Agenda-setting theory: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:12, 22 March 2012

Agenda-setting theory is the "ability [of the news media] to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda."^[1]^[2] Essentially, the theory states that the more salient a news issue is - in terms of frequency and prominence of coverage - the more important news audiences will regard the issue to be. Agenda-setting theory was formally developed by Dr. Max McCombs and Dr. Donald Shaw in a study on the 1968 presidential election. In the "Chapel Hill study," McCombs and Shaw demonstrated a strong correlation (r > .9) between what 100 residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina thought was the most important election issue and what the local and national news media reported was the most important issue.^[3] By comparing the salience of issues in news content with the public's perceptions of the most important election issue, McCombs and Shaw were able to determine the degree to which the media, in Bernard Cohen's words, "tell us [(the public)] what to think about."^[4] Since the 1968 study, published in a 1972 edition of Public Opinion Quarterly, more than 400 studies have been published on the agenda-setting function of the mass media, and the theory continues to receive support even in today's fragmented media environment.^[5]

History

The theory of agenda-setting can be traced to the first chapter of Walter Lippmann’s 1922 classic, Public Opinion.^[6] In that chapter, called “the world outside and the pictures in our heads,” Lippmann argues that the mass media are the principal connection between events in the world and the images of these events in the citizens' minds. Thus, without using the term "agenda-setting," Walter Lippmann was actually writing about what today we would call "agenda-setting." Following Lippmann, in 1963, Bernard Cohen observed that the press “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about. The world will look different to different people,” Cohen continues, “depending on the map that is drawn for them by writers, editors, and publishers of the paper they read." ^[7] Clearly, as early as the 1960s, Cohen had expressed the metaphor that led to formalization of agenda-setting by McCombs and Shaw.

In fact, while on the faculty at UCLA, Max McCombs picked up Cohen’s book containing this quote at a local bookstore. McCombs had already been interested in the idea, but it was Cohen’s work that heavily influenced McCombs, and later Shaw.^[8] The 1972 study by McCombs and Shaw formally named the developing theory “agenda-setting.” Critically, it also developed a method – content analysis compared with survey results – that scholars could use to explore agenda-setting. This method would spawn hundreds of agenda-setting studies in the following 40 years.

For instance, as a follow-up to the Chapel Hill study, during the summer and fall of the 1972 presidential election, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw (1977) studied agenda-setting effects among a representative sample of all voters in Charlotte, North Carolina. The researchers interviewed voters in three very different cities - Lebanon, New Hampshire; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Evanston, Illinois - nine times between February and December and content analyzed election coverage by the three major network television news channels and local newspapers in the three cities at the same time. They found that both television and newspapers affected the salience of all seven issues on the public agenda, replicating the initial agenda-setting findings in new contexts. McCombs and Shaw would go on to conduct dozens of agenda-setting studies over the next 40 years and receive lion's share of credit for establishing one of the most influential theories of mass communication effects.

However, it should also be mentioned that a relatively unknown scholar named G. Ray Funkhouser performed a study highly similar to McCombs and Shaw’s around the exact same time the authors were formalizing the theory.^[9] All three scholars - McCombs, Shaw, and Funkhouser - even presented their findings at the same academic conference. Funkhouser’s article was published later than McCombs and Shaw’s, but we have to ask why Funkhouser doesn’t receive as much credit as McCombs and Shaw for discovering agenda setting? According to Everett Rogers, there are two main reasons Funkhouser doesn't receive as much credit.^[10] First, Funkhouser didn’t formally name the theory. Second, Funkhouser didn’t pursue his research much past the initial article. Rogers also suggests that Funkhouser was geographically isolated at Stanford, cut off from interested researchers, whereas McCombs had Shaw and got other people interested in agenda setting research. For all of these reasons, Funkhouser does not get as much credit as McCombs and Shaw. McCombs and Shaw have heavily pursued agenda-setting theory, establishing an "invisible college" of researchers around the theory.

The Cognitive Accessibility Mechanism

Accessibility is the cognitive process through which agenda setting is said to occur.^[11] Basically, accessibility implies that the more frequently and prominently the news media cover an issue, the more instances of that issue become accessible in audience's memories. When surveyors then ask what the most important problem facing the country is, respondents answer with the most accessible news issue in memory, which is typically the issue the news media focus on the most.

Need for Orientation

Agenda-setting studies typically show variability in the correlation between media and public agenda. To explain differences in the correlation, McCombs and colleagues created the concept of "need for orientation," which "describes individual differences in the desire for orienting cues and background information."

