).

How do you know if first person or third person is appropriate?

• Consider the issue you are writing about
• Consider the purpose of your writing
• Consider your audience
• Ask your instructor if you are in doubt!

APA and First/Third Person

Does APA have anything to say about first-person or third-person? Yes, in a roundabout way. See section 3.18 of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for more information.

APA asks writers to use active voice rather than passive voice.  This means that first-person writing is allowed in APA papers when the writers are sharing how they set up their research methodology (conducted interviews, tested hypotheses, etc.).

Yes (active): We conducted our interviews in Marathon County .

No (passive): The interviews were conducted in Marathon County.

It also means that third-person is preferred when authors should be objective, as in a literature review or when sharing background information and supporting evidence.

Third-person voice is preferred for most student research papers.

Haden, J. (2012, Jan. 23). Start a killer restaurant: 6 tips. Inc .

http://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/tyson-cole-how-to-start

-successful-restaurant-6-tips.html

McWhorter, K. T. (2012). Successful college writing. Bedford/St. Martin's.

10 restaurant startup mistakes [Blog post]. (2008). Restaurant Blogger. 

          https://therestaurantblogger.com/10-restaurant-startup-mistakes/

• Reading and Writing
• Last Updated Jun 30, 2020
• Views 19614
• Answered By Ashley Librarian

FAQ Actions

• Share on Facebook

Comments (0)

Hello! We're here to help! Please log in to ask your question.

Need an answer now? Search our FAQs !

How can I find my course textbook?

You can expect a prompt response, Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM-4:00 PM Central Time (by the next business day on weekends and holidays).

Questions may be answered by a Librarian, Learning Services Coordinator, Instructor, or Tutor. 

7 Essential Tips for Writing in the Third Person

Table of contents

Alana Chase

Whether you’re a student, business professional, or writer, knowing how to write well in the third person is an essential skill.

But you may not be sure of all the rules or how to make your third-person writing shine.

As an editor and writing coach of 11 years, I’ve taught students and writers at all levels how to master the third-person point of view (POV). All you need to get started is a good understanding of third-person pronouns and a bit of practice for consistency. 

By the end of this article, you’ll know when and how to use third-person perspective. You'll also find helpful tips for taking your third-person writing to the next level.

Key takeaways 

• In the third-person perspective, the narrator is separate from the story. 
• Third-person perspective uses he/him/his, she/her/hers, and they/them/their pronouns. 
• Consistency is key: Don’t switch between perspectives in a single document.
• Practicing third-person writing and editing your work is vital to improving your skills.

What is third-person point of view (POV)?

In writing, there are three ways to tell a story: first-person, second-person, or third-person POV. 

First-person POV is from the narrator’s perspective: 

“ I saw the bird steal my sandwich, and I ran after it.”

Second-person POV is from the reader’s perspective: 

“ You saw the bird steal your sandwich, and you ran after it.”

Third-person POV, however, separates the narrator from the story and uses third-person pronouns (like he/him, she/her, and they/them) to describe events, actions, thoughts, and emotions. Characters are referred to by name or one of these pronouns: 

“ Alex saw the bird steal his/her/their sandwich, and he/she/they ran after it.”

Third-person POV is used in all kinds of writing — from novels to research papers, journalistic articles, copywriting materials, and more. Check out some examples below.

Examples of third-person perspective

• In a novel: “Robb and Jon sat tall and still on their horses, with Bran between them on his pony, trying to seem older than seven, trying to pretend that he’d seen all this before.” (From A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin)
• In a news article : “This weekend, Iceland experienced nearly 2,000 earthquakes within 48 hours. And they’ve kept coming since then – in swarms.” (From “Thousands of earthquakes have scientists watching for a volcanic eruption in Iceland” on NPR’s website )
• In copywriting : “Balm Dotcom’s formula has antioxidants and natural emollients to nourish dry lips.” (Website copy describing Glossier’s Balm Dotcom lip product )

7 tips for writing in the third person

Just like the first and second person, you’ve probably already written in the third person before. But to do it well , you’ll need some key tips and tricks in your writing toolkit. 

Let’s dive into the seven essentials for third-person writing.

Tip 1: Use third-person determiners and pronouns 

In grammar, determiners introduce and modify nouns. They’re used to specify what a noun refers to (like “ my laptop”) or the quantity of it (like “ many sandwiches”). 

Meanwhile, pronouns are substitutes for nouns, referring to people, places, or things. For example, “Caroline [noun] is a skilled musician, and she [pronoun] especially loves playing the piano.”

When you write in the third person, use only third-person determiners and pronouns. Let’s take a look at the different types of pronouns. 

Tip 2: Use names for clarity

In third-person writing, using names is crucial for clarity, especially when multiple people/characters share similar pronouns. Strategically incorporate names into your writing to help readers keep track of who’s who. 

For example:

‍ “She submitted the script draft to her, and she made suggestions for changes.”

‍ “Mira submitted the script draft to Lynn, and Lynn made suggestions for changes.”

Tip: Use a character or person’s name when introducing them in your writing. Then, alternate between using pronouns and their name to prevent confusion.

Tip 3: Keep the narration neutral

When you write in the third person, your narrator is an uninvolved observer. They have no opinions on the people, places, things, or events they describe. Their words and tone should be neutral (but not boring).

To achieve this in your writing:

• Think of your narrator as a reporter. Their job is to detail what’s happening, when and why it’s occurring, who’s involved, and any background information that can give context. They don’t offer a personal interpretation of events. Instead, they provide facts and supporting details.
• Save the judgment for characters. Rather than having your narrator share their critique of events or individuals, have a character offer their opinion — either through dialogue, actions, or reactions. For instance, instead of writing, “Dr. Shaw was a courageous woman,” let a character convey admiration by telling Dr. Shaw, “I’ve always admired your fearlessness.”
• Be objective with your descriptions. Avoid subjective adjectives and focus on observable features. For example, instead of describing a landscape as “breathtaking,” write that it’s “marked with snow-capped mountains and patches of tall pine trees.” 

Tip 4: Use descriptive language

Showing — and not just telling — is essential when writing in the third person. Instead of stating emotions and experiences outright, immerse your reader in your character’s reality. Create vivid descriptions of their thoughts, feelings, and surroundings. Use language that engages the senses: sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. 

For example: 

“Aisha was nervous.”

‍ “Aisha’s hands trembled, and her tongue felt dry against the roof of her mouth. The spotlight above the stage shone white-hot, causing beads of sweat to form along Aisha’s hairline.”

Tip 5: Be consistent

Once you establish a third-person POV, stick to it . Avoid switching from the third person to the first or second person. Otherwise, you’ll confuse the reader and disrupt the flow of your writing.

“Hannah felt a surge of excitement when her telephone rang, anticipating good news about her mortgage application. I felt my heart rate quicken as I answered.” (Switches from the third person to the first person)

“Hannah felt a surge of excitement when her telephone rang, anticipating good news about her mortgage application. She felt her heart rate quicken as she answered.” (Remains in the third person)

Tip 6: Practice

Writing in the third person might feel strange at first, especially if you’re used to using the first or second person. However, it’ll come more naturally to you with practice.

Here are two writing exercises you can try right now:

Writing Exercise #1

Take an excerpt from an article or book written in the first or second person and rewrite it in the third person. Below is an example using The Catcher in the Rye , whose main character is named Holden.

Before: “The other reason I wasn’t down at the game was because I was on my way to say good-by to old Spencer, my history teacher.”

After: “The other reason Holden wasn’t down at the game was because he was on his way to say good-by to old Spencer, his history teacher.”

Writing Exercise #2

Turn on a movie or television show, mute the sound, and closely observe two characters. Give them each a name. Using third-person pronouns and their names, describe the characters’ actions and what you believe they’re thinking and feeling. 

Above all, write in the third person as often as possible , following the tips in this guide. Remember, your writing skills are like muscles: The more you exercise them, the stronger they become. 

Tip 7: Carefully revise 

After you’ve written something in the third person, carefully review and revise your work. 

Check that your writing :

• Uses third-person determiners and pronouns accurately and consistently
• Incorporates names where pronouns may cause confusion
• Maintains a neutral tone, where your narrator doesn’t offer personal opinions or interpretations
• Doesn’t shift to the first or second person

Make changes where necessary, then read through your work a final time.

AI tip: Wordtune can help you self-edit and help improve your writing overall.

Paste your work into Wordtune’s Editor, or write in it directly, and use the features to shorten or expand your sentences, make your tone more casual or formal, and more. Wordtune will also automatically flag spelling and grammar errors and suggest ways to improve concision, clarity, and flow.

Get Wordtune for free > Get Wordtune for free >

Bonus tip (advanced): Learn the different types of third-person POV

Did you know there are three types of third-person POV? Getting familiar with them can help you make your writing even more impactful.

• Third-person objective , where the narrator is “a fly on the wall”: They provide an objective account of events without exploring people/characters’ emotions or thoughts.
• Third-person omniscient , where the narrator has unlimited knowledge of all events and characters’ thoughts and feelings. 
• Third-person limited , also called “close third,” where the narrator has access to just one character’s emotions, thoughts, and experiences. 

With this knowledge, you can choose the right perspective for your writing depending on its purpose, tone, and goals. 

For instance, use third-person omniscient to show readers what’s happening with everyone in your novel. Or, you could go for third-person objective in an academic paper where you must present facts without sharing your interpretation of them.

Writing well in the third person takes thought and effort. You must use third-person determiners and pronouns, weave in descriptive language, and keep your narration neutral. You also need to be consistent with your POV, ensuring you don’t accidentally switch to the first or second person. Finally, review and revise your work to make sure it’s clear and error-free. 

Using this guide — and Wordtune’s tools to polish your writing — you’ll get the hang of the third-person perspective in no time.

To continue sharpening your writing skills, read our articles on mastering tone of voice and writing concisely (with help from AI). Then, check out our proofreading guide to keep your work flawless . 

What is a third-person word example?

Third-person words are pronouns like “he,” “her,” “they,” “it,” “hers,” and “theirs.”

Should I write in the first or third person?

It depends on the closeness you want to create with your audience. The first person allows for a personal connection between the narrator and the reader, while the third person creates distance between the narrator and the audience.

What are the disadvantages of writing in the third person?

Third-person writing can lead to a lack of intimacy with the reader. This can be a disadvantage for some writers but an advantage for others, like those in academic and professional settings.

Share This Article:

Eight Steps to Craft an Irresistible LinkedIn Profile

7 Common Errors in Writing + How to Fix Them (With Examples)

How To Prepare For Studying Abroad (From Someone Who’s Done It)

Looking for fresh content, thank you your submission has been received.

Table of Contents

Ai, ethics & human agency, collaboration, information literacy, writing process, a synthesis of professor perspectives on using first and third person in academic writing.

• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 by Brian Stone

For many novice academic writers, the decision of whether to use first-person or third-person voice is determined by several factors. First and third-person refers to the point of view the author adopts, where first-person uses the singular and plural pronouns “I,” “we,” “me,” and “us,” as in “I argue that,” and third-person uses “she,” “he,” “it,” or “they.” Often times, academic writers will identify the subject in the third-person, as in “Stone argues that,” or “The researchers suggest.” While these pronoun and subject uses are most common, there are also what we might call “stand-ins” in the third-person, where an inanimate “thing” stands in for the subject of the sentence, as in “This paper argues that,” or “The researcher suggests.” Second-person, which should rarely be used in academic writing, uses the pronoun “you.”

To begin, as a student, the professor’s desires should be of primary consideration. After all, successfully completing a paper is your primary goal. Second, whether to use first or third person can be determined by the discipline in which you’re writing, as well. Relative to this, which voice to use is ultimately determined by the shared philosophy of what knowledge is and how it’s created in the discipline. This is what is known as epistemology : the study of knowledge, how it’s created, and how we know what we know. Domains of knowledge are constructed by those who participate in and contribute to that domain; they are dynamic and changing, never static. We will look at each of these differing ideas about the use of first- and third-person voice in academic writing so that you can get a better idea of why you are expected to use one in some cases and not in others.

Pronoun use is a rhetorical element of writing, not just a simple matter of word choice. When we use “I” in our writing, we make our self the focus. In many disciplines, this is considered to be a good thing. However, for some disciplines, especially those that consider their work to be “objective,” using the first person is seen as weakening the argument by making it seem subjective. For scholars in such disciplines, using the first person makes the argument seem opinionated, rather than objective.

