Agenda+Setting+Theory


 * __ AGENDA SETTING THEORY __**



= OVERVIEW =

Theorists Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw created the Agenda-Setting Theory based on the belief that mass media tells the public not what to think, but what to think about. They began with a study on the role of the media in the 1968 Presidential campaign, and found a correlation between the rate at which the media covers a story and the extent that people feel it is important. They asked undecided voters to rank what they thought were the key ideas and measured it against actual media content and the correlation was .97. This proved their hypothesis that mass media positioned the agenda for public opinion by emphasizing particular topics. These scholars say “**Mass media** has the ability to transfer the **salience** of items on the news agendas to the **public’s agenda**.” The mass media takes what they think is the most important information and makes it prominent in the news so that we, the public agenda, feel it is the most important; they sort of monitor what we think about. Mass media is also able to determine the amount of space that they give the issues and objects that they find most important. Two basic assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting: (1) the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it, and (2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues. This theory explains how people with similar media exposure place importance on similar issues. Even though people may feel differently about the issues, they still feel the same issues are important.

= IMPORTANT CONCEPTS =

There are two types of **Agenda-Setting** Theory, First-Level and Second-Level:
 * __First-Level Agenda-Setting Theory__ refers to what the focus is on major issues and objects, and the transfer for the importance of those issues to the public.
 * __Second-Level Agenda-Setting Theory__ focuses more on the characteristics of those objects or issues seen as important. It mainly focuses refers to the transmission of the attributes importance to the minds of the public. It is because of Second-Level agenda setting that when certain attributes are presented, mass media is able to demonstrate to the audience how they should think about this particular issue.

Major Components of Agenda-Setting Theory:
 * **__Media Agenda__**: issues that are discussed throughout media such as newspapers, television, and radio.
 * Media determines what is **__Salient__** to consumers,
 * **__Public Agenda__**: issues discussed among members of the public that they feel are important.
 * **__Policy Agenda__**: issues that policy makers, such as legislators, consider important.
 * **__Corporate Agenda__**: issues that big corporations find important.
 * __**S****alience**__: is what is most noticeable, prominent or stands out.
 * __**S****alience Transfer**__: is when the news transfers issues of importance from their agenda to public agendas.

= WHO CAN CONTROL AGENDA-SETTING? =

There are three basic approaches that are a basic understanding of groups or individuals that are capable of controlling the **agenda-setting** theory. One basic method states that the stories that are determined to be reported on are decided by a //**media** elite//, which is lead by a group of high-powered, mostly white males, which are leaders of media in newspapers, television networks, and magazines. Another theory positions that the particular individuals that are involved in the issues at hand are the ones in charge of the issues that are being reported on. Lastly, groups or individuals that are seeking for attention on a particular issue that they feel very strongly about can establish the **importance of an issue** or object portrayed throughout media.

= CASE STUDY SUMMARIES =

THE YOUNG AND AGENDA-LESS? EXPLORING AGE-RELATED DIFFERENCES IN AGENDA SETTING ON THE YOUNGEST GENERATION, BABY BOOMERS, AND THE CIVIC GENERATION. – Renita Coleman, Maxwell McCombs
[|Please click here to view article] Young people today get their news from non-traditional sources and the Internet more often than from traditional sources such as newspapers and TV. There is a diminished **agenda-setting** effect on the young. Because of the more diverse news sources there are many more agendas now, all easily available online and in alternative media popular with the young. The study seeks to understand generational differences in agenda-setting influences. Studying the younger generation’s agenda of issues grows more important as non-traditional news increases in popularity and these young adults mature to become society’s leaders.