Two concepts: relevance and uncertainty, define an individual's need for orientation. Relevance suggests that an individual will not seek news media information if an issue is not personally relevant. Hence, if relevance is low, people will feel the need for less orientation. There are many issues in our country that are just not relevant to people, because they do not affect us. Many news organizations attempt to frame issues in a way that attempts to make them relevant to its audiences. This is their way of keeping their viewership/readership high. "Level of uncertainty is the second defining condition of need for orientation. Frequently, individuals already have all the information that they desire about a topic. Their degree of uncertainty is low."^[12] When issues are of high personal relevance and uncertainty low, the need to monitor any changes in those issues will be present and there will be a moderate the need for orientation. If at any point in time viewers/readers have high relevance and high uncertainty about any type of issue/event/election campaign there was a high need for orientation.

Research done by Weaver in 1977 suggested that individuals vary on their need for orientation. Need for orientation is a combination of the individual’s interest in the topic and uncertainty about the issue. The higher levels of interest and uncertainty produce higher levels of need for orientation. So the individual would be considerably likely to be influenced by the media stories (psychological aspect of theory). ^[13]

Obtrusive vs. Unobtrusive Issues

Another factor that causes variations in the correlation between the media and public agenda is whether an issue is "obtrusive" or "unobtrusive."^[14] Obtrusive issues are generally issues with which we can have some kind of personal experience, (e.g., city-wide crime or inflation at the gas pump). Unobtrusive issues are issues we cannot directly observe (e.g., national unity). To learn about unobtrusive issues we can't directly observe, we must turn to news media. As such, there tends to be a higher correlation between the salience of unobtrusive issues presented in the news media and audience's perceptions of these issues as important problems.

Research performed by Zucker in 1978 suggested that an issue is obtrusive if most members of the public have had direct contact with it, and less obtrusive if audience members have not had direct experience. This means that agenda setting results should be strongest for unobtrusive issues because audience members must rely on media for information on these topics.^[15]

Framing or Second-Level Agenda-Setting?

There is a debate over whether framing theory should be subsumed within agenda-setting as "second-level agenda-setting." McCombs, Shaw, Weaver and colleagues generally argue that framing is a part of second-level agenda-setting. Schefuele has argued that framing and agenda-setting possess distinct theoretical boundaries, operating via distinct cognitive processes (accessibility vs. attribution), and relate to different outcomes (importance vs. interpretation).^[16]

According to Weaver^[17], framing and second-level agenda setting have the following characteristics:

Similarities:

- Both are more concerned with how issues or other objects are depicted in the media than with which issues or objects are more or less prominently reported.

- Both focus on most salient or prominent aspects of themes or descriptions of the objects of interest.

- Both are concerned with ways of thinking rather than objects of thinking

Difference:

- Framing does seem to include a broader range of cognitive processes – moral evaluations, causal reasoning, appeals to principle, and recommendations for treatment of problems – than does second-level agenda setting (the salience of attributes of an object)

Based on these shared characteristics, McCombs and colleagues^[18] recently argued that framing effects should be seen as the extension of agenda setting. In other words, according to them, the premise that framing is about selecting “a restricted number of thematically related attributes” ^[19] for media representation can be understood as the process of transferring the salience of issue attributes (i.e., second-level agenda setting). That is, according to McCombs and colleagues’ arguments, framing falls under the umbrella of agenda setting.

According to Price and Tewksbury^[20], however, agenda setting and framing are built on different theoretical premises: agenda setting is based on accessibility, while framing is concern with applicability (i.e., the relevance between message features and one’s stored ideas or knowledge). Accessibility-based explanation of agenda setting is also applied to second-level agenda setting. That is, transferring the salience of issue attributes (i.e., second-level agenda setting) is a function of accessibility.

For framing effects, empirical evidence shows that the impact of frames on public perceptions is mainly determined by perceived importance of specific frames rather than by the quickness of retrieving frames.^[21] That is, the way framing effects transpires is different from the way second-level agenda setting is supposed to take place (i.e., accessibility). On a related note, Scheufele and Tewksbury ^[22]argues that, because accessibility and applicability vary in their functions of media effects, “the distinction between accessibility and applicability effects has obvious benefits for understanding and predicting the effects of dynamic information environments.”