Ultimately, most professors who approve of using the first person agree that its use is effective only if the student knows how to use it properly. Some professors who generally like the use of the first person suggest students avoid it when it weakens an argumentative claim—for example, “I feel that [insert argument here]” or “In my opinion, [insert argument here].” Getting rid of “I feel” makes the argument more concise and less redundant. Also, it makes it feel less like the student is taking a shot at asserting an argument and doesn’t know what s/he’s talking about. That student “feels” like s/he is right; s/he doesn’t “know.” Many professors agree that this use of first person weakens a student’s argument and makes the writing sound more like a personal response or journal entry. Importantly, for some professors, seeing too much first person indicates that the student might be the only source of knowledge consulted for the paper, which is a real problem for a research paper.

Many writers will find themselves in a writing situation where avoiding the first person is almost impossible. For example, if you are relaying anecdotes that involve you, making direct observations, or are involved in a teacher research study, etc., it would be nearly impossible to avoid the first person without sounding convoluted and stilted. Also, in some areas of research, it is ethically imperative to acknowledge how who you are shapes what you perceive and know. For example, some disciplines, such as anthropology, do empirical research but emphasize recognition and examination of one’s own subjectivity and how that shapes what we value, believe, and perceive.

This gets us to a discussion of the third person and when it is deemed imperative. As mentioned above, whether to use the first or third person is largely a matter of disciplinary convention. Reading journal articles in your major area of study will help give you an idea of whether researchers in your discipline prefer the first or third person, or both. Earlier I mentioned “epistemology.” Different disciplines operate according to different epistemic models. Disciplines that value third-person writing, such as medicine, engineering, philosophy, the hard sciences, etc., believe that removing the “I” removes subjectivity, therefore making the claim that follows more objective and factual.

Even for these disciplines that favor third-person objective pronoun usage, times are changing. Scientists once needed to assert that their observations, not them, were made more powerful when aligned with other observations. The research was meant to speak for itself, not the researcher. Today, the scientific community is becoming more comfortable with acknowledging the subjective role of the researcher. This epistemic shift shows that “rules” regarding the use of the first and third person are not really rules at all but are characteristics of specific sorts of writing. As with most things, they change.

When faced with the decision to use the first or third person, you ultimately are in a rhetorical situation. The genre in which you are writing, as well as the conventions of your discipline, should help you make your decision. Also, examples from published articles in your field will serve as good models for how and when to use the first or third person. Most importantly, consult the professor for whom you are writing, as each of us has a different stance on this issue.

Brevity – Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence – How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow – How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity – Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style – The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Featured Articles

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Speech & Writing

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Academic Writing Style
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Academic writing refers to a style of expression that researchers use to define the intellectual boundaries of their disciplines and specific areas of expertise. Characteristics of academic writing include a formal tone, use of the third-person rather than first-person perspective (usually), a clear focus on the research problem under investigation, and precise word choice. Like specialist languages adopted in other professions, such as, law or medicine, academic writing is designed to convey agreed meaning about complex ideas or concepts within a community of scholarly experts and practitioners.

Academic Writing. Writing Center. Colorado Technical College; Hartley, James. Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Guide . New York: Routledge, 2008; Ezza, El-Sadig Y. and Touria Drid. T eaching Academic Writing as a Discipline-Specific Skill in Higher Education . Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020.

Importance of Good Academic Writing

The accepted form of academic writing in the social sciences can vary considerable depending on the methodological framework and the intended audience. However, most college-level research papers require careful attention to the following stylistic elements:

I.  The Big Picture Unlike creative or journalistic writing, the overall structure of academic writing is formal and logical. It must be cohesive and possess a logically organized flow of ideas; this means that the various parts are connected to form a unified whole. There should be narrative links between sentences and paragraphs so that the reader is able to follow your argument. The introduction should include a description of how the rest of the paper is organized and all sources are properly cited throughout the paper.

II.  Tone The overall tone refers to the attitude conveyed in a piece of writing. Throughout your paper, it is important that you present the arguments of others fairly and with an appropriate narrative tone. When presenting a position or argument that you disagree with, describe this argument accurately and without loaded or biased language. In academic writing, the author is expected to investigate the research problem from an authoritative point of view. You should, therefore, state the strengths of your arguments confidently, using language that is neutral, not confrontational or dismissive.

III.  Diction Diction refers to the choice of words you use. Awareness of the words you use is important because words that have almost the same denotation [dictionary definition] can have very different connotations [implied meanings]. This is particularly true in academic writing because words and terminology can evolve a nuanced meaning that describes a particular idea, concept, or phenomenon derived from the epistemological culture of that discipline [e.g., the concept of rational choice in political science]. Therefore, use concrete words [not general] that convey a specific meaning. If this cannot be done without confusing the reader, then you need to explain what you mean within the context of how that word or phrase is used within a discipline.

IV.  Language The investigation of research problems in the social sciences is often complex and multi- dimensional . Therefore, it is important that you use unambiguous language. Well-structured paragraphs and clear topic sentences enable a reader to follow your line of thinking without difficulty. Your language should be concise, formal, and express precisely what you want it to mean. Do not use vague expressions that are not specific or precise enough for the reader to derive exact meaning ["they," "we," "people," "the organization," etc.], abbreviations like 'i.e.'  ["in other words"], 'e.g.' ["for example"], or 'a.k.a.' ["also known as"], and the use of unspecific determinate words ["super," "very," "incredible," "huge," etc.].

V.  Punctuation Scholars rely on precise words and language to establish the narrative tone of their work and, therefore, punctuation marks are used very deliberately. For example, exclamation points are rarely used to express a heightened tone because it can come across as unsophisticated or over-excited. Dashes should be limited to the insertion of an explanatory comment in a sentence, while hyphens should be limited to connecting prefixes to words [e.g., multi-disciplinary] or when forming compound phrases [e.g., commander-in-chief]. Finally, understand that semi-colons represent a pause that is longer than a comma, but shorter than a period in a sentence. In general, there are four grammatical uses of semi-colons: when a second clause expands or explains the first clause; to describe a sequence of actions or different aspects of the same topic; placed before clauses which begin with "nevertheless", "therefore", "even so," and "for instance”; and, to mark off a series of phrases or clauses which contain commas. If you are not confident about when to use semi-colons [and most of the time, they are not required for proper punctuation], rewrite using shorter sentences or revise the paragraph.

VI.  Academic Conventions Among the most important rules and principles of academic engagement of a writing is citing sources in the body of your paper and providing a list of references as either footnotes or endnotes. The academic convention of citing sources facilitates processes of intellectual discovery, critical thinking, and applying a deliberate method of navigating through the scholarly landscape by tracking how cited works are propagated by scholars over time . Aside from citing sources, other academic conventions to follow include the appropriate use of headings and subheadings, properly spelling out acronyms when first used in the text, avoiding slang or colloquial language, avoiding emotive language or unsupported declarative statements, avoiding contractions [e.g., isn't], and using first person and second person pronouns only when necessary.

VII.  Evidence-Based Reasoning Assignments often ask you to express your own point of view about the research problem. However, what is valued in academic writing is that statements are based on evidence-based reasoning. This refers to possessing a clear understanding of the pertinent body of knowledge and academic debates that exist within, and often external to, your discipline concerning the topic. You need to support your arguments with evidence from scholarly [i.e., academic or peer-reviewed] sources. It should be an objective stance presented as a logical argument; the quality of the evidence you cite will determine the strength of your argument. The objective is to convince the reader of the validity of your thoughts through a well-documented, coherent, and logically structured piece of writing. This is particularly important when proposing solutions to problems or delineating recommended courses of action.

VIII.  Thesis-Driven Academic writing is “thesis-driven,” meaning that the starting point is a particular perspective, idea, or position applied to the chosen topic of investigation, such as, establishing, proving, or disproving solutions to the questions applied to investigating the research problem. Note that a problem statement without the research questions does not qualify as academic writing because simply identifying the research problem does not establish for the reader how you will contribute to solving the problem, what aspects you believe are most critical, or suggest a method for gathering information or data to better understand the problem.

IX.  Complexity and Higher-Order Thinking Academic writing addresses complex issues that require higher-order thinking skills applied to understanding the research problem [e.g., critical, reflective, logical, and creative thinking as opposed to, for example, descriptive or prescriptive thinking]. Higher-order thinking skills include cognitive processes that are used to comprehend, solve problems, and express concepts or that describe abstract ideas that cannot be easily acted out, pointed to, or shown with images. Think of your writing this way: One of the most important attributes of a good teacher is the ability to explain complexity in a way that is understandable and relatable to the topic being presented during class. This is also one of the main functions of academic writing--examining and explaining the significance of complex ideas as clearly as possible.  As a writer, you must adopt the role of a good teacher by summarizing complex information into a well-organized synthesis of ideas, concepts, and recommendations that contribute to a better understanding of the research problem.

Academic Writing. Writing Center. Colorado Technical College; Hartley, James. Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Guide . New York: Routledge, 2008; Murray, Rowena  and Sarah Moore. The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach . New York: Open University Press, 2006; Johnson, Roy. Improve Your Writing Skills . Manchester, UK: Clifton Press, 1995; Nygaard, Lynn P. Writing for Scholars: A Practical Guide to Making Sense and Being Heard . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2015; Silvia, Paul J. How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007; Style, Diction, Tone, and Voice. Writing Center, Wheaton College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

Strategies for...

Understanding Academic Writing and Its Jargon

The very definition of research jargon is language specific to a particular community of practitioner-researchers . Therefore, in modern university life, jargon represents the specific language and meaning assigned to words and phrases specific to a discipline or area of study. For example, the idea of being rational may hold the same general meaning in both political science and psychology, but its application to understanding and explaining phenomena within the research domain of a each discipline may have subtle differences based upon how scholars in that discipline apply the concept to the theories and practice of their work.

Given this, it is important that specialist terminology [i.e., jargon] must be used accurately and applied under the appropriate conditions . Subject-specific dictionaries are the best places to confirm the meaning of terms within the context of a specific discipline. These can be found by either searching in the USC Libraries catalog by entering the disciplinary and the word dictionary [e.g., sociology and dictionary] or using a database such as Credo Reference [a curated collection of subject encyclopedias, dictionaries, handbooks, guides from highly regarded publishers] . It is appropriate for you to use specialist language within your field of study, but you should avoid using such language when writing for non-academic or general audiences.

Problems with Opaque Writing

A common criticism of scholars is that they can utilize needlessly complex syntax or overly expansive vocabulary that is impenetrable or not well-defined. When writing, avoid problems associated with opaque writing by keeping in mind the following:

1.   Excessive use of specialized terminology . Yes, it is appropriate for you to use specialist language and a formal style of expression in academic writing, but it does not mean using "big words" just for the sake of doing so. Overuse of complex or obscure words or writing complicated sentence constructions gives readers the impression that your paper is more about style than substance; it leads the reader to question if you really know what you are talking about. Focus on creating clear, concise, and elegant prose that minimizes reliance on specialized terminology.

2.   Inappropriate use of specialized terminology . Because you are dealing with concepts, research, and data within your discipline, you need to use the technical language appropriate to that area of study. However, nothing will undermine the validity of your study quicker than the inappropriate application of a term or concept. Avoid using terms whose meaning you are unsure of--do not just guess or assume! Consult the meaning of terms in specialized, discipline-specific dictionaries by searching the USC Libraries catalog or the Credo Reference database [see above].

Additional Problems to Avoid

In addition to understanding the use of specialized language, there are other aspects of academic writing in the social sciences that you should be aware of. These problems include:

• Personal nouns . Excessive use of personal nouns [e.g., I, me, you, us] may lead the reader to believe the study was overly subjective. These words can be interpreted as being used only to avoid presenting empirical evidence about the research problem. Limit the use of personal nouns to descriptions of things you actually did [e.g., "I interviewed ten teachers about classroom management techniques..."]. Note that personal nouns are generally found in the discussion section of a paper because this is where you as the author/researcher interpret and describe your work.
• Directives . Avoid directives that demand the reader to "do this" or "do that." Directives should be framed as evidence-based recommendations or goals leading to specific outcomes. Note that an exception to this can be found in various forms of action research that involve evidence-based advocacy for social justice or transformative change. Within this area of the social sciences, authors may offer directives for action in a declarative tone of urgency.
• Informal, conversational tone using slang and idioms . Academic writing relies on excellent grammar and precise word structure. Your narrative should not include regional dialects or slang terms because they can be open to interpretation. Your writing should be direct and concise using standard English.
• Wordiness. Focus on being concise, straightforward, and developing a narrative that does not have confusing language . By doing so, you  help eliminate the possibility of the reader misinterpreting the design and purpose of your study.
• Vague expressions (e.g., "they," "we," "people," "the company," "that area," etc.). Being concise in your writing also includes avoiding vague references to persons, places, or things. While proofreading your paper, be sure to look for and edit any vague or imprecise statements that lack context or specificity.
• Numbered lists and bulleted items . The use of bulleted items or lists should be used only if the narrative dictates a need for clarity. For example, it is fine to state, "The four main problems with hedge funds are:" and then list them as 1, 2, 3, 4. However, in academic writing, this must then be followed by detailed explanation and analysis of each item. Given this, the question you should ask yourself while proofreading is: why begin with a list in the first place rather than just starting with systematic analysis of each item arranged in separate paragraphs? Also, be careful using numbers because they can imply a ranked order of priority or importance. If none exists, use bullets and avoid checkmarks or other symbols.
• Descriptive writing . Describing a research problem is an important means of contextualizing a study. In fact, some description or background information may be needed because you can not assume the reader knows the key aspects of the topic. However, the content of your paper should focus on methodology, the analysis and interpretation of findings, and their implications as they apply to the research problem rather than background information and descriptions of tangential issues.
• Personal experience. Drawing upon personal experience [e.g., traveling abroad; caring for someone with Alzheimer's disease] can be an effective way of introducing the research problem or engaging your readers in understanding its significance. Use personal experience only as an example, though, because academic writing relies on evidence-based research. To do otherwise is simply story-telling.