The study consisted of two hypothesis and two research questions. Hypothesis one predicted “The younger generation, those between 18 and 34 years old, will have significantly lower levels of traditional media use than older generations” (Coleman & McCombs, 2007). Hypothesis two predicted “The younger generation will have significantly higher levels of Internet use than older generations” (Coleman & McCombs, 2007). Research question one asked “Will **agenda-setting** effects be weaker for the younger generation than for the older generations” (Coleman & McCombs, 2007)? Research question two asked “Will agenda-setting effects be weaker for high Internet users than for low to moderate users” (Coleman & McCombs, 2007)? There were two studies done to get a full understanding. In study 1, a public opinion survey was taken using random digit dialing. Data was collected in a statewide poll of 1023 adults in Louisiana conducted by the Public Policy Research Lab at Louisiana State University. The dependent variable, salience of statewide issues, was measured by asking "What do you think are the three most important problems facing the state of Louisiana?" The top 5 categories were coded. Generations were divided into 18-34 (youngest generation), 35-54 (Baby Boomers) and 55+ (Civic Generation). News use was measured with 4 questions. H1 was supported, H2 was partially supported but showed the baby boomers were spending their time online reading news, RQ1 Baby Boomers and Civic Generation were perfectly correlated with the media agenda, but the younger generation was correlated at .80, and RQ2 was supported. Study 2 was another public opinion survey done the same way and was conducted in North Carolina; it asked about the salience of national instead of statewide issues and included television news in the content analysis. Data collected in a statewide poll of 685 adults conducted by Elon University. H1 was supported, RQ1 was also supported.

There is little evidence to show that the diversity of media will lead to the end of a common **public agenda**. Different media use with the young did not influence the agenda-setting effect much. Correlations between media agenda and the youngest generation’s agenda are strong. Agenda-setting effects still prevail among the youngest generation. Education was ranked higher by the younger generation in both studies, and may be because we selectively expose ourselves to news of Education. After the studies, it was concluded that no matter the media source, the news was consistent so there was no difference in the agenda-setting influence.For a future study, they should ask what sites people are using on the internet or what they are reading/watching on traditional media. “It is important to examine whether young people's patterns of **media use** mirror the **salience** of issues promoted in the media they use most, or whether personal relevance explains most of the differences” (Coleman & McCombs, 2007) are the questions that need to be focused on to discover how young adults come to form ideas about what issues are important.

Coleman, R., & McCombs, M. (2007). The Young and Agenda-less? Exploring Age-related Differences in Agenda Setting on the Youngest Generation, Baby Boomers, and the Civic Generation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 495-508.



**THE FIGHT FOR "HOW TO THINK":TRADITIONAL MEDIA, SOCIAL NETWORKS AND ISSUE INTERPRETATION- Sharon Meraz**
Today is a new day; times have changed. Television media outlets are not the only way people are obtaining their information on what is going on in the world. The focus has shifted to the new, hot commodity in town, the World Wide Web and even more specifically, social media. The article, “The fight for “how to think”: Traditional media, social networks and issue interpretation.” describes the evolution of the **Agenda Setting Theory** and its impacts with society. This theory assumes that traditional media has the power to influence both what the public thinks about and how the public thinks about it. This article argues that social media outlets bring together groups of both homogenous and heterogeneous people that bind together to create communities that think alike on topics such as the environment, politics, and everyday occurrences. Ultimately, these niche-based, customized websites, now referred to as Web 2.0, are challenging the once overwhelmingly influential channels of traditional **media**.
 * [|Please click here to view article]**

Web 2.0 has shifted the attention from traditional media and enhanced the connectivity, collaboration and conversation between decentralized websites. These decentralized web sites include anything from blogs to social network giants such as Facebook and Twitter. The fact that individuals can now post, share and recreate content to the web has altered the way media is presented to the public. These changes have in turn brought about new thoughts and theories about how information is being obtained and distributed throughout society. The article claims that people are not motivated to participate in these mediums for financial gain; but instead, for social forms of compensation such as altruism, gift-giving, reputation–seeking, hobbyism, and natural human sociality.