Taken together, it can be concluded that the integration of framing into agenda setting is either impossible because they are based on different theoretical premises or imprudent because merging the two concepts would result in the loss of our capabilities to explain various media effects.

Agenda setting vs. Framing

Scheufele and Tewksbury argue that “framing differs significantly from these accessibility-based models [i.e., agenda setting and priming]. It is based on the assumption that how an issue is characterized in news reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences;”^[23] the difference between whether we think about an issue and how we think about it. Framing and agenda setting differs in their functions in the process of news production, information processing and media effects.

(a) News production: Although “both frame building and agenda building refer to macroscopic mechanisms that deal with message construction rather than media effects,” frame building is more concerned with the news production process than agenda building. In other words, “how forces and groups in society try to shape public discourse about an issue by establishing predominant labels is of far greater interest from a framing perspective than from a traditional agenda-setting one.”

(b) News processing: For framing and agenda setting, different conditions seem to be needed in processing messages to produce respective effects. Framing effect is more concerned with audience attention to news messages, while agenda setting is more with repeated exposure to messages.

(c) Locus of effect: Agenda-setting effects are determined by the ease with which people can retrieve from their memory issues recently covered by mass media, while framing is the extent to which media messages fit ideas or knowledge people have in their knowledge store.

Non-Political Application

McCombs and Shaw originally established agenda-setting within the context of a presidential election. Many subsequent studies have looked at agenda-setting in the context of an election or in otherwise political contexts. However, the theory call also be applied to commercial advertising, business news and corporate reputation, ^[24] business influence on federal policy,^[25] legal systems, trials,^[26] roles of social groups, audience control, public opinion, and public relations.

Criticisms

1) Agenda setting is an inherently causal theory, but few studies establish the hypothesized temporal order (the media should set the public's agenda).

2) The measurement of the dependent variable was originally conceptualized as the public's perceived issue "salience," but subsequent studies have conceptualized the dependent variable as awareness, attention, or concern, leading to differing outcomes.

3) Studies tend to aggregate media content categories and public responses into very broad categories, resulting in inflated correlation coefficients.^[27]

References

Notes

^ McCombs, M (2002). "News influence on our pictures of the world". Media effects: Advances in theory and research. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ McCombs, M (2005). "A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future". Journalism Studies. 6 (4): 543–557.
^ McCombs, M (1972). "The agenda-setting function of mass media". Public Opinion Quarterly. 36 (2). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Cohen, B (1963). The press and foreign policy. New York: Harcourt.
^ McCombs, M (2005). "A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future". Journalism Studies. 6 (4).
^ Lippmann, W (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt.
^ Cohen, B (1963). The press and foreign policy. New York: Harcourt.
^ Rogers, E (1993). "The anatomy of agenda-setting research". Journal of Communication. 43 (2): 68–84.
^ Funkhouser, G (1973). "The issues of the sixties: An exploratory study in the dynamics of public opinion". Public Opinion Quarterly. 37 (1): 62–75.
^ Rogers, E (1993). "The anatomy of agenda-setting research". Journal of Communication. 43 (2): 68–84.
^ Iyengar, S (1987). News that mattes: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Mccombs, (2004) p. 55
^ Weaver, D (1977). "Political issues and voter need for orientation". In D.L. Shaw and M.E. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American public issues: 107–120.
^ Rogers, E (1988). "Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going?". Communication Yearbook. 11: 555–594. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Zucker, H (1978). "The variable nature of news media influence". Communication Yearbook. 2: 225–246.
^ Scheufele, D (2000). "Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication". Mass Communication & Society. 3 (2): 297–316.
^ Weaver, D. H. (2007). Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142-147. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x
^ McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (1997). Communication and democracy: Explorining the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
^ McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (1997). p. 106
^ Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. Barnett & F. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 173-212). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.
^ Nelson, T., Clawson, R., & Oxley, Z. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-583.
^ Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
^ Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
^ McCombs, M (2005). "A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future". Journalism Studies. 6 (4).
^ Berger B. (2001). Private Issues and Public Policy: Locating the Corporate Agenda in Agenda-Setting Theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(2), 91–126
^ Ramsey & McGuire, 2000
^ Rogers, E (1988). "Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going?". Communication Yearbook. 11: 555–594. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 ==See also==
 * [[Availability heuristic]]
+* [[Framing (social sciences)|Framing]]
 * [[Policy by press release]]
 * [[Political agenda]]
 * [[Sensationalism]]
 * [[Sociology]]
-* [[Mass hysteria]]
 ==References==