NOTE:   Rules concerning excellent grammar and precise word structure do not apply when quoting someone.  A quote should be inserted in the text of your paper exactly as it was stated. If the quote is especially vague or hard to understand, consider paraphrasing it or using a different quote to convey the same meaning. Consider inserting the term "sic" in brackets after the quoted text to indicate that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source, but the source had grammar, spelling, or other errors. The adverb sic informs the reader that the errors are not yours.

Academic Writing. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Academic Writing Style. First-Year Seminar Handbook. Mercer University; Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Cornell University; College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Murray, Rowena  and Sarah Moore. The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach . New York: Open University Press, 2006; Johnson, Eileen S. “Action Research.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education . Edited by George W. Noblit and Joseph R. Neikirk. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020); Oppenheimer, Daniel M. "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly." Applied Cognitive Psychology 20 (2006): 139-156; Ezza, El-Sadig Y. and Touria Drid. T eaching Academic Writing as a Discipline-Specific Skill in Higher Education . Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020; Pernawan, Ari. Common Flaws in Students' Research Proposals. English Education Department. Yogyakarta State University; Style. College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Invention: Five Qualities of Good Writing. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Improving Academic Writing

To improve your academic writing skills, you should focus your efforts on three key areas: 1.   Clear Writing . The act of thinking about precedes the process of writing about. Good writers spend sufficient time distilling information and reviewing major points from the literature they have reviewed before creating their work. Writing detailed outlines can help you clearly organize your thoughts. Effective academic writing begins with solid planning, so manage your time carefully. 2.  Excellent Grammar . Needless to say, English grammar can be difficult and complex; even the best scholars take many years before they have a command of the major points of good grammar. Take the time to learn the major and minor points of good grammar. Spend time practicing writing and seek detailed feedback from professors. Take advantage of the Writing Center on campus if you need help. Proper punctuation and good proofreading skills can significantly improve academic writing [see sub-tab for proofreading you paper ].

Refer to these three basic resources to help your grammar and writing skills:

• A good writing reference book, such as, Strunk and White’s book, The Elements of Style or the St. Martin's Handbook ;
• A college-level dictionary, such as, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary ;
• The latest edition of Roget's Thesaurus in Dictionary Form .

3.  Consistent Stylistic Approach . Whether your professor expresses a preference to use MLA, APA or the Chicago Manual of Style or not, choose one style manual and stick to it. Each of these style manuals provide rules on how to write out numbers, references, citations, footnotes, and lists. Consistent adherence to a style of writing helps with the narrative flow of your paper and improves its readability. Note that some disciplines require a particular style [e.g., education uses APA] so as you write more papers within your major, your familiarity with it will improve.

II. Evaluating Quality of Writing

A useful approach for evaluating the quality of your academic writing is to consider the following issues from the perspective of the reader. While proofreading your final draft, critically assess the following elements in your writing.

• It is shaped around one clear research problem, and it explains what that problem is from the outset.
• Your paper tells the reader why the problem is important and why people should know about it.
• You have accurately and thoroughly informed the reader what has already been published about this problem or others related to it and noted important gaps in the research.
• You have provided evidence to support your argument that the reader finds convincing.
• The paper includes a description of how and why particular evidence was collected and analyzed, and why specific theoretical arguments or concepts were used.
• The paper is made up of paragraphs, each containing only one controlling idea.
• You indicate how each section of the paper addresses the research problem.
• You have considered counter-arguments or counter-examples where they are relevant.
• Arguments, evidence, and their significance have been presented in the conclusion.
• Limitations of your research have been explained as evidence of the potential need for further study.
• The narrative flows in a clear, accurate, and well-organized way.

Boscoloa, Pietro, Barbara Arféb, and Mara Quarisaa. “Improving the Quality of Students' Academic Writing: An Intervention Study.” Studies in Higher Education 32 (August 2007): 419-438; Academic Writing. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Academic Writing Style. First-Year Seminar Handbook. Mercer University; Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Cornell University; Candlin, Christopher. Academic Writing Step-By-Step: A Research-based Approach . Bristol, CT: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2016; College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Style . College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Invention: Five Qualities of Good Writing. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College.

Writing Tip

Considering the Passive Voice in Academic Writing

In the English language, we are able to construct sentences in the following way: 1.  "The policies of Congress caused the economic crisis." 2.  "The economic crisis was caused by the policies of Congress."

The decision about which sentence to use is governed by whether you want to focus on “Congress” and what they did, or on “the economic crisis” and what caused it. This choice in focus is achieved with the use of either the active or the passive voice. When you want your readers to focus on the "doer" of an action, you can make the "doer"' the subject of the sentence and use the active form of the verb. When you want readers to focus on the person, place, or thing affected by the action, or the action itself, you can make the effect or the action the subject of the sentence by using the passive form of the verb.

Often in academic writing, scholars don't want to focus on who is doing an action, but on who is receiving or experiencing the consequences of that action. The passive voice is useful in academic writing because it allows writers to highlight the most important participants or events within sentences by placing them at the beginning of the sentence.

Use the passive voice when:

• You want to focus on the person, place, or thing affected by the action, or the action itself;
• It is not important who or what did the action;
• You want to be impersonal or more formal.

Form the passive voice by:

• Turning the object of the active sentence into the subject of the passive sentence.
• Changing the verb to a passive form by adding the appropriate form of the verb "to be" and the past participle of the main verb.

NOTE: Consult with your professor about using the passive voice before submitting your research paper. Some strongly discourage its use!

Active and Passive Voice. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Diefenbach, Paul. Future of Digital Media Syllabus. Drexel University; Passive Voice. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina.  

• << Previous: 2. Preparing to Write
• Next: Applying Critical Thinking >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 9:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Communication
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Preregistered hypotheses and research questions, implications for tpe research, supplementary material, acknowledgments.

• < Previous

Why we should rethink the third-person effect: disentangling bias and earned confidence using behavioral data

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Benjamin A Lyons, Why we should rethink the third-person effect: disentangling bias and earned confidence using behavioral data, Journal of Communication , Volume 72, Issue 5, October 2022, Pages 565–577, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac021

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Although positioned as a cognitive bias, third-person effect research has relied on self-reported difference scores that fail to capture bias appropriately. I use pre-registered and exploratory analyses of three nationally representative surveys ( N  =   10,004) to examine perceptions of susceptibility to false news and behavioral measures of actual susceptibility. Americans consistently exhibit third-person perception. However, some of this perceptual gap may be “earned.” I show that 62–68% of those exhibiting TPP are in fact less susceptible than average. Accordingly, I construct a performance-derived measure of true overconfidence. I find domain-involvement correlates of TPP tend not to hold for actual overconfidence. I also find significant differences in potential behavioral outcomes suggesting the traditional measure may often reflect genuine differences in self and others’ susceptibility to media, rather than a self-serving bias of presumed invulnerability. These results have important implications for our understanding and measurement of perceptual biases in communication research.

The third-person effect (TPE) is a foundational mass communication theory focusing specifically on perceptions of vulnerability to media messages. Third-person perception (TPP)—the belief that others will be more influenced by a message than one’s self—is a prevalent form of perceptual bias robust across domains and populations ( Davison, 1983 ; Sun et al., 2008 ) that sits alongside a family of phenomena that describe pervasive tendencies toward overconfidence relative to others and its potential consequences ( Kruger & Dunning 1999 ; Pronin et al., 2004 ; Weinstein, 1980 ; Zell et al., 2020 ).

Individuals tend to see themselves as less susceptible to persuasion, particularly from what they perceive as low-quality sources, and particularly when hypothetical consequences of a message are socially undesirable ( Gunther & Mundy, 1993 ; Gunther & Storey, 2003 ). These perceptual distortions can arise from both self-enhancement motivations and cognitive biases when making comparative social judgments ( Shen et al., 2018 ). Importantly, though, when a respondent has reasonably accurate information about their own and others’ vulnerability to media, self–other gaps may not be the result of bias. Despite this fact, there has been little effort in TPP research to move beyond a self-reported self–other difference score, which could reflect both actual and illusory differences between self and a target population of others ( Shen et al., 2018 ). Existing findings therefore likely inflate the “true” magnitude of TPP in terms of actual overconfidence in one’s own relative invulnerability to media, and examinations of its correlates may likewise be biased. Given this critique, I shift our focus in this study to actual overconfidence as defined against a behavioral benchmark.

I use pre-registered and exploratory analyses of three nationally representative surveys in the United States ( N  =   10,004). I focus on perceived and actual susceptibility to false news content using three key measures: (a) traditional TPP, the standard measure of the difference between confidence in self and others; (b) actual discernment ability, measured by performance on a 12-item task; and (c) overconfidence, which refers to greater confidence in self than others coupled with below average discernment ability. While Americans consistently exhibit TPP, for many this perceptual gap is “earned”—62–68% of those exhibiting TPP are in fact less susceptible than average. I likewise find stark differences in potential behavioral outcomes. Focusing on engagement with dubious media content, a behavior that may stem from an invulnerability bias underlying TPP ( Douglas & Sutton, 2004 ; Hansen et al., 2010 ), I find that overconfidence, but not traditional TPP, is sometimes associated with belief in topical misperceptions 1 and engagement intent for false news headlines. TPP on the other hand is associated with less susceptibility on these outcomes. In fact, TPP’s behavioral correlates closely reflect those of actual self–other differences in susceptibility as revealed by the news discernment task (where better performance is associated with less false news exposure, belief, or engagement). In other words, neither perceived (TPP) nor actual self–other differences are associated with negative media engagement behaviors in this study, only misperceived self–other gaps (actual overconfidence) are. This suggests traditional measures of TPP may often reflect genuine differences in self and others’ susceptibility to messages, rather than a bias of presumed invulnerability.

The tension raised between the measurement approaches in this study highlights the importance of thinking more clearly about the concepts underlying the TPE and mechanisms by which it can shape behavior. The immediate implications are obvious: My findings directly complicate work that purports to describe bias and its downstream effects on media behavior by way of a measure that fails to capture bias. Beyond this, though, my findings also speak to cases where TPP is framed only as differential presumed media influence. This study helps shed light on debates about TPP’s mobilizing effects ( Chung & Moon, 2016 ; Xu & Gonzenbach, 2008 ) by showing that traditional TPP measures reflect not only perceptual gaps but also real differences driven by domain interest, the latter of which may drive spurious associations with corrective action.

TPP as a cognitive bias

In a rigorous theorization of TPP, Shen et al. re-set the “definitional kernel” back to its origins as a cognitive fallacy ( Shen et al., 2018 ). In initially forwarding the hypothesis, Davison (1983) argued that TPP resulted from “exaggerated expectations” about media effects on others (p. 14), while others have characterized TPP as a widely held “logical inconsistency” ( Tiedge et al., 1991 ), and a construct that “emphasizes that people harbor illusions” ( Perloff, 1993 ). The core idea of TPP, Shen et al. argue, is systematic inaccuracy in social perceptions—by definition, a cognitive bias (i.e., a systematic error in thinking) ( Tsfati & Cohen, 2013 ).