One of the most popular information sharing tools introduced by Web 2.0 is blogging. Blogging is defined by dictionary.com as a website containing the writer’s or groups of writers’ own experiences, observations and opinions, and often having images and links to other Web sites. Also, blogging is seen as a credible source. People usually attach themselves to blogs that discuss and engage in topics with similar morals and beliefs as their own. The issue that is beginning to surface with the growth of social media is the strength of opinions flowing through each site; seeing as everyone who is participating is ideally agreeing with what is being proposed. This idea is supported by the homophily principle which hypothesizes that people naturally self select into homogeneous groupings along such natural structural indicators such as shared geography, values and status. Scholars believe that this principle can be a negative impact on the information circulation, and online deliberation. Group polarization can create “enclave extremism,” where opinion become extreme since most of the people that participate in blogs and other social networks agree with the website’s subject matter. Researchers have challenged this claim by proposing the Strength of the Weak Ties Theory. This theory hypothesizes that weak ties are more capable of spreading information then that of a strong tie because they are looked at as coming from a heterogeneous group. The advantages of a heterogeneous group include the group’s ability to be diverse and have the ability to spread new ideas and information to groups throughout the web.

In conclusion, traditional media’s influence has been weakened due to the enormous rise in social media. It is going to be interesting road going forward to see where society’s opinions can take us next.

Meraz, Sharon. "The Fight for "how to Think": Traditional Media, Social Networks and Issue Interpretation."Http:jou.sagepub.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/content/12/1/107.full.pdf+html. Sage, 1 Feb. 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. .

media type="youtube" key="0No62qjfXYw?fs=1" height="390" width="480" align="center"

**PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS –Candace White, Joosuk Park**
When the public is repeatedly exposed to an object seen as a negative impact on society then generally, overtime they will see that object or issue negatively. In the article, “Public Perceptions of Public Relations” Candace White and Joosuk Park were able to see that media has focused on the attributes importance of the way Public Relations has been perceived as negative throughout the public through the use of second-level agenda setting theory and cultivation theories. They were able to see that mass media has a major contribution to the beliefs of social reality, and therefore creates a general consciousness where assumptions and judgments are created by the public. White and Joosuk found that throughout many research studies conducted, the choice of words or framing of an object used by journalists when refereeing to public relations had the audience portray public relations in the media consistently with negative stereotypical themes such as damage control, publicity, or attempts to hide or disguise something. They were able to see that second-level **agenda setting** was used with most reporters to describe the impact on the frames of the audiences’ interpretations. The choice of words used and the framing of phenomenon by journalists implied value judgments on their audiences, which therefore could affect how they perceive public relations, which also affects the credibility. Thus journalists are not telling society what to think, but how to think.
 * [|Please click here to view article]**

In their research of the portrayal of public relations in media, studies showed media portrayal of public relations found that the terms used were negative even if the news stories didn’t pertain to public relations. One important factor was that a public relation was frequently used as an adjective even if the issue or object being discussed did not related to public relations. In the study there were at first five main hypotheses that pertained to the assessment of the concepts of media portrayal of public relations, positive attributes, and functions of public relations. With the outcome of the telephone survey the research indicated that respondents did not support the ideas that public relation is used to hide or disguise something, a non-substantive activity, or used as damage control. However, the respondents did agree that public relations is used to advance a company’s own agenda, and there was no significant statement that public relations is the same thing as publicity. Because of these main hypotheses, researchers wanted to know if there were more frequent exposure to negative perceptions of public relations then the audience would have a more negative opinion of public relations. However, after conducting the survey, researchers found that there is no direct correlation between heavier users of media and those how aren’t exposed as frequently.

By the explorations conducted throughout this case study, researchers were able to see that there was no direct evidence that second-level **agenda setting** had an effect between heavier use of media and adoption of themes found in media. It is because of this, that it suggests that there are outside variables that are unrelated to media portrayal that can have an affect on how media frames are interpreted, regardless of the focuses on attributes of the objects that are deemed as important in reports through mass media. This particular case study is able to show us that even through the use of agenda-setting theory, variables other than media such as personal knowledge or experience of the topics at hand can definitely affect how the public audience interprets media frames.

// White, Candace, and Joosuk Park. "Public Perceptions of Public Relations." //Science Direct //. SciVerse, Nov. 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2011..