Although fundamentally a cognitive phenomenon, this perceptual bias may also manifest in part due to self-enhancement motivations. Still, while estimates of media influence on self and others may be biased by such motivations [which researchers often fall back on when describing better-than-average effects like TPP ( Reid et al., 2007 )], these motivations are not necessary for the bias to occur, as informational shortfalls about others, faulty prototypes, and imprecise media effects schemas produce the cognitive bias in their absence ( Reid et al., 2007 ; Shen et al., 2018 ; Sun et al., 2008 ). TPP can arise with or without self-enhancement motivations because respondents may be victim to cognitive biases when they engage in a comparative social judgment process ( Shen et al., 2018 ). For example, in retrieving information about potential self–other differences, individuals have much more knowledge about the self and may fall back on generalizations or stereotypes about others ( McLeod et al., 2001 ).

In any event, a focus on bias , a conceptualization that corresponds better to Davison’s original (1983), implies that not all measured self–other differences are “true” TPP, because legitimate self–other differences occur. It follows that better methodology is needed to measure true TPP than current practice offers, and that theory regarding the behavioral component of the TPE, based on the accumulation of data using a potentially faulty measure, may need re-assessed.

Disentangling bias from difference

All studies of TPP employ a self–other difference score drawn from self-reports of perceived influence. Indeed, there has been little reflection on the appropriateness of this practice. But this operationalization of TPP departs from the concept under scrutiny, “confounding perceived difference with perceptual bias” ( Shen et al., 2018 , p. 403). This practice inflates the prevalence of TPP and may not accurately distinguish sub-populations exhibiting bias.

Despite researchers’ interest in biases in human thinking, social cognitive theories assume that we are to some extent capable of registering social reality. That is, despite some degree of error, our social judgments are not entirely flawed ( Heider, 1958 ). Therefore, estimates of vulnerability to media might be biased ( Davison, 1983 ), but not necessarily. For example, respondents display objectivity in rating media as more influential on low-education individuals and those with less domain knowledge ( Driscoll & Salwen, 1997 ; Price & Tewksbury, 1996 ), and those with less understanding of persuasion tactics and media literacy ( Campbell & Kirmani, 2000 ). Thus, respondents higher in education, domain knowledge, or media literacy may accurately report a self–other gap in presumed influence.

Following this logic, the standard measure contains both the true distance between self and others as well as some degree of error in under- or overestimation. Therefore, we must decompose these two components. This study therefore compares a traditional TPP measure with its component parts: Actual difference in susceptibility to media, and “true TPP”—overconfidence about oneself relative to others. 2

“True TPP” and behavior

Disentangling bias from earned confidence 3 may also help make sense of inconsistencies in research on the behavioral component of TPE ( Sun et al., 2008 ; Xu & Gonzenbach, 2008 ). However, scholars have yet to clarify predictions for behavior based on TPP as specified and measured as a cognitive fallacy as outlined above ( Shen et al., 2018 ).

That is, corrective actions (one of the more commonly studied behavioral components of TPE) may be motivated more by traditional measures of perceived differences in media influence ( Jang & Kim, 2018 ; Rojas, 2010 ; Sun et al., 2008 ) or overall presumed influence (i.e., “powerful media” schemas) ( Chung & Moon, 2016 ; Gunther & Storey, 2003 ) than by the degree of bias in self–other perceptions. This is because corrective action and other rectifying behaviors are thought to stem from perceived vulnerabilities of others, as well as other factors like paternalism ( Sun, Shen, & Pan, 2008 ). In other words, perception is key to driving these behaviors, rather than the degree of bias this perception might hold.

On the other hand, “true” TPP (i.e., overconfidence) may better explain behaviors attributed to “invulnerability bias” that may sometimes characterize TPP. An under-studied aspect of the potential behavioral outcomes of TPP, such a bias comports with downplaying effects on the self, and therefore feeling no need to take preventative actions (e.g., avoiding exposure) ( Wei et al., 2008 ). Social psychologists studying TPP ( Douglas & Sutton, 2004 ; Hansen et al., 2010 ) have suggested that TPP might sometimes be a manifestation of a bias much like those present when individuals downplay their personal risks from environmental hazards ( Klar et al., 1996 ). These biases reduce perceived personal risk, allowing individuals to expose themselves to risk without the anxiety that may accompany awareness ( Lyons et al., 2020 ; Perloff, 1987 ). This complacency could mean additional exposure for oneself to questionable media ( Corbu et al., 2020 ; Douglas & Sutton, 2004 ; Hansen et al., 2010 ). The degree of bias (or overconfidence) may be more important in these scenarios because lacking ac curate knowledge to make these estimates of influence would also come with reduced recognition of, and thus ability and motivation to avoid, such messages.

This would parallel findings from work that directly tackles overconfidence, though not focused on media effects, wherein poor performers often appear unaware of their own deficiency ( Kruger & Dunning, 1999 ), which can drive risky behavior (e.g., Ferraro, 2010 ). Because the behavioral effects of high confidence and weak performance include resistance to help, training, and corrections ( Dunning, 2011 ; Sheldon et al., 2014 ), an incorrect view of one’s ability to detect false news, for instance, might reduce the influence of new information about how to assess media items’ credibility as well as willingness to engage with digital literacy programs. In this study, therefore, I examine how a traditional TPP measure and its decomposed components, actual susceptibility and degree of overconfidence, relate with either avoidance or engagement with false and misleading news content. While our focus here is on false news content, the same underlying invulnerability bias could allow for greater exposure to any other class of media examined in the TPE canon (e.g., Chen & Atkin, 2020 ; Cho et al., 2010 ; Ham & Nelson, 2016 ).

I report both preregistered and exploratory analyses in the “Results” section below. In short, I preregistered a series of hypotheses focusing on traditional TPP, with one exception, my examination of news exposure, which looks at associations with both TPP and overconfidence. Based on recent work calling into question traditional TPP measurement ( Shen et al., 2018 ), I then added the additional comparisons of TPP with overconfidence that are the primary thrust of this study ( Table 1 ).

TPP of susceptibility to false news

Hypothesis 1: Respondents will, on average, be more confident in their “own ability to recognize news that is made up” than they are in “Americans’ ability to recognize news that is made up.”

Domain involvement correlates

Hypothesis 2: Political interest and knowledge, and performance in distinguishing mainstream from false news (i.e., lower perceived accuracy for false news, higher perceived accuracy for mainstream news) will be positively associated with TPP. Hypothesis 3: Negative feelings toward the media (mass media distrust, Facebook distrust, negative media feelings) will be positively associated with TPP.

News exposure correlates

Research Question 1: Is false news exposure associated with TPP or with actual overconfidence in one’s ability to distinguish mainstream from false news?

Exploratory research questions

As stated, I also conduct comparisons of TPP and overconfidence, following RQ1’s approach of side-by-side analysis. While traditional TPP has been associated with domain involvement correlates like political knowledge, overconfidence may not be, as this measure partials out a proxy for such skills in the discernment task, leaving only additional, unearned confidence. First, to examine whether the typical correlates of TPP differ from those of overconfidence, I replicate the above analyses of political sophistication and media trust correlates with overconfidence as the outcome variable. I next complement the analysis of potential behavioral correlates of TPP and overconfidence by adding engagement intention and belief in topical misperceptions alongside the examination of media exposure detailed above. I believe people who are overconfident will report greater intention to share or like false news than those who are not. Similarly, people who are overconfident will be more likely to hold a topical misperception than those who are not. If TPP generally reflects bias rather than actual differences, these same patterns should hold for this measure as well. On the other hand, if it is more representative of actual differences in ability, these patterns should not hold.

Survey data collection

I draw on data from three novel two-wave survey panels conducted by the survey company YouGov during and after the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. 4 By collecting data across three surveys, I am able to replicate the analyses across time, samples, and stimuli. The data come from: a two-wave panel study fielded June 25–July 3, 2018 (wave 1; N  = 1,718) and July 9–17, 2018 (wave 2; N  = 1,499); a two-wave panel study fielded October 19–26 (wave 1; N  = 3,378) and October 30–November 6, 2018 (wave 2; N  = 2,948); and a two-wave panel study fielded November 20–December 27, 2018 (wave 1; N  = 4,907) and December 14, 2018–January 3, 2019 (wave 2; N  = 4,283). Respondents were selected by YouGov’s matching and weighting algorithm to approximate the demographic and political attributes of the U.S. population (see Online Supplementary Appendix A ). Participants were ineligible to take part in more than one study. Pre-registration is available at: https://osf.io/fr4k5 and data and analysis script are available at: https://osf.io/fpdws/

News headline rating task

In each survey, I asked respondents to evaluate the accuracy of a number of headlines on a four-point scale. The articles, all of which appeared “in the wild” during the 2018 midterms, were published by actual news sources and were balanced within each veracity group in terms of their partisan congeniality. In total, I selected four mainstream news articles that were congenial to Democrats and four that were congenial to Republicans (each split between low- and high-prominence sources), and two pro-Democrat and two pro-Republican false news articles. 5 , 6 To the extent possible, I chose stories that were balanced in their face validity. When presented to respondents, the stories were formatted exactly as they appear on the Facebook news feed. Due to Facebook’s native formatting from this time, the visual appearance of some false article previews differed somewhat from those of the mainstream articles. This format replicates the decision environment faced by everyday users, who frequently assess the accuracy of news stories given only the content that appears in their news feeds. All headlines are presented in Online Supplementary Appendix A .

In the first wave of each survey, respondents were randomly assigned to evaluate a subset of headlines from each slant-and-veracity subcategory (e.g., pro-Republican high-prominence mainstream news, pro-Republican false news, etc.) on a scale ranging from “Not at all accurate” (1) to “Very accurate” (4). In the second wave, respondents then evaluated all twelve headlines using the same approach (I use the first wave ratings as the baseline of discernment ability per the preregistration). The order of the headlines was randomized within wave for each respondent. The June/July study uses an entirely different set of headlines than the October/November and November/December studies, which use a common set of stimuli.

Although my inferences are based on a relatively small number of headlines (a total of 24; two unique sets of 12), these appear to be comparable to the large set of political headlines in Pennycook, Binnendyk, Newton, and Rand (2020) (146 headlines): After rescaling all outcomes to range from 0 to 1, mean accuracy rating for mainstream headlines was .58/.67/.66 across the three surveys, respectively, and mean rating for false headlines was .32/.48/.50. These mean values (especially those from the set of headlines used in the second and third surveys) are highly similar to those in Pennycook et al., who found a mean rating of .63 for mainstream headlines and .49 for false headlines.

TPP, actual ability, and overconfidence

TPP of false news discernment ability is computed by subtracting the rating for Americans’ ability (4-pt.) from the rating for one’s own ability, creating a variable which ranges from −3 to 3. The order of the self and Americans items was randomized. Mean TPP ranged from 1.25 in the June/July survey to .92 in the Nov./Dec. survey (see Table 2 ).

Summary of Hypotheses and Research Questions

Descriptive Statistics

I calculate people’s ability to distinguish mainstream from false news—discernment ability—as mean(mainstream news accuracy) − mean(false news accuracy). Mean news discernment ranged from .80 in the June/July survey to .62 in the Nov./Dec. survey (see Table 2 ). 7

Next, I gauge the accuracy of perceptions of relative ability—overconfidence—based on the two above measures. After calculating discernment ability, I order respondents by their performance. I then create the variable overconfidence , where 1 = more confident in themselves than in Americans’ ability to recognize news that is made up, but below median on discernment; 0 = equally confident in themselves and in Americans, plus those who accurately identify themselves as above or below the median; and −1 = less confident in themselves than in Americans’ ability to recognize news that is made up, but above median on discernment. The percentage of respondents categorized as overconfident ranged from 29% in the June/July survey to 21% in Nov./Dec. survey (see Table 3 ).

Third-person Perception and Overconfidence Percentages

When I graph the discernment scores against overconfidence, disaggregated by mainstream and false news headlines, I see that overconfident respondents perform worse than others at identifying false news as well as at rating legitimate news headlines ( Figure B1 ). In other words, their over-confidence tends to be derived from greater belief in false news combined with greater skepticism of mainstream news, rather than, for example, overall greater credulity.

Media exposure data

I also analyze media exposure using behavioral data of respondents’ web visits, collected unobtrusively. Data is available from users’ laptop or desktop computers as well as their mobile devices and tablets. 8 The measures come from a period immediately following each survey. 9

I first created a binary measure of whether respondents made one or more visits to false news sites. 10 The binary measure of false news exposure is coded as 1 if the respondent visited any of the domains in the list (June/July: 10%, Oct./Nov.: 7%, Nov./Dec.: 6%) and 0 otherwise. I also created a binary measure of mainstream news exposure (June/July: 73%, Oct./Nov.: 60%, Nov./Dec.: 52%). I use the latter measure to account for the possibility that some individuals may simply be more likely to be exposed to news online. In addition to these, I also measure the overall ideological slant of respondents’ total information diet, which I divide into deciles from most liberal to most conservative ( Guess, 2021 ). I use this measure in my analysis in an attempt to control for the general ideological orientation of news diets. 11 Importantly, not all respondents who were part of the survey opted into the web-tracking portion of the study. Thus, the sample sizes using this data decrease significantly, especially in the June/July and Nov./Dec. surveys where only 24% and 20% of the respondents also provided web-tracking data (vs. 78% in Oct./Nov.). 12 The result is that analyses using web-tracking data have less power.

Engagement intention and topical misperceptions

The engagement measure is self-reported intention to “like” or “share” each of the articles in the headline task on Facebook (1 = not at all likely, 4 = very likely). This is asked only of respondents who report using Facebook. I then create a measure of mean intent to share or like false articles as well as a discernment measure computed as follows: mean(mainstream share) −mean(false share). I base this measure on responses to headlines in wave 2, as this provides us intention on the full set of headlines. While I only observe self-reported behavioral intentions, self-reported sharing intention for political news articles has been shown to correlate with aggregate observed sharing behavior on Twitter at r = .44 ( Mosleh et al., 2020 ).

I measured belief in topical misperceptions in the June/July and October/November surveys with a total of three sets of questions (I employed a unique battery in each wave of the June/July survey while the same question set was repeated in both waves of the October/November survey). Questions focused on surveillance knowledge and misperceptions contemporaneous to the fielding of each survey, and included topics such as Trump’s immigration policy, the Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Full question wording is listed in the Online Supplementary Appendix . Each set of questions included both true and false statements that respondents rated on a four-point accuracy scale ranging from “Not at all accurate” to “Very accurate.” Questions in each battery were balanced in partisan congeniality. In each case, I examine misperceptions in two ways: perceived accuracy of false statements only, and by calculating a difference score (mean(true)-mean(false).

For both engagement intent and topical misperceptions, I test whether TPP or overconfidence’s relationships with the outcome are conditional on the congeniality of the headlines or statements. Congeniality is coded at the headline or statement level for partisans to indicate that a story or statement is consistent with the respondents’ partisan leanings (e.g., a Democrat evaluating a story that is favorable to a Democrat) and is a zero otherwise. I used the standard two-question party identification battery (which includes leaners) to classify respondents as Democrats or Republicans.

I measure a number of hypothesized correlates of TPP and overconfidence. These include trust and confidence in mass media, trust and confidence in information seen on Facebook, affect toward news media measured on a 100-pt feeling thermometer, a measure of objective political knowledge, and political interest. I also include a set of standard covariates including dichotomous indicators of Democrat and Republican affiliation (including leaners), college education, gender, nonwhite racial background, and dichotomous indicators of age (30–44, 45–59, and 60+; 18–29 is the omitted category) (Full question list available in Appendix A ).

Descriptive results

To test whether respondents exhibited TPP, I conducted paired t -tests between the means of confidence for “own self” and “other Americans” (means are included in Table 2 ). Across each survey, respondents consistently perceived their own ability to detect false news as above average: June/July: t (1687) = 55.86; Oct./Nov.: t (3289) = 61.24; Nov./Dec.: t (4836) = 64.68, all p < .005. Respondents rated their ability between .92 and 1.25 points higher than that of other Americans on a 4-pt. scale.

Next, I assessed the degree of overlap between TPP and discernment, and TPP and overconfidence. TPP was moderately correlated with discernment ability, as shown in Figure B2 (June/July r = .33; Oct./Nov. r = .27; Nov./Dec. r = .28). The correlation between overconfidence and TPP ranged from r = .19 in June/July to .35 in Nov./Dec. In other words, a sizeable amount of TPP reflects actual self–other gaps, though it also captures some overconfidence. I tease apart the overlap of TPP and overconfidence further in Figure 1 , which shows a majority (62–68%) of those exhibiting TPP are indeed less susceptible to false news than average (Similarly, Figure B3 depicts the proportion of respondents across levels of TPP and discernment quartiles). As Table 3 shows, while a traditional measure of TPP would suggest 64–79% of the public shows this bias, only 21–29% are actually overconfident. Further, most of those classified as overconfident were only coded as 1 on the TPP self–other difference scale (which ranges from −3 to 3); just 1–2% of the full samples exhibited maximal overconfidence (TPP = 3, but below average ability).

Percent Performing above Average across Third-person Perception

Notes : TPP is shown in three bins on the x -axes, ranging from those showing first-person perception (those less confident in self than others) on the left, to those equally confident in self and others in the middle, to those showing third-person perception (those more confident in self than others) on the right. The y -axes are the percent in each group who actually performed above average. Therefore, the rightmost bars represent to proportion of accurately confident respondents among those who show TPP (64–67%).

Correlates of TPP and overconfidence

Next, I examine political, attitudinal, and media exposure correlates of the outcome measures of TPP and overconfidence. For the sake of comparison, I also replicate these models with actual discernment ability as the outcome of interest. I use OLS regression models, include a set of standard covariates, and employ survey weights for each model. To aid comparison, I rescale TPP, overconfidence, and actual discernment ability to range from 0 to 1.

First, I examine whether measures of sophistication—political interest and political knowledge—are associated with TPP. In this model, TPP (or overconfidence or discernment ability) is the outcome variable, with political interest and knowledge, along with a preregistered set of covariates, as predictors. 13 Results are shown in Figure 2 (full results are included in Online Supplementary Table B1 ).

Associations with Domain Involvement Measures.

Notes : Point estimates include 95% CIs and come from OLS regression models. Outcome measures are TPP, overconfidence, and ability, each rescaled to range from 0 to 1. All models include controls for Democrat, Republican, college education, gender, nonwhite racial background, and age. Media trust models also include a media affect feeling thermometer [suppressed for visual clarity].

Both political interest and political knowledge are associated with greater TPP in each sample. Replicating these models with overconfidence as the outcome of interest, however, suggests neither is consistently associated with overconfidence. In sum, political sophistication—our stand-in for domain involvement or expertise—appears to be associated with the traditional measure of TPP but not with actual overconfidence. The associations between TPP and sophistication better match those of actual discernment ability than overconfidence.

Next, I examine associations of each with media trust, another domain-relevant trait. Results are also shown in Figure 2 (and Online Supplementary Tables B2 and B7 ). In an omnibus model (with all three measures of trust included as predictors), those who distrust the mass media exhibit greater TPP in two samples, and more consistently and to an even greater extent, those who distrust information seen on Facebook likewise exhibit greater TPP (or conversely, high-trust individuals exhibit lesser TPP). 14

Replicating these models with overconfidence as the outcome of interest, I find that mass media trust as well as affect toward the media is also negatively associated overconfidence, but I find no association with trust in information seen on Facebook. When looking at actual discernment ability, I find positive associations with mass media trust and media affect, and negative associations with trust in information seen on Facebook. In some ways, then, the pattern of results for TPP is closer to that for discernment ability than overconfidence: relatively greater trust in mass media and less in information from social media.

Media exposure

Next, I examine whether web-tracked visits to dubious news sites are associated with TPP or overconfidence. I do so using a binary measure of exposure as the outcome of interest. I also examine exposure to any mainstream news sites alongside these tests, as some individuals may simply consume more news overall. Again, I use OLS regression models, include a set of standard covariates, and employ survey weights for each model. To aid comparison, I re-scale TPP, overconfidence, and actual discernment ability to range from 0 to 1. Results are shown in Online Supplementary Table B3 and Figure B4 . Most of the relationships tested are not significant, in part due to imprecise estimates that stem from the proportion of the sample opting-in to web-tracking as detailed in the Methods section. However, in the largest web-tracking sample (Oct./Nov. 2018), TPP is associated with binary exposure to dubious news domains. In contrast, actual discernment ability is negatively associated with false news exposure in this sample. 15 When examining count data instead of the binary measure, actual discernment ability remains negatively associated, though the relationship is no longer significant for TPP and false news site visits (see Online Supplementary Table B8 ). Overall, though, due to the decreased power in analyses of respondents who opted-in to web-tracking, we should use caution in interpreting these mixed results.

Associations with Topical Misperceptions.

Notes : In three distinct question batteries, respondents rated the accuracy of four topical political statements on 4-pt. scales. Left panel outcome variables are perceived accuracy of false statements only. Right panel outcome variables are the difference in the mean perceived accuracy of true and false statements. Point estimates include 95% CIs and come from separate OLS regression models. TPP, overconfidence, and ability are re-scaled to range from 0 to 1. All models include controls for Democrat, Republican, college education, gender, nonwhite racial background, age, and statement congeniality. False statement models include statement fixed effects.

Other potential behavioral correlates engagement intent

Next, I turn to exploratory findings regarding TPP, overconfidence, and other behaviors that may result from perceptual biases. For both engagement intent and topical misperceptions, the first dependent variable is intent to engage with false headlines or perceived accuracy of false statements, which may differ in plausibility. To account for these baseline differences between headlines or statements, I analyze pooled OLS models of engagement intent or accuracy ratings, at the headline or statement level, that include fixed effects for each. Because respondents rated multiple headlines or statements, I adjust the standard errors to account for clustering on the individual respondent. In contrast, when I examine difference scores, I calculate a respondent-level measure. As in the prior models, I rescale TPP, overconfidence, and actual discernment ability to range from 0 to 1.

First, I find that TPP is associated with lesser willingness to share or like false headlines, in each sample. TPP is also associated with a better difference score in both the June/July and Nov./Dec. samples. These results mirror those for actual discernment ability. Overconfidence, conversely, is associated with greater willingness to share or like false news headlines, particularly when they are politically congenial, and a worse difference score in the Nov./Dec. sample. In sum, TPP and overconfidence diverge in predicting engagement intentions with false news headlines ( Figure 3 and Online Supplementary Table B4 ).

Associations with Engagement Intent .

Notes : Outcome variables are self-reported intention to “like” or “share” on Facebook (4-pt. scales; 4 = very likely), asked only of respondents who report using Facebook. Left panel outcome variables are engagement intent for false headlines only. Right panel outcome variables are difference scores (mean(mainstream) − mean(false)). Point estimates include 95% CIs and come from separate OLS regression models. TPP, overconfidence, and ability are rescaled to range from 0 to 1. All models include controls for Democrat, Republican, college education, gender, nonwhite racial background, age, and headline congeniality. False headline models include headline fixed effects.

Topical misperceptions

Next, I examine surveillance knowledge and belief in misperceptions contemporaneous to the fielding of the surveys. The first battery is from the June/July survey, and centers on claims surrounding the Trump administration’s immigration policy. The second battery also comes from the June/July survey, and centers on additional claims related to Trump, including the Russia investigations, employment statistics, and immigration statistics. The final battery (appearing in both waves of the October/November survey) dealt with claims surrounding the Kavanaugh Supreme Court appointment. Results are shown in Figure 4 and Online Supplementary Table B5 (I graph the conditional effects of predictors by statement congeniality in Online Supplementary Figure B5 ).

Across all three batteries, TPP is associated with better ability to discern between true and false statements in the difference score. As with engagement intent, these results mirror those for actual discernment ability. In contrast, the results for overconfidence are more mixed. Overconfidence is associated with belief in false claims and a worse difference score in the second battery, for instance. In general, results again diverge for TPP and actual overconfidence. 16

I find above that a traditional measure of TPP broadly reflects actual self–other differences, and its correlates tend to track more closely those of actual ability than overconfidence. These findings suggest not only that different measures may be needed, but also that our theoretical assumptions about how TPP works may need adjusted in some cases. In this section, I articulate what these results mean for the broad body of work concerning the TPE. I outline cases from TPE research, discuss how these findings would impact them, and provide potential paths forward. Though not an exhaustive list, it is my hope that this should provide both actionable advice and spark further discussion in the literature.

Case 1: Referring to TPP as a biased estimate

Recent TPE studies seem to commit the same conflation as those dating back to Davison (1983) : Describing TPP by way of perceptual difference scores as overestimation of invulnerability to media. Such studies refer to TPP variously as a bias, overestimate of relative invulnerability, or overconfidence. Sometimes this is confined to theory sections describing the prevailing consensus on the nature of TPP (e.g., Jang & Kim, 2018 ; Yang & Horning, 2020 ), but in other studies this framing spills over into the discussion of the results themselves (e.g., Corbu et al., 2020 ; Ho et al., 2019 ; Liu & Huang, 2020 ; Müller & Scherr, 2017 ; Yang & Tian, 2021 ).