**Visual Agenda-Setting & Proximity after Hurricane Katrina: A Study of Those Closest to the Event-Andrea Miller, Shearon Roberts **
Andrea Miller and Shearon Roberts noted that students at Louisiana State University remembered the natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina, which occurred in 2005, very differently than the majority of society. Together they decided that they could prove that this observation was derived from the images and stories that were presented through media. In their article, “Visual **Agenda-Setting** & Proximity after Hurricane Katrina: A Study of Those Closest to the Event” they explored the idea that, “within the framework of visual agenda-setting, this study seeks to identify the most memorable images of perhaps the greatest natural disaster in American history—Hurricane Katrina—chosen by those closest to the event” (Miller, Roberts, 32). By conducting an open-ended qualitative experiment they were able to make conclusions as to how the media influenced society’s perception compared to those that were closest to the actual event.
 * [|Please click here to view this article.] **

The survey was conducted in October of 2005, which was six weeks after the natural disasters. These tests were given to 446 students enrolled at Louisiana State University that were taking general education courses. The questionnaire comprised of four questions which were:

RQ1: What were the respondents’ most memorable visual images from Hurricane Katrina? RQ2: What emotions do these images evoke in the respondents? RQ3: Do the chosen images and subsequent emotions correlate with closeness to and the degree to which the respondents were affected by Hurricane Katrina? RQ4: What characteristics of the respondents correspond to their image choice and interpretation of imagery?

The students were given thirty minutes to complete this survey in class for extra credit. The demographics of the survey showed that 53% of respondents were female, 75% described themselves as Caucasian, and 67% were either eighteen or nineteen years of age. The results for proximity to the incident showed that 22% of students were displaced by its effects, while 45% lived in areas surrounding New Orleans.

The results to the questionnaire showed that most memorable images were of the roof rescues, which were predominantly shown on television, then the next memorable images where the areas where the respondents lived. This result showed that images or issues that media felt were “**most important**” were remembered more by people who did not experience the disaster first-hand. The second question tackled the issue of emotion and the overwhelming response was “sadness,” which also answered question number three by showing that there was no correlation between emotion and proximity. An interesting finding was that people that lived outside New Orleans responded more highly as “fearful” than people who lived in New Orleans. Question number four, showed that the strongest respondent characteristic was based on gender differences, because men and women recalled different images.

This study answered Miller and Roberts’ inquiry as to how **media affected** the perception of Hurricane Katrina. The theory in mass-communication that states that the media have the ability to determine which issues are important to the public is known as the agenda-setting theory (Definition of agenda setting). After Hurricane Katrina the news repetitiously showed images of working class heroes save victims from their roof tops. This image was easy for viewers to understand, therefore making it easier to remember. Other historical tragedies, like 9/11, also used the tactic of everyday heroism to “establish a feeling of national consensuses, and patriotism which included courage, sacrifice, and patriotism” (Miller, Roberts, 2010).

Media’s portrayal of this event sparked instant awareness and need for action in America. Citizens, as well as celebrities, nationwide volunteered to raise money and donate their time, because the media communicated a sense of patriotism. Even though the media’s influence is often viewed in a negative light, in this situation it brought pro-active support. Without the strong emotional images, the realness of the tragedy would not have been felt as wide spread. The agenda-setting theory can complement the media’s overall image by helping communicate raw emotion when instant reaction is needed.

// Definition of agenda-setting. Retrieved (2011, March 3) from Http: //www. Allwords. Com/word-agenda-setting. Html

Miller, A., & Roberts, S. (2010). Visual Agenda-Setting & Proximity after Hurricane Katrina: A Study of Those Closest to the Event. //Visual Communication Quarterly//, 17(1), 31-46. doi:10.1080/15551390903553697



The Agenda-Setting Function of National Versus Local Media: A Time Series Analysis for the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage.
[|please click here to view this article] The purpose of this study was to explore the differences between the national and local media agendas, and that there may be differences in patterns of media coverage and public salience for issues among different localities. This study compares the **agenda-setting** effects of national and local media on public opinion for the issue of same-sex marriage. In some states the issue was one of only national importance and for others it was also one of local importance. The study examines two different cities, Chicago and Atlanta. Chicago was a city where same-sex marriage was not an issue of local importance. Atlanta was a city where it was an issue of local importance. Each of these cities have similar demographic composition, internet and media usage.

=
The article has several different hypotheses. One is that national media agenda will be similar to the local media agenda in Chicago where the issue of same-sex marriage was mostly national. It is also hypothesized that there will be less similarity in Atlanta where the issue was local and national. It is thought that salience levels in Chicago will be similar to national levels. The strength of agenda-setting function will be different from Chicago to Atlanta with local media having a stronger influence over national media in Atlanta than in Chicago.=====

=
The issue of same sex marriage in 2004 was studied in regard to local versus national level. This study used content analysis to determine the levels of media coverage nationally and locally on the issue of same-sex marriage in 2004. Public salience for the issue was measured nationally and locally based on the number of online searches for the term "gay marriage". Also, time series analysis, using correlation and regression techniques, were used to investigate the relationships among variables over time. The amount of national coverage of the issue of same-sex marriage was examined by conducting a computerized content analysis of **news coverage** in multiple national print and broadcast news outlets. The ultimate goal of the study was to determine the degree to which national and local media coverage of same-sex marriage differ in their ability to exert an agenda-setting effect on the public.=====

=
There seemed to be a relationship between national media coverage and public salience. Cross-lagged correlations revealed strong correlations between public salience and national media coverage. There was also high and significant correlation between national and local media coverage. There was less correlation between national media coverage and Atlanta media coverage than between national media coverage. A stronger correlation was revealed between the national level of salience and the Chicago level than between the national and local levels of salience in Atlanta. Levels of local salience for both Atlanta and Chicago were significantly higher than the national level of salience For Atlanta, cross-lagged correlations revealed strong correlations between public salience and both local and national media coverage.=====

=
It is important to understand that the **media effects** our views on issues. To make decisions on issues it would be wise to do research to get all the facts on what is going on and not just what the media wants us to think.=====

Hester, J., & Gibson, R. (2007). The Agenda-Setting Function of National Versus Local Media: A Time-Series Analysis for the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage. //Mass Communication & Society//, 10(3), 299-317. doi:10.1080/15205430701407272



THE EVOLUTION OF AGENDA-SETTING RESEARCH: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS-Maxwell McCombs, Donald Shaw
[|Please click here to view this article.] == ** The agenda setting theory explained in “Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas” was described as having three features: “(a) the steady historical growth of its literature, (b) its ability to integrate a number of communication research subfields under a single theoretical umbrella as it has moved through four phases of expansion, and (c) a continuing ability to generate new research problems across a variety of communication settings” (McCombs & Shaw, 2006). ** ==

In this article found in the journal of communication, these is a brief description of how the agenda setting theory has grown in the past twenty-five years from something no one has really heard of to something that makes a factor in day to day lives. The first main topic of agenda setting theory is that it focuses on the major issues and objects and then transfers the importance of those issues to the public. A more recent example of how agenda setting is currently being used in our daily lives is as follows, “Agenda setting is considerably more than the classical assertion that the news tells us what to think about. The news also tells us how to think about it. Both the selection of objects for attention and the selection of frames for thinking about these objects are powerful agenda-setting roles” (McCombs & Shaw, 2006). As this is showing there has been a distinct trend in the growth and use of the agenda setting theory.

To sum up this article the agenda setting theory is here to stay and there looks to be no problem with the growth and use of this in the future. With this theory in place the “new research exploring the consequences of agenda setting and media framing suggest that the media not only tell us what to think about, but also how to think about it, and consequently, what to think” (McCombs & Shaw, 2006).

McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (2006, 2 7). //The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas//. Retrieved 2 5, 2011, from Wiley Online Library: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01262.x/pdf



**WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN TO US?** 

In the first case, Coleman and McCombs examined to see if there are any changes in the effect of agenda setting on three different generations. They thought the new generation would be agenda-less because of all the new, non-traditional forms of media. They were wrong and found that no matter what means people got their news from, it was all relatively similar information, therefore proving mediaagenda does influence public agenda.

In the second case, The fight for "how to think": Traditional media, social networks and issue interpretation, the author Sharon Meraz argues that the influence of traditional media has been weakened due to the increase in social media. Media channels such as, Facebook, Twitter and Blogging sites are rising in popularity and now being seen as a credible source of media. Society, media channels, politicians and marketers are going to have adopt and adapt these forms of media extremely quickly if they want to stay up with this hot, new trend.

In the third case, "Public Perceptions on Public Relations" we were able to see how agenda setting theory did not have a direct effect between heavier use of media and those who were not exposed as frequently. The research concluded that variables outside media such as personal knowledge or experience related to the issue or object could effect the interpretation that we have of the topic at hand. All in all, audiences who have more exposure to agenda setting theory through media wont necessarily have a different effect than those who were not, unless an outside variable plays a role in their personal opinions.

In the fourth case, Miller and Roberts’ observation over the influence of media compared to the proximity to Hurricane Katrina, resulted in interesting observations. Students that were directly impacted by the disaster remembered messages in the news regarding images of their streets, while outside viewers recalled images of rescue missions by local working class heroes. The images of heroism were highly repetitive on television news stations, which proves the idea that people are highly einfluenced by the media’s perception of what they want their viewers to remember.

In the fifth case, “The Agenda-Setting Function of National Versus Local Media: A Time Series Analysis for the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage”, researchers compare the effects of national versus local media agendas. Local agendas have more of an effect on states that place local importance on the issue. States who don’t find an issue to be locally important are influenced fairly equally by the national and local agendas. This study proves that everyone is influenced by media agendas just sometimes on medias agenda more than anothers.

In the last case, "The Evolution of the Agenda Setting Theory: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas", research and explanation of how the article has effected our lives has shown that this theory is not going to be faded out anytime soon. The Agendy Setting Theory is being used more and more often in almost every part of our lives from traditional media to things such as legal systems and trials. This study shows how many more aspects of agenda setting there really are and how many ways this theory is really used.

**AGENDA SETTING THEORY: TODAY & TOMORROW** TODAY: Agenda setting theory currently has two levels. The first level is what is most often researched and focuses on major issues and salience transfer. In second level agenda setting the focus is on characteristics of an issue. The idea of focusing on characteristics of an issue is called attribute agenda setting. there are multiple concepts that fall under the category of attribute agenda setting which include status conferral, stereotyping, priming, gatekeeping, and framing. Status conferral is how much recognition or attention is given to a specific issue. Stereotyping is when there is a consensus about an attribute orset of attributes which a group is believed to obtain. Another concept is priming which is the theory that says media exposure activates memory retrieval of related knowledge. Gatekeeping is also a concept of sttribute agenda settting that is about who decides what the agenda is going to be, which is most often major sources, other news organizations or other taditional journalism means. Framing is the concept of choosing what attributes to emphasize, to include or exclude in order to portray stories or issues in a certain way that benefits the medias agenda. Basically first level agenda setting is broad and second level is a more detail focus on issues and how the media can manipulate a story to fit their agenda and transfer salience to the public.

TOMORROW: Living in a technologically advanced society like we are today, we know that there are bound to be drastic changes in the future that will affect our day-to-day lifestyle. But how will this affect our forms of communication, and most importantly media and the impact of Agenda-Setting theory? Since progression in technology has already transformed the way that we as a society, think, act, and feel then how is media going to be able to continue to control not what we think, but how we think it. Media is the main form of communication throughout our society and our lifestyles heavily depend on types of communication through technology and media. Because of this, the Agenda-Setting will continue to plan an active role throughout media, and influence the portrayal of issues and topics that mass media deems important. As long as technology and communications continue to advance, then Agenda-Setting theory will persistently have a major impact on society and mass media.