There are two paths forward for such studies. First, in absence of contrary evidence, they can simply reframe TPP as a perception gap rather than a bias, noting that the gap may be the result of some degree of bias and actual underlying differences. Alternatively, they can make use of behavioral measures of susceptibility. It is important to stress that behavioral measures can take a variety of approaches. For instance, while I used a multi-item task to assess susceptibility to a general form of media content, others may be well served by exposing participants to a single message and assessing its effects on attitudes as a measure of influence ( Dahlstrom & Rosenthal, 2018 ) [for additional measurement consideration see Graham and Coppock (2021) ]. Still others might take advantage of eye tracking and other physiological data in ways better tailored to the topic at hand, especially if interested in emotional outcomes ( Liu & Huang, 2020 ). Regardless, it will be important to consider the reference group and make sure they are being adequately sampled (e.g., a representative sample if the general public). Although there are two paths toward aligning theory with methods, this choice should be driven more by the theory the authors forward than by access to a given measurement. This requires scholars to answer when exactly we might care about the perceptual self–other gap if it is a reasonable proxy for the actual self–other gap, or why an actual self–other gap might drive the outcome of interest.

Case 2: Examining correlates of TPP

Many examinations of TPP describe its correlates, and the present findings may complicate these relationships when TPP is framed as a biased estimate. Variables associated with actual media (in)vulnerability will likely be associated with TPP, but not necessarily with overconfidence. For instance, recent research on TPP of false news has enumerated education, political interest, strength of partisan identity, self-reported active fact-checking, and various measures of efficacy as its correlates ( Corbu et al., 2020 ; Jang & Kim, 2018 ; Liu & Huang, 2020 ; Yang & Tian, 2021 ). However, these are proxies for involvement with politics and media, and thus may relate more closely with actual self–other gaps. This issue is not isolated to the domain of politics; for instance, parents who engage in mediation practices with their children exhibit greater TPP regarding their child’s susceptibility to cyberbullying ( Ho et al., 2019 ), but such children may in fact be less vulnerable. As above, studies reporting such correlates may either reframe TPP or collect behavioral data.

Case 3: Examining TPP among sub-populations

Similarly, another variety of study examines how TPP operates among sub-populations of interest. While most TPE studies have been conducted using samples of predominantly white undergraduates or broader samples of (still predominately white) Americans ( Shen et al., 2018 ), some studies have examined whether the effect holds for others. For example, among a sample of low-income, low-education, Spanish-speaking female adults in the United States, the TPE disappears, as most rate themselves no better or worse than average ( Sun et al., 2014 ). On the other hand, some studies look at TPP among partisans regarding oppositional partisan media (e.g., Hyun & Seo, 2019 ; Price et al., 1997 ), suggesting stronger partisanship drives greater perceptual bias [see also TPP among radicalized Islamists ( Baugut & Neumann, 2020 )]. However, it is reasonable to assume strong partisans are indeed less susceptible to the out-party’s messaging.

Understanding TPP as reflective of underlying differences in media susceptibility would help explain when the effect will and will not be found when examining unique subgroups. This lesson should also be considered when eliciting TPP by using topic-relevant reference groups ( Meirick, 2004 )—certain intergroup comparisons may be more of less likely to elicit TPP based on the true underlying gap in media susceptibility between them.

Finally, the findings have a larger implication for sampling in TPE research. The majority of TPE studies have been conducted on undergraduates, who differ from the general population in education, media savvy, and other characteristics ( Shen et al., 2018 ). However, if actual susceptibility to media plays such a large role in structuring TPP, samples drawn from pools of undergraduate students may be especially problematic. Indeed, self–other perceptual gaps are wider in student samples than non-student samples ( Paul et al., 2000 ). The same may be true of opt-in survey platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk due to the underlying composition of the pool ( Chandler et al., 2019 ).

Case 4: Positing perceptual difference as a driver of corrective action

Studies focusing on corrective action (e.g., Rojas, 2010 ) have become among the most common TPE research inquires in recent years. They propose that greater presumed effects on others relative to oneself can drive engagement in corrective actions to mitigate such media effects on others. Because according to this theory these actions are driven by perception, rather than bias, my results do not imply the need for any changes. Still, these results give cause to think through how the theoretical model has been described. For instance, although studies have examined TPP as a potential driver of voting and other political participation (e.g., Banning, 2006 ; Golan et al., 2008 ; Hyun & Seo, 2019 ; Rojas, 2010 ), the mobilizing influence of TPP is debated ( Xu & Gonzenbach, 2008 ), and presumed influence is often argued to be a better account ( Chung & Moon, 2016 ). One potential explanation I provide is the muddiness of the traditional TPP measure, since this captures actual gaps that are likely associated with interest in politics, as well as some degree of bias. In contrast, presumed influence is a cleaner concept working independently of ability. These results might allow those working in this space to step back to reevaluate this debate on new theoretical terms.

Case 5: Positing TPP as a cause for engagement with harmful media

Other TPE studies follow the route taken in the present work: Examining whether TPP acts as an invulnerability bias ironically allowing individuals to expose themselves to harmful media ( Douglas & Sutton, 2004 ; Hansen et al., 2010 ) or avoid preventative action ( Wei et al., 2008 ). Contrary to the theory behind corrective action, then, perceptions of influence also matter relative to actual influence in this case; that is, the disparity between perception and reality can also drive media-related behaviors. However, studies in this vein often argue that traditional TPP itself represents overconfidence and may result in greater effects of harmful media ( Corbu et al., 2020 ; Yang & Tian, 2021 ). The only workable path forward in this case is better measurement; the theory cannot be retrofitted to match an easier measurement approach. In other cases, too, authors may be more interested in overconfidence (vs. traditional TPP) than they realize. For example, overconfidence in one’s knowledge of online advertising ( Ham & Nelson, 2016 ) or privacy risks ( Chen & Atkin, 2020 ; Cho et al., 2010 ) may be better predictors of failure to engage in effective protective actions than traditional TPP.

I compare the traditional measure of TPP to actual overconfidence using a behavioral baseline of media susceptibility. As such, I help extend the TPP literature in examining the prevalence and cor relates of what Shen et al. ( Shen et al., 2018 ) call “true” TPP. First, I find most of those who exhibit TPP as traditionally measured are actually less susceptible than average (around 62–68%). In other words, news discernment ability is associated with greater TPP, suggesting traditional measures of TPP may capture “earned” perceptual gaps. This carries over into an examination of correlates. Political sophistication (interest, knowledge) is associated with TPP and actual discernment ability, but not overconfidence. Likewise, those higher in TPP tend to display relatively greater trust in the mass media than in information seen on Facebook, as do those higher in discernment ability, while those with greater overconfidence display the opposite pattern. Importantly, those higher in TPP also express less willingness to share false headlines and less belief in a variety of topical misperceptions, as do those higher in discernment ability.

Overall, these findings suggest that if meant to capture cognitive bias, as is arguably at the “definitional kernel” of the TPE, then our standard measure is poor, and conflates bias and earned confidence. This interferes with our ability to understand the magnitude of bias, its demographic correlates, as well as potential downstream outcomes. As such, I have outlined above a series of implications for TPE research. Specifically, my results should be considered when (a) researchers refer to TPP as a biased estimate; (b) they examine TPP’s correlates; (c) they examine TPP among subpopulations; (d) they posit TPP as a driver of corrective action; or (e) they posit TPP as a cause for engagement with harmful media. Depending on the context, such considerations may drive either methodological or theoretical shifts in TPE research.

In terms of (re)conceptualizing TPP, my results suggest that rather than framing it as an optimistic bias or arising due to limited information about others, a better model would focus on the actual self–other differences contributing to it but acknowledge that bias and information also can play a role. While fully compatible with an understanding of TPP as respondents’ (largely accurate) schema for media effects and stereotypes about who is receiving them ( Shen et al., 2018 ), this challenges reliance on TPP as a stand in for bias and overconfidence, as I have argued. Accordingly, it is worth considering in future work that the public generally has reasonable views of their relative susceptibility to media. This comes in contrast to increased paternalism in academic or institutional responses to mis- and disinformation in recent years.

These results should be understood in the context of their limitations. Importantly, the degree of earned confidence I detail is measured in only one domain of TPP: vulnerability to false news. Similar investigations are needed to ascertain this pattern in the broad landscape of TPE research. I also focus only on the United States; these relationships should be examined cross-nationally [although cross-national findings suggest overconfidence, for instance, is universal ( Stankov & Lee, 2014 )]. Further, each of my analyses of potential downstream behaviors is correlational, so I cannot ascertain the causal influence of TPP or overconfidence on news exposure, engagement, or belief in false claims, and there is good reason to believe these relationships may be mutually reinforcing.

My measure of discernment ability rests on two limited sets of headlines, as discussed in “Methods” section, that nonetheless produce mean ratings comparable to larger datasets ( Pennycook et al., 2020 ) and are consistently associated with outcomes of interest. Still, these scales have not been psycho metrically validated. Such an effort is a current concern in the field ( Maertens et al., 2021 ), but such endeavors may fail to appropriately capture the inherently transitory nature of news or the many context-specific differences that make real and “fake” news what they are. Additionally, as outlined above, the analyses of news exposure rely on significantly decreased sample sizes and should be interpreted cautiously. Lastly, I must use a crude three-point measure of overconfidence due to the nature of traditional TPP questions to which I must match a behavioral measure. Future advances in TPP research should consider a more granular self-rated percentile measure of perceived relative performance used in Dunning–Kruger studies of overconfidence ( Dunning, 2011 ).

Despite these limitations, I provide evidence from preregistered and exploratory analyses of three large, nationally representative samples, and replicate my findings over time and across stimuli. I hope that the findings presented here show that better attention to conceptualizing and measuring media perceptions and their effects on media-related behaviors will help advance the study of media effects more broadly.

Supplementary material is available online at Journal of Communication .

I thank the Democracy Fund, the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 682758), the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College, and the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy at Washington University in St Louis for funding support and Sam Luks and Marissa Shih at YouGov for survey assistance. Additional thanks to Andy Guess, Jacob Montgomery, Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler as collaborators on the project’s survey design and data collection, and Ye Sun, Rick Perloff, Jake Jensen, and four anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. All conclusions and any errors are my own.

I use topical misperceptions to refer to beliefs in false claims surrounding recent political developments (rather than longstanding misperceptions such as those surrounding, e.g., the scientific consensus on climate change). For this reason, they can be seen as a subset or extension of what other scholars have called “surveillance knowledge,” ( Barabas et al., 2014 ; Carpini & Keeter, 1991 ). I depart in emphasizing that citizens can also become misinformed when engaging in surveillance of the news environment, and thus may hold both knowledge and misperceptions about the same recent developments. Notably, I address both misperceptions alone, and discernment between surveillance knowledge and related misperceptions, in my models.

A few studies have used control groups to infer “actual effects,” ( Cohen et al., 1988 ; Gunther, 1991 ; Perloff, 1989 ), though their approaches do not capture overconfidence itself ( Shen et al., 2018 ).

At times throughout the study, I refer to overconfidence (greater confidence in self than others coupled with below average performance) as bias and refer to greater confidence in self-coupled with above average performance as “earned confidence.”

These surveys included a number of orthogonal studies, including a false news exposure experiment ( Guess et al., 2020 ), and a voter fraud claim exposure experiment ( Berlinski et al., 2021 ), as well as an alternative measure of overconfidence in news judgments examined in Lyons et al.(2021) .

I define high prominence mainstream sources as those that more than four in ten Americans recognize in recent polling by Pew ( Mitchell et al., 2014 ). False news stories were verified as false by at least one third-party fact checking organization.

Respondents also rated the accuracy of four hyper-partisan news headlines, not included in these analyses as such headlines are technically factual but present slanted facts in a deceptive manner. I do not include these articles in this analysis due to the inherent ambiguity as to whether they are truthful. These headlines were included as part of a separate study ( Guess, Lerner, et al., 2020 ).

I also categorize whether respondents tend to perceive only mainstream news as accurate, only false news as accurate, all news as accurate, or all news as inaccurate. Interestingly, the majority of respondents fall into the last category, rating both mainstream and false headlines as inaccurate on average, followed by the “high for mainstream only” group (24–36%). The remaining groups were much smaller. Next, I examined TPP across these groups. It was consistently highest among the “high for mainstream only” group followed by “low for both,” with the remaining groups scoring much lower (see Online Supplementary Table B11 ).

Web visits are collected anonymously with users’ permission through a mix of browser plug-ins, proxies, and VPNs. The provider of this passive metering data is the firm Reality Mine, whose technology underlies the YouGov Pulse panel from which survey respondents were sampled.

See Online Supplementary Appendix A for details on construction of these measures, including lists of web domains used.

An alternative would be to simply use a count of the number. However, the distribution was highly skewed; 90– 94% of respondents visited zero false news sites and the distribution among nonzero respondents had a long right tail (June/July M = 1.75, SD = 18.26, min = 0, max = 438; Oct./Nov. M = .43, SD = 3.24, min = 0, max = 75; Nov./Dec. M = .21, SD = 1.37, min = 0, max = 25). I report models using count data in the Online Supplementary Appendix .

The Online Supplementary Appendix shows that TPP and overconfidence seem to have no clear relationship with the ideological slant of respondents’ news diets.

The decline between surveys reflects the lack of available respondents who (a) participated in the web-tracking and (b) did not participate in earlier waves of data collection.

The preregistered TPP model controls for discernment ability; in Online Supplementary Appendix B , I also present results without this in the model, which are substantively identical.

Preregistered models in which each of the three media trust variables are entered alone produce similar results. In such models, all three trust/affect items are negatively associated with TPP. Mass media trust and media affect are negatively associated with overconfidence, and Facebook information trust is not associated with overconfidence.

I present models wherein discernment ability is disaggregated to its component parts (false and mainstream headline ratings) in Online Supplementary Tables B12–B14; each component appears to contribute unique explanatory power.

I also include a series of additional preregistered tests in Online Supplementary Appendix C . First, I show in Table C1 that exposure to a brief “news tips” media literacy treatment had a small positive effect on TPP, which coupled with a considerable improvement in discernment ability [reported in full in ( Guess, Lerner, et al., 2020 )], lead to a small decrease in overconfidence. These results provide evidence of the causal effect of ability on TPP, and further reinforce the difference between measuring confidence and bias. Beyond this, I also present models testing for partisan asymmetry ( Online Supplementary Table C2 ) and age disparities in TPP and overconfidence ( Online Supplementary Tables C3–C4 ).

Banning S. A. ( 2006 ). Third-person effects on political participation . Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 83 ( 4 ), 785 – 800 . http://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300404

Google Scholar

Barabas J. , Jerit J. , Pollock W. , Rainey C. ( 2014 ). The question (s) of political knowledge . American Political Science Review , 108 ( 4 ), 840 – 855 . http://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000392

Baugut P. , Neumann K. ( 2020 ). Describing perceptions of media influence among radicalized individuals: The case of jihadists and non-violent Islamists . Political Communication , 37 ( 1 ), 65 – 87 . http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1663323

Berlinski N. , Doyle M. , Guess A. M. , Levy G. , Lyons B. , Montgomery J. M. , Brendan N. , Reifler J. ( 2021 ). The effects of unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud on confidence in elections . Journal of Experimental Political Science , 1-16 . http://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.18

Campbell M. C. , Kirmani A. ( 2000 ). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent . Journal of Consumer Research , 27 ( 1 ), 69 – 83 . http://doi.org/10.1086/314309

Carpini M. X. D. , Keeter S. ( 1991 ). Stability and change in the US public’s knowledge of politics . Public Opinion Quarterly , 55 ( 4 ), 583 – 612 . http://doi.org/10.1086/269283

Chandler J. , Rosenzweig C. , Moss A. J. , Robinson J. , Litman L. ( 2019 ). Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk . Behavior Research Methods , 51 ( 5 ), 2022 – 2038 . http://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7

Chen H. , Atkin D. ( 2020 ). Understanding third-person perception about internet privacy risks . New Media & Society , 23 ( 3 ): 419 – 437 . http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820902103

Cho H. , Lee J.-S. , Chung S. ( 2010 ). Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: Testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience . Computers in Human Behavior , 26 ( 5 ), 987 – 995 . http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.012

Chung S. , Moon S.-I. ( 2016 ). Is the third-person effect real? A critical examination of rationales, testing methods, and previous findings of the third-person effect on censorship attitudes . Human Communication Research , 42 ( 2 ), 312 – 337 . http://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12078

Cohen J. , Mutz D. , Price V. , Gunther A. ( 1988 ). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects . Public Opinion Quarterly , 52 ( 2 ), 161 – 173 . http://doi.org/10.1086/269092

Corbu N. , Oprea D.-A. , Negrea-Busuioc E. , Radu L. ( 2020 ). They can’t fool me, but they can fool the others!’ Third person effect and fake news detection . European Journal of Communication , 35 ( 2 ), 165 – 180 . http://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120903686

Dahlstrom M. F. , Rosenthal S. ( 2018 ). Third-person perception of science narratives: The case of climate change denial . Science Communication , 40 ( 3 ), 340 – 365 . http://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018766556

Davison W. P. ( 1983 ). The third-person effect in communication . Public Opinion Quarterly , 47 ( 1 ), 1 – 15 . http://doi.org/10.1086/268763

Douglas K. M. , Sutton R. M. ( 2004 ). Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self-other differences in resistance to persuasion . The British Journal of Social Psychology , 43 ( Pt 4 ), 585 – 603 . http://doi.org/10.1348/0144666042565416

Driscoll P. D. , Salwen M. B. ( 1997 ). Self-perceived knowledge of the OJ Simpson trial: Third-person perception and perceptions of guilt . Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 74 ( 3 ), 541 – 556 . http://doi.org/10.1177/107769909707400308

Dunning D. ( 2011 ). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 44 , 247 – 296 . http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6

Ferraro P. J. ( 2010 ). Know thyself: Competence and self-awareness . Atlantic Economic Journal , 38 ( 2 ), 183 – 196 . http://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-010-9226-2

Golan G. J. , Banning S. A. , Lundy L. ( 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 . http://doi.org/10.1177/0002764208321356

Graham M. H. , Coppock A. ( 2021 ). Asking about attitude change . Public Opinion Quarterly , 85 ( 1 ), 28 – 53 . http://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab009

Guess A. M. ( 2021 ). (Almost) everything in moderation: New evidence on Americans’ online media diets . American Journal of Political Science , 65 ( 4 ), 1007 – 1022 . http://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12589

Guess A. M. , Lerner M. , Lyons B. , Montgomery J. M. , Nyhan B. , Reifler J. , Sircar N. ( 2020 ). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 27 ), 15536 – 15545 . http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.192049811

Guess A. M. , Lockett D. , Lyons B. , Montgomery J. M. , Nyhan B. , Reifler J. ( 2020 ). Fake news’ may have limited effects beyond increasing beliefs in false claims . Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review) , 1 ( 1 ). http://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-004

Gunther A. ( 1991 ). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect . Communication Research , 18 ( 3 ), 355 – 372 . http://doi.org/10.1177/009365091018003004

Gunther A. C. , Mundy P. ( 1993 ). Biased optimism and the third-person effect . Journalism Quarterly , 70 ( 1 ), 58 – 67 . http://doi.org/10.1177/107769909307000107

Gunther A. C. , Storey J. D. ( 2003 ). The influence of presumed influence . Journal of Communication , 53 ( 2 ), 199 – 215 . http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x

Ham C.-D. , Nelson M. R. ( 2016 ). The role of persuasion knowledge, assessment of benefit and harm, and third-person perception in coping with online behavioral advertising . Computers in Human Behavior , 62 , 689 – 702 . http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.076

Hansen E. M. , Yakimova K. , Wallin M. , Thomsen L. ( 2010 ). Can thinking you’re skeptical make you more gullible? The illusion of invulnerability and resistance to manipulation . The individual and the group: Future challenges , 52-64 .

Heider F. ( 1958 ). The psychology of interpersonal relations . Psychology Press .

Google Preview

Ho S. S. , Lwin M. O. , Yee A. Z. , Sng J. R. , Chen L. ( 2019 ). Parents’ responses to cyber- bullying effects: How third-person perception influences support for legislation and parental mediation strategies . Computers in Human Behavior , 92 , 373 – 380 . http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.021

Hyun K. D. , Seo M. ( 2019 ). The effects of HMP and TPP on political participation in the partisan media context . Communication Research , 48 ( 5 ), 665 - 686 . http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218820229

Jang S. M. , Kim J. K. ( 2018 ). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation and media literacy interventions . Computers in Human Behavior , 80 , 295 – 302 . http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.034

Klar Y. , Medding A. , Sarel D. ( 1996 ). Nonunique invulnerability: Singular versus distributional probabilities and unrealistic optimism in comparative risk judgments . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 67 ( 2 ), 229 – 245 . http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0076

Kruger J. , Dunning D. ( 1999 ). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77 ( 6 ), 1121 – 1134 . http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

Liu P. L. , Huang L. V. ( 2020 ). Digital disinformation about covid-19 and the third-person effect: Examining the channel differences and negative emotional outcomes . Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 23 ( 11 ), 789 – 793 . http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0363

Lyons B. A. , Akin H. , Stroud N. J. ( 2020 ). Proximity (mis) perception: Public awareness of nuclear, refinery, and fracking sites . Risk Analysis , 40 ( 2 ), 385 – 398 . http://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13387

Lyons B. A. , Montgomery J. M. , Guess A. M. , Nyhan B. , Reifler J. ( 2021 ). Overconfidence in news judgments is associated with false news susceptibility . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 118 ( 23 ) e2019527118. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.201952711

Maertens R. , Götz F. , Schneider C. R , Roozenbeek J. , Kerr J. R. , Stieger S. , McClanahan W. M. III , drabot K. , van der Linden S. ( 2021 ). The misinformation susceptibility test (MIST): A psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment . (PsyArXiv [Preprint] (2021). https://psyarxiv.com/gk68h/ (accessed 21 June 2022).

McLeod D. M. , Detenber B. H. , Eveland W. P. Jr , ( 2001 ). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other . Journal of Communication , 51 ( 4 ), 678 – 695 . http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02902.x

Meirick P. C. ( 2004 ). Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: Political advertising and first-and third-person effects . Communication Research , 31 ( 2 ), 234 – 255 . http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203261514

Mitchell A. , Gottfried J. , Kiley J. , Matsa K. E. ( 2014 ). Political polarization & media habits. (Pew Research Center, October 21, 2014. Downloaded March 21, 2019 from https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/10/Political-Polarization-and-Media-Habits-FINAL-REPORT-7-27-15.pdf )

Mosleh M. , Pennycook G. , Rand D. G. ( 2020 ). Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on twitter . Plos One , 15 ( 2 ), e0228882 . http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228882

Müller P. , Scherr S. ( 2017 ). Reducing the bias: How perspective taking affects first-and third- person perceptions of media influence . Communication Research Reports , 34 ( 2 ), 134 – 142 . http://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1280453

Paul B. , Salwen M. B. , Dupagne M. ( 2000 ). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis . Mass Communication and Society , 3 ( 1 ), 57 – 85 . http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04

Pennycook G , Binnendyk J , Newton C. , Rand D. ( 2020 ). A practical guide to doing behavioural research on fake news and misinformation . (PsyArXiv [Preprint] (2020). https://psyarxiv.com/g69ha (accessed 21 January 2021)

Perloff L. S. ( 1987 ). Social comparison and illusions of invulnerability to negative life events. In Coping with negative life events (pp. 217 – 242 ). Springer , Boston, MA. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9865-4_9

Perloff R. M. ( 1989 ). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage . Communication Research , 16 ( 2 ), 236 – 262 . http://doi.org/10.1177/009365089016002004

Perloff R. M. ( 1993 ). Third-person effect research 1983–1992: A review and synthesis . International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 5 ( 2 ), 167 – 184 . http://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/5.2.167

Price V. , Huang L.-N. , Tewksbury D. ( 1997 ). Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations toward media . Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 74 ( 3 ), 525 – 540 . http://doi.org/10.1177/107769909707400307

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 . http://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/8.2.120

Pronin E. , Gilovich T. , Ross L. ( 2004 ). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others . Psychological Review , 111 ( 3 ), 781 – 799 . http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781

Reid S. A. , Byrne S. , Brundidge J. S. , Shoham M. D. , Marlow M. L. ( 2007 ). A critical test of self-enhancement, exposure, and self-categorization explanations for first-and third-person perceptions . Human Communication Research , 33 ( 2 ), 143 – 162 . http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00294.x

Rojas H. ( 2010 ). ‘ Corrective’ actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors . International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 22 ( 3 ), 343 – 363 . http://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq018

Sheldon O. J. , Dunning D. , Ames D. R. ( 2014 ). Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and un- interested in learning more: Reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence . Journal of Applied Psychology , 99 ( 1 ), 125 – 137 . http://doi.org/10.1037/a0034138

Shen L. , Sun Y. , Pan Z. ( 2018 ). Not all perceptual gaps were created equal: Explicating the third-person perception (TPP) as a cognitive fallacy . Mass Communication and Society , 21 ( 4 ), 399 – 424 . http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1420194

Stankov L. , Lee J. ( 2014 ). Overconfidence across world regions . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 45 ( 5 ), 821 – 837 . http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114527345

Sun Y. , Jensen J. D. , Guntzviller L. M. , Liu M. ( 2014 ). Perceived message influence and Hispanic women: The disappearance of self-other perceptual bias . Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences , 36 ( 3 ), 366 – 382 . http://doi.org/10.1177/0739986314540850

Sun Y. , Pan Z. , Shen L. ( 2008 ). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis . Journal of Communication , 58 ( 2 ), 280 – 300 . http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00385.x

Sun Y. , Shen L. , Pan Z. ( 2008 ). On the behavioral component of the third-person effect . Communication Research , 35 ( 2 ), 257 – 278 . http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207313167

Tiedge J. T. , Silverblatt A. , Havice M. J. , Rosenfeld R. ( 1991 ). Discrepancy between perceived first-person and perceived third-person mass media effects . Journalism Quarterly , 68 ( 1–2 ), 141 – 154 . http://doi.org/10.1177/107769909106800115

Tsfati Y. , Cohen J. ( 2013 ). Perceptions of media and media effects. The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies: Media Effects/Media Psychology . http://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems995

Wei R. , Lo V.-H. , Lu H.-Y. ( 2008 ). Third-person effects of health news: Exploring the relationships among media exposure, presumed media influence, and behavioral intentions . American Behavioral Scientist , 52 ( 2 ), 261 – 277 . http://doi.org/10.1177/0002764208321355

Weinstein N. D. ( 1980 ). Unrealistic optimism about future life events . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 ( 5 ), 806 – 820 . http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806

Xu J. , Gonzenbach W. J. ( 2008 ). Does a perceptual discrepancy lead to action? A meta- analysis of the behavioral component of the third-person effect . International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 20 ( 3 ), 375 – 385 . http://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn031

Yang F. , Horning M. ( 2020 ). Reluctant to share: How third person perceptions of fake news discourage news readers from sharing ′real news’ on social media . Social Media+ Society , 6 ( 3 ), 2056305120955173 . http://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120955173

Yang J. , Tian Y. ( 2021 ). Others are more vulnerable to fake news than I am: Third-person effect of covid-19 fake news on social media users . Computers in Human Behavior , 125 , 106950 . http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106950

Zell E. , Strickhouser J. E. , Sedikides C. , Alicke M. D. ( 2020 ). The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis . Psychological Bulletin , 146 ( 2 ), 118 – 149 . http://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000218

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2466
• Print ISSN 0021-9916
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Understanding Third Person Objective Point of View: Tips and Examples

Defining third person objective, characteristics of third person objective, common misconceptions, examples of third person objective, classic literature, modern fiction, tips for writing in third person objective, developing a narrative voice, maintaining objectivity, using dialogue effectively, benefits of third person objective, increased tension and suspense, enhanced storytelling, resources for improving your third person objective writing, writing workshops, online courses, books on writing.

Are you curious about third person objective point of view in writing? Look no further! This blog will guide you through the ins and outs of this unique narrative style, offering tips and examples to help you master it. So, let's dive right in and explore the fascinating world of third person objective storytelling.

In this section, we'll define third person objective point of view and examine its characteristics and common misconceptions. You'll learn what sets this narrative style apart from others and how to recognize it in a piece of writing.

Third person objective is a narrative style that uses a neutral, unbiased narrator who doesn't reveal the thoughts or feelings of the characters. The narrator presents the story through an observational lens, focusing on what characters say and do, rather than their inner thoughts. Here are some key features of third person objective storytelling:

• Neutral: The narrator doesn't take sides or express opinions, maintaining a detached, impartial stance.
• Observational: The story is told through the actions and dialogue of the characters, rather than their thoughts or emotions.
• Limited information: Readers don't have access to the characters' thoughts, which can create suspense and intrigue.

Third person objective is often confused with other narrative styles. Let's clear up some common misconceptions:

• Third person objective vs. third person limited: While both styles use a third person narrator, third person limited allows the reader access to the thoughts and feelings of one character, while third person objective does not.
• Third person objective vs. third person omniscient: Third person omniscient reveals the thoughts and feelings of multiple characters. In contrast, third person objective keeps the reader in the dark about what characters are thinking or feeling.

Now that we've defined third person objective and explored its characteristics and misconceptions, let's take a look at some examples of this narrative style in literature.

Third person objective is a versatile narrative style used by authors across genres and time periods. In this section, we'll explore examples from classic literature and modern fiction, showcasing the wide range of stories that can be told through this unique point of view.

Many classic works of literature employ third person objective to create a sense of distance and intrigue. Here are a couple of notable examples:

• Ernest Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants": This short story is a prime example of third person objective, as the narrator only reports the dialogue between the two characters and their actions, leaving their thoughts and feelings up to the reader's interpretation.
• Anton Chekhov's "The Lady with the Dog": This captivating tale of a chance encounter and subsequent romance also uses third person objective, with the narrator focusing on the characters' actions and conversations without delving into their inner thoughts.

Contemporary authors also use third person objective to bring their stories to life. Here are a couple of examples from modern fiction:

• Cormac McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men": McCarthy employs third person objective throughout much of this novel, providing readers with a suspenseful, action-driven narrative that leaves them guessing about the characters' thoughts and motivations.
• Raymond Carver's "Cathedral": In this short story, Carver uses third person objective to depict the interactions between the narrator, his wife, and a blind visitor, creating a sense of detachment and leaving the reader to infer the characters' emotions from their actions and dialogue.

Now that you've seen third person objective in action, let's explore some tips for writing in this narrative style.

Writing in third person objective can be a unique challenge, as it requires you to maintain distance from your characters' thoughts and feelings. Here are some tips to help you develop this narrative skill and create engaging stories.

• Focus on actions and dialogue: Since you're not delving into characters' thoughts, their actions and dialogue are crucial for revealing their personalities and motivations. Ensure that each action and line of dialogue is meaningful and contributes to the story's development.
• Establish a consistent tone: A strong narrative voice helps immerse the reader in your story. Choose a tone that complements your story's themes and atmosphere, and maintain it throughout your writing.
• Show, don't tell: Third person objective is all about showing the reader what's happening, rather than telling them. Use descriptive language and sensory details to paint a vivid picture of each scene, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions about characters' thoughts and feelings.
• Avoid subjective language: To maintain objectivity, steer clear of words that express judgment or opinion. Stick to facts and observable details, presenting events as they are without coloring them with your own perspective.
• Be mindful of your word choice: Even seemingly neutral words can carry connotations that unintentionally reveal a character's thoughts or feelings. Choose your words carefully to maintain the third person objective point of view.
• Limit your focus: Concentrate on one or a few characters at a time, rather than attempting to cover every character's perspective. This helps maintain the objective viewpoint and prevents the narrative from becoming overwhelming.
• Reveal character through dialogue: Since you can't share the characters' thoughts, use dialogue to reveal their personalities, emotions, and motivations. Make each line of dialogue purposeful and reflective of the character who speaks it.
• Balance dialogue with action: While dialogue is important for conveying information and character development, don't let it dominate your narrative. Balance dialogue with action and description to create a well-rounded story.
• Use subtext: Subtext—meaning that lies beneath the surface of dialogue—can add depth and nuance to your characters' interactions. Allow your characters to say one thing while implying another, creating intrigue and inviting readers to interpret the underlying meaning.

With these tips in mind, you're well on your way to crafting engaging stories using the third person objective point of view. Let's now examine the benefits of this unique narrative style.

While third person objective may initially seem restrictive, it offers several advantages that can enhance your storytelling and engage readers. Here are some key benefits of adopting this narrative style.

• Limited information: By withholding characters' thoughts and feelings, third person objective creates an air of mystery and intrigue, encouraging readers to pay close attention to actions and dialogue for clues about characters' motivations.
• Unpredictability: Readers can't predict a character's next move based on their inner thoughts, which adds an element of surprise and keeps them on their toes throughout the story.
• Ambiguity: The objective viewpoint allows for multiple interpretations of events and characters, fostering discussion and debate among readers and encouraging them to think critically about the story.
• Varied perspectives: Third person objective allows you to shift focus between different characters, providing a broader view of the story's events and enabling you to explore different facets of your narrative.
• Immersive experience: By focusing on actions and dialogue, third person objective encourages readers to experience the story through their own interpretations, rather than being guided by the author's perspective. This can create a more immersive and engaging reading experience.
• Heightened emotional impact: Since readers must infer characters' emotions from their actions and dialogue, they become more invested in the story and may experience a stronger emotional connection to the characters and events.

Embracing the third person objective viewpoint can provide new storytelling opportunities and enhance reader engagement. To further develop your skills in this narrative style, consider exploring various resources that can help improve your writing.

As with any writing style, mastering third person objective takes practice and dedication. To strengthen your skills, consider the following resources tailored to help you excel in this unique narrative approach.

• Local workshops: Many cities and towns offer writing workshops or classes where you can receive feedback from fellow writers and experienced instructors. These workshops can provide valuable guidance and support as you develop your third person objective writing skills.
• Online communities: There are numerous online forums and writing communities where you can share your work, receive feedback, and learn from others who are also working to improve their third person objective writing.
• Free resources: Websites like Coursera, edX, and FutureLearn offer free courses in creative writing that can help you refine your third person objective writing skills.
• Paid courses: Some platforms, such as MasterClass and Udemy, offer paid courses specifically focused on narrative techniques, including third person objective. These courses, often taught by experts in the field, can provide in-depth instruction and personalized feedback.
• General guides: Books such as "On Writing" by Stephen King or "Bird by Bird" by Anne Lamott offer valuable insights and advice on the craft of writing, including tips for mastering narrative techniques like third person objective.
• Genre-specific guides: Depending on your preferred genre, consider seeking out books that focus on the unique challenges and techniques associated with that genre. For example, a book like "Writing the Breakout Novel" by Donald Maass can provide guidance on writing compelling third person objective narratives in the realm of fiction.

By taking advantage of these resources and consistently practicing your third person objective writing, you'll be well on your way to crafting captivating stories that keep readers engaged and intrigued.

If you're eager to master three-point perspective in your illustrations and designs, don't miss the workshop ' Three-point Perspective Made Easy ' by Roberto Bernal. This workshop offers a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying three-point perspective in your creative projects, making it an invaluable resource for artists of all skill levels.

Live classes every day

Learn from industry-leading creators

Get useful feedback from experts and peers

Best deal of the year

* billed annually after the trial ends.

*Billed monthly after the trial ends.

• < Previous

Home > Andrew Young School of Policy Studies > Dissertations > 83

AYSPS Dissertations

The intersection of aging, health, & correctional systems: an exploration of experiences, approaches, & policies using a person-centered framework.

Victoria Helmly , Georgia State University

Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9474-2739

Date of Award

Spring 5-6-2024

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Criminal Justice

First Advisor

William J Sabol

Second Advisor

Elizabeth Beck

Third Advisor

Thaddeus Johnson

Fourth Advisor

Dean Dabney

This dissertation consists of three interconnected papers that study the intersection of correctional systems and aging in the United States, specifically in prisons and community supervision. The papers examine existing policies and the experiences of older adults using a person-centered framework. The first two papers explore data collected through semi-structured interviews with community supervision officers and people with experience under community supervision. The first paper investigates a person-centered community supervision model and highlights how it applies specifically to older adults, defined as those aged 50 or older. There is evidence of the implementation of this model, but there is an opportunity for further development. The data presented underscores the need for a more precise definition of a person-centered approach in community supervision and more attention to the age-related needs of people under supervision. The second paper explores the unique challenges of people aged 50 or older who are under community supervision, such as adapting to technology, securing stable housing, and managing chronic health conditions. It further reveals the gaps in knowledge of officers concerning aging-specific resources and the universal experiences pertinent to all age groups. The third paper is a content analysis of end-of-life decision-making policies in U.S. departments of corrections. It underscores the variability in accessibility and specificity of such policies, advocating for a more person-centered model that aligns with community standard quality of care. The research signifies that current prison systems have opportunities for enhancing policy and potentially affecting the quality of end-of-life care in prisons. Collectively, these papers emphasize potential improvement and growth in person-centered approaches for correctional systems and the opportunities to address the challenges of a growing older adult population. These findings highlight the need for additional research and collaboration between the fields of criminal justice and gerontology. The relevance extends beyond research to practitioners and policymakers in criminal justice and aging services whose work directly impacts this population.

https://doi.org/10.57709/36982201

Recommended Citation

Helmly, Victoria, "The Intersection of Aging, Health, & Correctional Systems: An Exploration of Experiences, Approaches, & Policies Using a Person-centered Framework." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.57709/36982201

Since May 15, 2024

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• Submit ETD (Thesis/Dissertation)

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright