Agenda-Setting (Communication Concepts)

What i~ the biggc!-it social problem in the nt' ...... ~ today? Who makes issues ne\-\"sworthy and important? Why do some i!Osues receive more attention than others? Social issues that are widely recogni7.l'd on the media's agt.'nda often uetndnd attention on the public agenda, and in turn influence the pl'licy agenda, creating policy chal1)!;cs. J public agHtd a, on it yur-by-yea r basis.

Previously, in Chapter 2, we disc ussed (a) the general lack of correspondence between the media agenda and real-world indicators and (b) how an issue rises in the agenda-selling process through a social construction of Ihe issue by newspeople and by Ihc public. Funkhouser could also have explored the relationship o f the public agenda and real-world indicators, as we have d one with his data (in Figure 3.1) fo r the issue of the Vietnam War. Given that Funkhouser 's stud y was so pio neering and so high ly creative in its design, wh y isn' t he, rather than Max McCombs and Donald Sh aw, considered the founder of agenda-setting resea rch? After all, here are two artides on the same new scientific topic, published in the same journal, appearing in almost the same year! Citations to these two journal articles by other scholars o f agendasetting are quite d ifferent (Table 3.2).

Why was Funkhouser's intellectual contribution SO undervalued? 1. He did not label his resea rch as dealing with the "agcndasetting" process, or cite p ub licat ions in this tradition such as the Cohen (1 963) metaphor ("The press tells us what to thin k abOld ").2 2. Funkhouser's aggregated ap proach of using secondary data did not fit well with the persona l interview survey methods then p referred by many mass communication scholars in investigating di rectional med ia effl.'Cts. His stu dy did not lead immediately to replications and to other types of fo llow-on research, as did the McCombs and Shaw p iece. 3. Unlike Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, Ray Funkhouser did not continue to conduct agenda-setting research himself or influence his students to do so. McCombs and Shaw wrote, co-wrote with each other, or cow rote with others a total o f 32 p ublications on agenda-setting (about 9% of the total literature on th is top ic).

Measuring the Public Agenda The public agenda is usually measured by means of a special kind of q uestion in a public opinion poll. The usu al public opinion po ll asks fo r a res pondent's att itude towa rd a particular issue. For example. a poll question might be, " How do you feel toward abortion?" o r " What is your opinion abo ut health care reform?" The special type o f opinion poll q uestion as ked to index the p ublic agend a usually takes the form : "What d o you th ink is the most important p roblem facing this country today?" (Smith, 1980). This question (and minor variations of it) h as been asked by the Gallup Poll some 200 times since World War II; it was fi rst asked in a Gallu p Poll back in 1935.

47

46 The MIP (most importantprohlem) data show that five broad categories of na tional issues dominate the public agenda in the United States.

1. Foreign affairs issues, including war fears, military preparedness, and space, generally dominate the public agenda in the United States, averaging 40% to 50% of the MIP responses by the public from 1946 to 1976 (Smith, 1980).

2. ECOlzomie issues consist of inflation, unemployment, labor, and so on. 3. Social control issues, such as crime, violence, and moral decline, rose to importance in the late 19605 and early 1970s with race riots and

campus unrest, and then continued at a modest level centered on fear of crime (Smith, 1980) .

4. Civil rights isslles became quite important in the mid-1960s but then were pushed down the public agenda by the Vietnam War. 5. Governmellt issues, such as corruption, lack of leadership, and in+ efficiency, maintained a fairly low position on the national agenda, ex+ cept at the time of the Watergate scandal- in 1974, when this category constituted 23% of the MIP responses (Neuman, 1990; Smith, 1980; Zhu, 1992a). In addition to these five main issue categories, a specific issue such as health care or defense spending may rise to a high position on the public agenda for a brief period. But for most of the20-year time period analyzed by Smith (1980), the four broad issues of foreign affairs, economic issues, social control, and civil rights topped the public agenda, with foreign affairs dominant. A time-series study of the public agenda over 40 years found that whereas the number of issues thai constitute the American public's agenda has not changed, the substance of those issues has d iversified, leading to a shorter average duration during w hich anyone issue remains on the public agenda (McCombs & Zhu, 1995). These scholars conclude that more rapid turnover of issues on the public agenda may be evidence of a more segmented American society. Gallup Poll data allow looking at differences in issue priorities by the characteristics of respondents. These differences in the MIP responses, however, are minor when compa red with the issue priorities over time, which are mostly explained by h istorical events (e.g., the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the civil rights movement). Differences by type of respondent, when they do occur, are what one would expect. For example,

black Americans and people living in the South ranked civil rights as an espeCially important problem facing the nation in the mid-1960s. The MIP over the years has become the most widely used index of the public agenda at the national level. Even when agenda scholars are conducting their own intelView survey of an audience to measure the public agenda in an issue-priority study, rather than using thc Gallup Poll data, they frequently ask an MIP-type question. What are the advantages of the Gallup MIP as a measure of the public agenda? For one thing, the question does not suggest issue responses to the respondent, due to its open-ended nature. Imagine, in comparison, a set of closed-ended questions; for example, "How important is unemployment as an issue facing this country today? The environment? How about crime?" Obviously, one would have to ask a number of such questions, instead of just one, and there would always be the danger of overlooking some issue that might be on the public agenda . Further, closed-ended questions inevitably convey a high degree of suggestibility to responde nts. A further advantage of the MIP question is that it has been asked so consistently for so many years by the Gallup Poll that its future dominance for indexing the public agenda seems assured. Why change the wording of the question and lose compa rability with the previous decades of MIP data? There are several shortcomings of the MIP measure, however. For example,facillg A merica are key words in the Gallup Poll question. As Funkhouser (1973a) noted: About the only way that people would estimate the most important problemfocillg America would be to take their cues from the media. The corresp ondence between news articles and public opinion ... may be nothing more than the public's regurgitating back to the pollster what is currently in the news, with little or no relationship to what the respondent himself feels is important. (p. 69) Thus, a positive relationship between the media agenda and the public agenda may be built into the MIP measure. What if the public agenda were indexed by asking respondents, "What is the most important problem facing YOIl today?" or, alternatively, "What is the most important problem that you feel our government should try to solve?" The answers are different from those obtained with the MIP question. For example, the Chapel Hill study asked,

48 "What are you most concemed about these days? That is, regardless of what the politicians say. what are the two or three mail! things which you think the government should concentrate on doing something about?" (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). TIle public agenda depends to a large extell' upon tile way Iltat it is conceptualized alld measured (Funkhouser, 1973b). This same cautionary statement, of course, can be made aboui every other dimension of public opinion. Trumbo (1995) a rgues that if one conceptualizes an active media audience, then the typical agenda-setting perspective that issue salience and "t hinking about" an issue are the same thing is misleading because

decid ing about the importance of an issue is inherently evaluative. In his longitudinal study of the issue of global warming. Trumbo (1995) conceptualizes and operationalizes an Extreme Concern Index (ECI) to measure the public agenda. Although the answers to MIP questions can readily be llscd for cross-sectional h ierarchy studies, it is difficult to operationalize a longit udinal study using the public's answers to MIP questions because such answers will only exist for issues that have persisted as major issues for a long time. The ECI was created by gathering questions from two public opinion archives that (a) were about g lobal warming, (b) were of national samples, (c) measured concern, and (d) used a scaled response to categorize respondent answers. So, unlike the MIP, the ECI is a combination of many different questions that are nevertheless rather similar. Trumbo (1995) found that the ECI correlated with the media agenda, which suggests that the index is a valid measure of publiC concern. Most agenda-setting research has a "made in the United States" label (Chaffee &:: Izcaray, 1975). However, an invisible college of agenda researchers is developing in Japan. According to Takeshita (1993), since 1980, agenda-setting has become an indispensable subject in mass communication and political communication textbooks in Japan. An active g roup of investigators carries out agenda-selling research in Japan. Fortunately, for the advancement of the fie ld, the Japanese approach to measuring the public agenda is somewhat distinctive. In addition to asking their version of the familiar MIP question in audience surveys,) the Japanese scholars also measure perceived isslle salience (as did Weaver et al., 1981), defined as a respondent's perception of the salience of issues to a collectivity of other individuals. 4 In a 1993 Japanese replication of the 1968 Cha pel Hill stud y, responden ts were asked: "What do you think people in this city are most interested in, in this election?" In addition, interpersonal issue salience, the issues most fre-

49

quently discussed in conversations with others, was measured by asking: "Did you discuss something about this election with your family or friends in the past week? If so, what kind of topics did you discuss and w ith whom?" (Takeshita, 1993).5 The MIP measure of the importance of the issues on the public agenda was not so highly correlated with the rank order of the issues on the media agenda (Spearman rho = .39) as was the perceived issue salience measure correlated with the media agenda (rho = .68). Takeshita (1993) concluded: "Mass media exert more influence on w hat people think about the climate o f opinion than on what they think about as their own concerns." This conclusion supports the work of the German communication scholar Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, who showed mass media coverage to have a powerful impact on what individuals think that other people are thinking. Presumably, people have little alternative to the media as a way of knowing others' concerns. One explanation for the superiority of perceived issue salience in Japan is that the Japanese have a strong need to know the climate of opinion of others about issue priorities. Such cultural differences in agenda-selling behavior need further exploration.

Evidence for the lnfluence of the Media Agenda on the Public Agenda The major findmgof the influential McCombs and Shaw (1972) stud y was that the issue hierarchy on the media agenda set the issue hierarchy of the public agenda. About two thirds of later st udies (59 of the 92 empirical studies that we reviewed in 1992) confinned this media agenda-public agenda relationship. Figure 3.2 depicts this directional relationship, along with the general finding that real-world indicators are less strongly related to either the media agenda or the public agenda. A variety of research evidence supports the media-public agenda relationship: 1. Funkhouser's (l973a) investigation of issues in the 19605, reviewed previously in this chapter, concluded that the public agenda is driven by the media agenda in the United States. 2. MacKuen's (1981) over-time study of the agenda-setting process for eight issues supports this general ization.

51

50

,, ,

Real-Wood . Indicator for I ____ .,..Location 01 the Issue an Issue on the Media Agenda

-"

=>.

~----------- ------

locatiOn of the Issue

on the Public Agenda

Figure 3.2. The Relationship Between Real-World Indicators of an issue, Issue Position on the Media Agenda, and Issue Position on Ihe Public Agenda NOTE: The media agenda-public ag~nda relationship for an issue is not due 10 • high relationship of these tw o variables with a real-world indicator for the issue.

3. The laboratory experiments in which a media agenda is altered by the experimenter to test its effects on individua ls' p ub lic agendas (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987) support this genera lization. 4. Brosius and Kepplinger's (1990) over-time analysis of the agendasetting process for 16 issues in Germany found support for the media agenda-public agenda relationship, even when the effects of these variables at a previous time period on themselves at a subsequent point in time were removed by Granger causality.6 So even when a variety of controls are taken into account in different types of designs and data analyses, the general conclusion of agendasetting research is that tile media agenda sets the public agenda. This is hardly surprising, but it represents support for a portion of our model of the agenda-setting process (depicted in Figure 1.1). Much of the variability in results of public agenda-setting research is due to a sct of contingent conditions that importantly influence the media agendapublic agenda relationship. An overview and update of these conditions, expertly delinealed by James Winter (1981), follows here.

Intervening Variables in Predicting the Public Agenda The McCombs and Shaw (1972) Chapel HiU study aggregated the public agenda responses of their 100 respondents into one issue hierarchy (of five main issues). With a sample of only 100 respondents, there was no alternative to such aggregation. But in the several research

studies retesting the main hypothesis of the Chapel Hill study, such as the McLeod et al. (1974) investigation in Madison, Wisconsin, and the Tipton et al. (1975) study in Lexington, Kentucky, data were gathered from larger samples, allowing these communication scholars to segment their respondents into various subaudiences on the basis of socioeconomic characteristics, personal experiences, and degree of media exposure.' Essentially, this type of research strategy was a disaggregation to determine if the media agenda-public agenda relationship found by McCombs and Shaw (1972) also held true for specific subaudiences. Generally, it did, although without strong and universa l support. An intelVening variable in the media agenda-public agenda relationship is source or channel credibility, defined as the perception of a source/channel as trustworthy and competent. For example, a Wall Street lawyer may regard the NatiOllal Enquirer as less credible regarding an international issue than the Ill/emuliollal Herald-Tribllne; when the lawyer reads a headline in the Herald-Triblllle about a new PalestineIsrael peace proposal, the med iu m's salience for this news item is more likely to be accepted (Rogers & Dearing, 1988). Several investigations (e.g., McCombs, 1977; Palmgrccn & Clarke, 1977; Winter, 1981) sought to determine whether newspapers o r television are more important in setting individuals' agendas. Wanta and Hu (1994) found that individuals who perceive the media as more credible relied on the media for information about issues in an Illinois election and were more susceptible to the media influencing their personal agenda of issucs. Further, the degree of media exposure by a sa mple of indiv iduals is positively related to the degree to which they accept the media agenda as their personal agenda of issues. Research supporting this generalization includes Weaver, McCombs, and Spellman (1975), Shaw and Clemmer (1977), Mullins (1977), Einsiedel, Salomone, and Schneider (1984), and Wanta and Hu (1994). The most widely studied intervening variable in explaining the media agenda-public agenda relationship is the amount of interpersonal discussion about an issue in the news. Does such interpersonal communication enhance or inhibit Ihe agenda-setting effects of the mass media? "Few contingent conditions in agenda-setting have drawn so much attention from researchers with so little agreement in their results" (Wanta & Wu, 1992). By analyzing television and newspaper issue coverage for four weeks prior to conducting a random-digit-diallelephone sUlVey of lllinois reSidents, Wanta and Wu concluded thai interpersonal communication can reinforce public agenda-setting when such

52 conversation concerns the same issues that the media had earlier emphasized. Interpersonal communication interrupts the media's agendasetting influence when discussions concern other issues. David H. Weaver at Indiana University has led in, among other things, explicating a /leed jororielltatioll on the part of aud ience members to understand and control their informational environment. Individuals with high uncertainty will have a corresponding high need 10 become oriented about an issue. A high need for orientation will lead people 10 seek out more information in the mass media to reduce their uncertainty. This greater exposure to the mass media will then result in greater agenda-setting effects. Investigations supporting this generalization include Weaver (1977, 1984), Weaver et al. (1975), and Tipton et al. (1975).

The Role of Personal Experience With Issues

I

An individual's dose familiarity with an issue, such as being unem~ ployed or losing a dose friend to cancer, is a way in which a person's personal experience with an issue overrides the influence of the mass media in determining what's important to that person. For most respondents, however, the med ia agenda predicts the issues that they rank as of highcst sa lience. Some issues, by their very nature, are difficult or impossible for an individual to experience personally. Examples are the 1984 Ethiopian famine and the US. military presence in Soma lia in 1992-1993. We learned almost all of our information aboul these issues either indirectly through the mass media, and especially television, or indirectly through interpersonal communication with others who also took their cues from the media (unless one had a friend or relative in the U.S. Armed Forces sent to Mogadishu). Originally, Zucker (1978) found that "the less direct experience the prople have with an issue ... the greater is the news media's influence on public opinion on that issue" (p. 245). Support fo r this relationship is also provided by Manheim (1986) and Zhu, Watt, Snyder, Van, and Jiang (1 993). Presumably, individuals who lack persona l experience with an issue must rely more on the mass media to set their public agenda. Thus, the med ia agenda is expected to be more important in

53

setting the public agenda for international affairs than for domestic affairs. On the other hand, personal experience with an issue can sensitize an indiv idual to that issue, so that furt her information is then sought in the media about the issue. Thus, personal experience with an issue might enhance the media agenda's influence on the public agend a. When personal experience is indexed by the probability of being affected by an issue, a positive relationship of such personal experience with media agenda~setting was found (Erbring. Goldenberg.« Miller, 1980; Iyengar « Kinder, 1987).

Summary In this chapter, we explored issue-hierarchy studies-investigations of all of the main issues on the public agenda at a certain pOint in time. The other type of public agenda-setting research (see our next chapler) investigates the rise and fall of a single issue (e.g., health care refo rm or international trade) on the public agenda over time or through experimental research with individuals. Research evidence summa rized in this chapter showed that often the media agenda sets the public agenda, although the empirica l support for this relationship is fa r from overwhelming. A variety of types of public agenda~setting research support the media agenda-public agenda relationship: McCombs-Shaw-type cross-sectional investigations, over~ lime studies, and laboratory experiments in which actual newscasts are altered by splicing in additiona l television news coverage for an issue. The media agenda-public agenda relationship has usually been found even when various intervening variables (such as source/channel credibility and interpersonal discussion of the issue) are taken into account.

Notes 1. This case illustration is based mainly on G. Ray Funkhouser (1973a, 1973b). 2. Funkhouser, however, did dte the McCombs lind Shaw (19n) paper in his second article (Funkhou~r, 1973b), published in JoumalislIJ Quarterly. 3. Only 47% of Japanese respondents identified an issue in response to an MIP-type question.

55

54 4. nus concept Is similar to that measured by McLeod el 31. (1974) as the degree to which an individual respondent ta lked about an issue with ot~e~ members of the community, or other members raised the issue with the indiVidual. 5. So few respondents identified an issue in response to this question that it could not be used to measure the public agenda. . 6. Granger causality in the case of the agenda-setting process controls the influence o f people's past public agenda on the ir present public agenda, so that th.e previous media agenda's effect on the people's current public agenda can be estl· mated independently of the people's past public agenda (BrosiUS k Kepplinger. 1990).

7. The Kentucky study also measured the media agenda, and the publ~c agenda at three points in time, so that the lime order of the medIa agenda-public agenda rou ld be d etermined with cross-lagged correla tion techniques.

4. Public Agenda Studies: Longitudinal Approaches

Agenda-selting has not fully matured into a theory of media effC!Cts, yet this is part of its vitality. Agenda-setting is still on the path of inquiry and discovery. It has just arrived at the point where researchers are attempting to describe its natural history. C raig Trumbo (1995, p. 2) At the beginning of Chapter 3, we distinguished betwccn hierarchy stud ies of (usually) six to eight issues versus longitudinal investigations of one or two issues in studies of public agenda-setting. Here wc deal with longitudinal approaches to the study of the agenda-setting process that have become popular in very recent years. Longitudinal research, in which data from more than one point in time are collected, is well suited to invcstigating a process, which occurs over time. Longitudinal research designs represent one means of disaggregation in agendasetting research, providing improved understanding of the process through which an issue comes to public attention, or of the psychological process through which individuals perceive issue salience.

One of the key assumptions of hierarchy approach agenda-setting studies is that the public-people who watch television, listen to the radio, and read the news-react to the mass media. For anyone individual, that reaction is sometimes passive, sometimes active. The working hypothesis of the hierarchy approach is that the media's emphasiS on certain issues and not other issues determines which issues we as members of the public think are important. This is a conception of a malleab le, relatively passive U.S. public. David Weaver's conceptualization that people have a need for orientation (Weaver, 1977) was a means of bringing into agenda-setting research a theoretical rationale for those times when we are active seekers of information or entertainment. Other research strong ly suggests that individuals engage in active psychological sense-making about public issues (Gamsan, 1992; Liebes &: Katz, 1990; Neuman et aI., 1992) as well as active social activities that are intended to influence the outcomes of public issues (Blumer, 1971; Dearing &: Rogers, 1992; Downs, 1972; Kingdon, 1984; Mead, 1994). For most issues, the majority of people are inattentive rather than attentive, and morc passive than active. But for certain issues, depending on our own selective attention, we become very active and take charge of o ur infonnation environment and, less frequently, organize for action. When this happens, hierarchy studies of agenda-settmg do not show a deterministic media agenda-public agenda relationship (Neuma n et al., 1992, pp. 110-112). In these circumstances, longitudinal studies of the agenda-seUing process are more informative than hierarchy studies. Longitudinal designs better enable the researcher to operationalize active publics, which, it has been argued, is how public opinion really exerts itself on policymakers (Blumer, 1948). The conceptualization of individuals being active information processors can also be extrapolated to society as a whole, as Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones (1993) did in their important book about policy agenda-setting, Agerldas and I"stability ill America" Politics (1993). They conducted longitudinal research on the issue of nuclear power and compared results with the issues of pesticides, tobacco, transportation safety, urban affairs, drug abuse, child abuse, and alcohol abuse. The collection and analysis of longitudinal data allowed Baumgartner and Jones (1993) to view society as an "issue processor" that functions to consider, debate, and sometimes institutionalize responses to conditions that we perceive as social problems.

57

56 The Issue of AIDS in the United States'

Average Number of News Slofies about AIDS, after July 1985 (143 storieS per month)

gj 350

.~

Our critique of agenda·setting research (Rogers & Dea ring, 1988) recommended a strategy of disaggregation in future studies to unmask the human beh av ior change processes that are involved. umgiludinal agenda studies offer one means of disaggregation. We selected AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) as a Single issue to investigate. AIDS was a puzzling issu,e in an ag~nda. setting sense. Although the firs t AIDS cases were dlagno~d m the United States in 1981, this issue d id not attract much media attention until 4 years later, in mid-1985. By that time, more than 10,000 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS, and about half that nUmbl!f had died. Why were the media so slow in discovering the issue of AIDS? What finally put AIDS on tbe agenda? We measured the media agenda by the number of news stories about AlDS in the New York Times, the Washingfoll Post, the Los Angeles Tim es, and the network evening newscasts of ABC, NBC, and C BS. From June 1981 through December 1988 (a period of 91 months), the six media o f study carried 6,694 news stories about AIDS. Because media coverage of AIDS in each o f the six med ia of stud y was highly intercorrelated across time, we combined t~e coverage by all six media into a variable indexing total mass medIa coverage of AIDS, which we used to measu re the media agenda. For the first 4 years of the epidemic, a point at which 9,944 individua ls had AIDS, the issue was quite Iowan the mass media agenda (Figure 4.1). U.S. national maSS media were slow to respond to the AIDS issue because of the lack of involvement of two traditional agenda-setting influences: the White House and the New York Times. As mentioned in earlier chapters, a U.S. president can move the media on any particular issue. President Reagan chose notto give a talk about AIDS until May 1987, 72 months into the epidemic, a point at which 35,121 AIDS cases had been reported by the CDC. The White House saw AlDS as a budget threat and so chose to ignore it. The New York Times published its first page-one story about AIDS on May 25, 1983-12 months later than the Los Angeles Times and 10 months later than the Washington Post. The New York Times's

.s 300

~ 250 ~

(I)

200

'0

150

Z....

100

.cE~ 50

Z~

Average Nu-nber 01News Stories about AIDS, prior to June 1985 (1 4 stories per month)

1

1

Rock Hudson

-.-4--Ryan While

O~=--~~~'sz:!-~~:;;::C:;~....,.,.-l 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Figure 4.1. The N umber of AIDS-Related News Articles in Six National Media of Stud y fo r 91 Months in the 1980s SOURCE: Kogen el al. (1991). Used by permission 01 AEJMC.

management did not consider AIDS to be newsworthy fro m 1981 to m id-1985. Moreover, the newspaper's key medical writer broke h is leg and w as physically unable to cover breaking stories during this time. When a new executive editor was appointed in late 1985, coverage o f AIDS expanded dramatically. The number of news stories about AIDS escalated from an average of 14 per month prior to July 1985, to 143 per month after that dale (see Figure 4.1 ). Conventional wisdom about the media coverage of AIDS credits this tenfold increase in news coverage to the July announcement that film ador Rock Hudson had AIDS. Our analysis shows that it was actually a concomitant news s tory of a young boy with AIDS, Ryan White, mort"! than Hudson, that propelled AIDS up the media agenda . White was the topic of 11 7 news stories, while Hudson was the topic of 74. The White and H udson disclosures together represen t only 3% of our 6,694 news stories of study. The personification of the AIDS disease by White and Hudson changed the IIIea/ling of the issue for n ewspeople, who responded by giv ing more attention to AIDS. Several important AIDS news stories that broke earlier and that did /lot push AIDS up the media agenda are as follows:

58

59 PoIIIbI era (i.168)

>SO

Testing & ~ IuuH

300 ~

~

2,. 200

• '"

~

~

Z

Sc:*"c;e En. (X-24) JAMA~PrHI

100

,.

IrOIIaI EIII!i-' o~~~~~~

81

82

83

84

MootrAy NurrlltIr aI N_

Stortet about AIDS for Stle Mnl Mao:b CombIned

85

-

86

87

88

Average Numt.-< 01 N8wI Sto!IeI

IIbc101. Brewer, J., &; Hunter, A. (1989). Mullimtllwd rtstarch. Newbury Par k, CA: Sage. Brosius, H., &; Kepplinger, H. M. (1990). The agenda-setting function of te levision news: Static and dynamic views. Comnlutricatjon Rtstarch, 17(2), 183-211. Brosius, H., &: Kepp li nger, H. M. (1992a). Linear and non linea r models of agenda setting in te levision. Journal of Broadcll$ljllg lind Eltclronk MtdiD, 36, 5-32. Brosius, H., &; Kepplinger, H. M. (1992b, May). In stllrch of kill" issues: Issut competition jn tlrt agtnda-sttting prOCtss. Paper presented al the American Association for Public Opinion Research, 51. Petersburg. FL. 1. A comprehensive bibliography of agenda-set ling publications begins on page 109.

101

102

103

Burd, C. (1991). A critique of two decades of agenda-setting research. In D. E. Protess &: M. McCombs (Eels.), Age/Ida-setting: Rtlldings all media, public opinion, /llld po/icymaking (pp. 291-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Carragee, K., Rosenblatt, M., &: Michaud, C. (1987). Agenda-selling research: A critique and theoretical alternative. In S. Thomas (Ed.), StuditJ in communication 3 (pp. 35-49). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. C haffee, S. H., &: !zcaray, F. (1975). Mass communication functions in a media rich developing society.In S. H. Chaffee (Ed.), Political commrmicDlion: Issues anJ $l11lltgits for nWlrch (pr' 367-395). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cherry, O. (1986). A longiludillll analysis of Jill agenda-selling power of the black

periodical press. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Cobb, R W., &: Elder, C. D. (1981). Communication and public policy. In O. O. Nimmo &. K R Sanders (Eds.), Harldbcok ofpolitical cummuniCQlion (pp. 391416). Beverly Hitls, CA: Sage. Cobb, R W., &. Elde r, C. D. (1983). Parliciptltion in Amtricall poliliCS: T~dynamia of agtnda-bllilding. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published by Allyn &: Bacon in 1972) Cohen, B. C (1963). Tht pras and fort!ign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cohen, B. C (1965). Foreigtl policy in Americlln govunmenl. Boston: Little, Brown. Cohen, M., March, J., &: Olsen. J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Admil,is/mtive Scitllct Quar/erly, 17, 1-25. Crane, O. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of/mowledge ill scitlltific communities. Chicago: University of Chkago Press. Danielian, 1.., &: Reese, S. (1989). A closer look at Intennedia influences on agenda-seHing: The cocaine issue of 1986. In P. J. Shoemaker (Ed.), Commu"Icalion campaigliS about drugs: Governlllelll, media and the public (p p. 47-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Davis, F. J. (1952). Crime news in Colorado newspapers. American 10llmal of Sociology, 57, 325-330. Dearing, J. W. (1989). Setting the polling agenda for the issue of AIDS. Public 0Jli"ioll Qllarterly, 53(3), 309-329. Dearing, J. W. (1992). Foreign blood and domestic politics: The issue of AIDS in Japan. In E. Fee &. O. M. Fox (Eels.), AIDS: Tile making of a cltronic disuse (pp. 326-345). Berkeley: University of California Press. Dearing,J. W., &. Roge rs, E. M. (1992). AJDS and the media agenda. In T. Edgar, M. Fitzpatrick, &: V. Freimuth (Eds.), AIDS: A communication perspecti~ (pp. 173-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeAeur, M. L. (1987). The growth and decline of research on the diffusion of the news 1945-1985. Communication Rtstllrch, 14(1), 109-130. Derksen, L., &: Cartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American Seeier logical R,n,iew, 58, 434-442. Deutschmann, P. J., &. Danielson, W. (1960). Diffusion of the major news story. Journalism QUarierly, 37, 345-355. Downs, A. (1972). Up and down w ith ecology: The issue-attention cycle. Public illteust, 28, 38-50. Eichhorn, W. (1993, August). An experimental ttst of the IIgtnda-uttingftmction of t~ press. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas Ci ty. Einsiedel, E. F., Salomone, K t., &: Schneider, P. P. (1984). Crime: Effects of med ia exposure and personal experience 011 issue salience. journalism Quarterly, 6J,131-136.

Entman, R. M. (1989). How th e media affect what p eople think: An information processing approach. Journal af Politics, 51, 347-370. Erbring. L., Goldenberg. E. N., &: Miller, A. H. (1980). Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. Amtrican lOUTllal of Poliliati Science, 24(1), 16-49. Erikson, R S., Wright, G. C, &: McIve r, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in I~ American stillts. New York: Cambridge University

p..,..

EHema, J. S., Protess, D. 1.., LeU, D. R, Miller, P. V., Doppelt, J., &: Cook. F. L. (1991). Agenda-setting as politics: A case study of the press-p ubJic-poli cy connection. Communication, 12,75-98. Eyal, C. H. (1979). Time-frame in agenda sttting rtRarcll: A study of 1M callCephlll1

and metltodological factors alfrding t~ time frame call/ext of tl~ agmda.stlling process. Unpublished d octoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Eyal, C, Winter, J. P., &: DeGeorge, W. F. (1981). The concept of time fram e in agenda-setting. In C. C. Wilhoit &: H. DeBock (Eds.), Mass commllnil'lJ/iall rtfJitw ytIIrbcok 2 (pp. 212-218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fiske,S., &: Taylor, S. (1984). Social rognition. New York: Random H ouse. Fitzgerald, F. (1986). Cilia Otz a hill; A jaUrtl~ through cotzltnlporary Amtricllll cullure. New York: Simon &: Schuster. Funkhouse r, C. R (1973a). The issues of the sixties: An exploratory study in the dynamics of p ublic opinion. Public Ol'illiOlI QUI/rtuly, 37(1), 62-75. Funkhouse r, C. R. (1973b). Trends in med ia coverage of the issues of the sixties.

journalism QlUlrlerly, SO, 533-538. Cadir, S. (1982). Media agenda-setting in Australia: nle rise and rail of public issues. Media IlIformation Australia, 26, 13--23. GamSQn, W. A. (1975). The s!ra/tgyofJlrottsl. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Camson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cans, H. J. (1979). CJec;iding wlral's ttnllS: A sludyofCBS Etiltning Nnos, NBC Niglttly Nnos, Nnoswttk and Time. New York: Panthron. Cellert, C. A., Weismulle r, P. C, H iggins, K V., & Maxwell, R. M. (1992). Disclos ure of AIDS in celebrities. Nao England jounlal of Medicim', 327(19), 1389. Coodman, R. (1994, May). Blish admillislration cotlgressional Wr$US presidential agenda-seltillg: The Ch illa IIIOst faoort!d lIatioll controversy. Paper presented at the In ternational Communication A~sociation, Albuquerque. Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishm ent. In A. King (Ed.), Tile llao American political syslem (pp. 87-124). Washington, IX: American Enterp rise Institute. Hertog, J. K, Finnegan, J. R., Jr., &: Kahn, E. (1994). Media coverage of AIDS, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases: A test of the public arenas model.

journalism QlUlrterly, 71(2), 291-304. Hibbs, M. P. (1993). A crossfire Of informal ion: A IIdwork approoc/J to tlte agtllda-utHng hypothais of the press: The case of stul trade. Unpublished d octo ral di sse rtation, Univers ity of Illinois, Chicago. Hilgartner, 5., &; Bosk, C L. (1988). The rise and fail of social problems: A public arenas model. Amtriclln Jounla/ ofSodology, 94(1), 53-78. Holaday, D., &: Kuo, E. (1992, August). Upu/ting /Iu IIg~nda: Medill and t~ l~1 Sillgapore eleclion. Paper presented at the AsSOCIation for EducallOn III Journalism and Mass Com mun ication, Montreal. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyant raponsible? How telfilision frames political issua. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

105

104 Iyengar, S., &. Kinder, O. R. (1985). Psychological acoou~ts of m~~a agendasetting. In S. Kraus &. R. M. Perloff (Eds.), Mass medlllllnd pollilcill thought (p p. 117-140). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. .. . Iyengar, S., &: Kinder, O. R. (1987). Nnos thAt matlas: T~ltvlswn lind AmerICon opinion_ Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Iyenga r, S., Peters, M. D., &. Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstration;> of the ' not· so-minimal' consequences of television news programs. Alller/· om Political Samet Rroiew, 76(4), 848-858. Jamieson, K. H. (1992). Dirty politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kerr, P. (1986, November 17). Anatomy of an issue: Drugs, the evidence, the reaction. Ntw York TimtS, pp. 1, 12. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, IIlltrnlltives, and public po/kits. Boston: Little, Brown. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). T~ structurt of scitntific revolutions. Cllicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1%2) Lang. G. E., &: Lang. K. (1981). Watergate: An explo ration of the age~da~buildi.ng process. In G. C. Wilhoit &: H. DeBock (Eds.), MDss rommumcatloll rtVltw ytarbook 2 (pp. 447-468). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lasswell, H. O. (1927). Propaganda/mlliqut ill t~tvorld IDQr. New York: Knopf. Lasswe ll, H. O. (1948). The structu re and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), T/Juommullication ofidtas: A strits ofaddrtsses. New York: Ha rper. Lazarsfeld, P. F., &: Merton, R. K. (1964). Mass communication, popular tas te and organized social action. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The rom.m.,mication of id~s: A st:rUsof(lddrt!sses (pp. 95-118). New York: Harper. (Orlgmal work pubhshed 1948) Liebes, T., &: Katz, E. (1990). The txport of mC(lnillg. New York: Oxford University Press. Linsky, M. (1986). Haw tl~ prts5 (lffec;ts /tda(ll policy nwking. New York: Norton. Linsky, M., Moore,}., O'Don nell, W., &. Whitm an, D. (1986). How tire prfss affec/s /tdaal policy-mll/dng: Six C(lses sludits. New York: Norton. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcou rt Br~~. . . Lipsky, M. (1968). Protest as a political resource. Ammcall PO/II/cal Scumet Rnlltw, 62,1144-1158. Lowi, T. J- (1964). Ame rican business, public policy, case studies and political theory. World Politics, 16(4), 677-715. MacKuen, M. B. (1981). Social com munication and the mass policy agenda. in M. B. MacKuen &: S. L Coombs (Eds.),More tlum news: Media polUtr ill pl/blic affairs (pp. 19-144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Manheim, J. B. (1986). A model of agenda dynami CS. in M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Cornmu uicatioll yearbook 10 (pp. 499-516). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. MallSbach, R. W., &: Vasquez, J. A. (1981). In u(lrcll ofthmry: A new pilradigrnJor global politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Mazur, A. (1981). Media coverage and public o pinion on scien tific controversies. /Ollrllal of Communication, 31, 1()6..115. Mazur, A. (1987). Putting radon o n the publiC'S risk agenda. Scienct, Techllology IIIld HUmall Valuts, 12(3-4),86-93. McCarthy, J. D., &: bid, M. N. (1977). Resource mobiliz.alion and social movements: A partial theory. American Jourlltll of Sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241. McCombs, M. E. (1977). Newspape r "s. television: Mass communicatio n effects across time. In D. L. 5haw &: M. E. McCombs (Eds.), The emergmct of Arnauo/J poliliall i$5uts: The agmda-st:ltillgJunction of tht press (p p. 89-105). 5 t. Paul. MN: West.

McCombs, M. E. (198Ia). The agenda-setting approach. In O. D. Nimmo &: K. R Sa nders (Eds.), Handbook of poli/icol rommunicalioll (pp. 121-140). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCombs, M. E. (1981b). Setting the agenda for agenda-setting research: An assessment of the priority, ideas and problems. In G. C. Wilhoit &: H. de Beck (Eds.), Ma$5 communication review yearbook 2 (pp. 219-224). Beverly Hills, CA:Sage. McCombs, M. E. (1992). Explorers and surveyors: Expa nding strategies for agenda-selling resea rch. Journalism Quortaly, 69(4), 813-824. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opillioll Quor/aly, 36, 176-187. McCombs, M. E., &: Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the mllrketplace./ourtln/ ofCmnmulliea/ioll, 43(2), 58-67. McCombs, M., &: Zhu, J. (1995). Capacity, diversity, and vo latility of the public agenda: Trends from 1954 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(4), 495-535. McLeod, J. M., Becker, L. B., &: Byrnes, J. E. (1974). Anothe r look at the agenda setting function of the p ress. CommunieatiolJ Rlsearch, t 131-166. Mead, T. D. (1994). The daily newspaper as political agenda setter. The CJlllr/otte Oburver and metropolitan reform. State and Local Gotlt'rnmen/ Revinu, 26(1) , 27-37. Molotch, H. L., Protess, D. L., &. Gordon, M. T. (1987). The media-policy connection: Ecology of news. In D. Paletz (Ed.), Polilieal rommunication: I1ltorits, caus ond assessr/lmls (pp. 26-42). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Montgomery, K. C. (1989). Target: Prime /ime-AdVOCllCY groups (lnd /J~ struggle over entertainment television. New York: Oxford Un iversi ty Press. Montgomery, K. C. (1993). The Harvard Alcohol project: Promotin~ the d~ig­ nated driver on television. In T. E. Backer &: E. M. Rogers (Eds.), Orgamza/iollalll~elS of IltIIlth conrmunic(ltion CIlmpaigns: What Toorh? (pp. 178-202). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics amollg IIIltioll$: Tht struggle !or poUItr alld Pfilet. New York: Knop f. Mullins, L . E. (1977). Agenda-setting and the young voter. In D. L. Shaw &: M .. E. McCombs (Eds.), Thetmergcnuo! American politicnl issues: Tllc (lgtllda-sellmg Ju"c/iOlI of/J~ pnss (pp. 133-148). St. Pau l, MN: West. Nader, R (1%5). Ullsa/t(lt any speed. New York: Grossman. Nelson, B. J. (1984). Milk/llg 1111 i$5ue of child aiTuse: Politic(l/Ilgenda st:llillgfor social problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Neuman, W. R. (1990). The threshold of public attention. Public Opinion Quarlerly, 54, 159-176. Neuman, W. R,Just, M. R., &: Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common kllowle~ge: News and IIle rolls/ ruelion of politic(ll meoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). Tire spiral of silmct. Chicago: University of Chicago P~.

O'Gorman, H. (1973). Pluralistic ignora nce and white estimates of white s upport for racial segregatio n. Public Opillioll Quartaly, 39(3), 313-330. Palm green, P., &: Clarke, P. (1977). Agenda-setting with local and ~ati~na l issues. Commun;c(l/ioll Rtst:(lrch, 4, 435452.Park, R E. (1922). Till Imm/grlml prtss and ils control. New Yor k: Harpe r. Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out oforder. New York: Knopf. Ploughman, P. (1984). 11~ crealion of IIewsworlhy et>tll/S: AI~ otllilysis of newspaper ~rageoft/re man-mllde diStlslaa/ Loll( C(lno/. Unpubhshed doctora l dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.

106 Price, D., de Sola. (1961). Scimct si'lct Babyloll. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Protess, D: L, Cook, F. L., Doppelt, ]. c., Ettema,]. S., Gordon, M. T., Leff, D. R., &. M Iller, P. (1991). The journalism a/ou/ruge. New York: Guilford. Protess, D. L., Leff, D. R., Brooks, S . .c.,. & Cordon, M. T. (1985). Uncovering rape: The watchdog press a nd the hmJls o f agend a-setting. Public Opinioll Quar~ lerly, 49(1),19-37. Reese, S. O. (1991). Setting the media's agenda: A power balance perspective. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), O;mmunication yearbook 14 (pp. 309-340). Newbu ry Park, CA: Sage. Reinarman, C. (1988). The social construction of an alcohol problem: The case of Mothers Against Dnmk Drivers and social control in the 1980's. Theory and Society, ] 7,91-120. Rogers, E. M. (1983). DiffuSion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (1994). A Ilistoryojcommllnicalion study: A biographical appTOllch. New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusioll oj imlOvalions (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M., & Chang, S. (1991). Media coverage of technology issues: Et hiopian drought of 1984~ AIDS, .Challenger and Chernob y l. In L. Wil kens & P. Patterson (Ed s.), RISky bus mess: Comm unicating issues of science risk alld public policy (pp. 75-96). New York: Greenwood. ' Rogers, E.,M., & ~e~rill~ J. W. (1988). Agenda-setting resear. Paper presented allhe Association for Education in ,ournalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City. McClure, R. D., &; Patterson, T. D. (1976). Print vs. network news. /oun,al of Commu nication, 26, 23-28. McCombs, M. E. (1976). Agenda-setting research: A bibliographic essay. P()/ilica/ CommuniCtltion Rnlim>, 1, 1·7. McCombs, M. E. (1977). Newspaper vs. televis ion: Mass communication effects across time. In D. L. Shaw « M. E. McCombs (Eds.), Tht emtrgtnu of AmoeriCtln politiCtlI issues: Tilt agtlldao$l /ting [unction of tilt press (pp. 89--105). St. Paul, MN: West. McCombs, M. E. (1981a). The agenda-setting approach. In D. D. Sidney ok K. R. Sid ney (Eds.), I-lllruIboc;tofpolitical rommunimtion (pp. 121- 140). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCombs, M. E. (1981b). Setting the agenda for agenda-setting research: An assessment of the priority, ideas and problems. In G. C. Wilho it« H. DeBock (Eds.), Mass communicatiotr rtvitw yearbook 2 (pp. 219-224). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCombs, M. E. (1992). Explorers and s urveyors: Expanding strategies for agenda-setting research.loumalis m Quarterly, 69(4), 813-824. McCombs, M. E., &: Gilbert, S. (1986). News influences o n our pictures of the world. In J. Bryanl &: D. Zi ll man (Eds.), PersptCtivts on media effic/s (pp. lIS). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McCombs, M. E., &; Maul-Walers, L. (1976). Agenda-sett ing: A new perspective on mass communication. MDss Communication Revinv, 3, 3-7. McCombs, M. E.,« Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quar/trly, 36, 176-187. McCombs, M. Ii, & Shaw, O. I... (1976). Structuring the unseen environment. /ou mal ofCommunicatio,r, 26(2), 18-22. McCombs, M. E.,« Shaw, D. L. (1977). Agenda-setting and the political process. In D. L. Shaw &; M. E. McCombs (Eds.), nit emergtllce of Americarr polilical issues: Tlreagenda-setliug[u"Cliou oftilt press (pp. 149-156). St. Paul, MN: WC!; t. McCombs, M. E., &: Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda -setting research: Twenty-five years in th e marke tplace. joumal ofCommulllcalio", 43(2), 58-67. McCombs, M. E., &: Weaver, D. H. (1985). Toward a merger of gratification and agenda-setting research. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner,« P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Mtdiagrlltijicatiou$ restlIrcll: CU"tll / persp«tiws (pp. 95-108). Beverly Hi lls, CA: Sage. McCombs, M.,« Zhu, J. (1995). Capaci ty, diversity, and volatility of the publk agenda: Trends from 1954 10 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(4), 495-535. McKean. D. (1992). Mtdia cotlI!ragt of /ht drug crisis (Forum Report). Washington, OC: Annenberg Washington Program. McLeod, J. M., Becker, L. B., &; Byrnes, J. E. (1974). Another look at the agendasetting function of the p ress. Commu uicliliou Rewrrch, 1, 131-166. McLeod,'. M., Becker. L. B.,« Byrnes, J. E. (1981). Mass oommunlcationand voter volatility. Public Opir,iou QUllrt~rly, 45(1), 69-90. McLeod, ,. M., Se-Wen, 5., Chi, H., &; Pan, Z. (1990, August). Metaplror and lilt w media: What slulpes public ulldtrslarrdiug of Iht "War Against Drugs? Paper presented at the Association for Ed uca tion in Journalism and Mass Communication, Minneapolis. . . Mcluskie, E. (1992). The mediacentric agenda of agenda-setlin.g ~arch: Echpse of the public sphere. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Commu/lICtI/wtl yearbook J5 (pp. 410424). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

120

121

Mead, T. O. (1994). The daily newspaper as political agenda seUer: TIu: Charlotte O~ and metropolitan reform. S/Il/tllnd Local Government Rroirol 26(1)

27-37. ' , Megwa, ~. R., &: Brenner, 0.1. (1988). Toward a paradigm of media agendas~lImg effect: Agenda-selling as a process. Howard !ournlll of Communica-

tIOn, 1(1), 39-56. Mikam i, S., rakes hi ta~ T., Nakada, M., &: Kawabata, M. (1994, July). The media cOVt:roge (md pl/,blle OWllrtll~S ~ffmvironmmtai issutll in lapall. Paper presented . at the Intematlonal AsSOCiatIOn for Mass Communication Research, SeouL Miller, A. H., Goldenberg. ~. N., ~ Erbring. L (1979). Type-set politics: Impact of newspapers on pub hcconfldence.lI.mtriClin Politit:tll Scitn« R.eviDlJ 73( 1)

67-84.

'

,

Miller, 1· D. {1987}. 1M impact of/lit ChallmglrllCddmt on public oltitude tDtlH2rd flu: Spn~t.progn!m. Report to the National Science Foundation by the Public . OpmlOn Laboratory, Northern Illinois Un iversity, Dekillb. Miller, K. ~ 1 99~). Smoking. up a storm: Public relations and advertising in the ~~.tnbution of the agarelte problem, 1983-1984. Journalism MOllographs,

Miller, S. H. (1978). Reporters and congressmen: Li ving in symbiosis. Journalism MOllogrophs, 53. Miller~ W. E., & St~kes, D. E. (1963). The politics of agenda-build ing: An alternative perspective for modem democra tic theory. Journal Of Politil6 33 892915. 7 " Missika, ]., & Bregman, D. (1987). On framing the campaign: Mass media role in ~~~ing the meaning of the vote. EII~n loumal ofCommunilatfon, 2(3), Molotch, H. L., & Lester, M. (1974). News as purpao;ive behavior: On the strategic use of routine events, accidents and scandals. American Sociologioll RrvifilJ 39,101-112. ' Mol ot~h , ~. L., Protess, D. L., & Cordon, M. T. (198~. The media-policy conneclion. Ecology of news. In D. Paletz (Ed .), Polltllal comrnrmila/iOIl: Tlreorits, cases and QSussmellls (pp. 26-48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Monroe, .A. D. (1979). Consistency between public preferences and nationa l poltcy deds ions. Amerilall PO/itilS Quarterly, 7(1), 3-19. Mon tgomery, K..c. (1989). !a.rgt/: Prime tim~AdVOCllqt groups aud lilt s/ruggle over tll lerlalnmellt ItlnllSroll. New Yor k: Oxford University Press. Montgomery,.K. C. (1993). The Harvard Alcohol Project: Promoting the desig":'lted driver on television. In T. E. Balker & E. M. Rogers (Eds.), OrgalliUlIwnal aspects of heaflh communicalio/I campaigns: Whal worb ? (pp. 178-202). . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mu llins, L E. (1977). Agenda-setting and the young voter. In D. L. Shaw &; M. E. McC~mbs (Eds.), Thumtrgtnu of American poliliClI/ issues: TIre agenda-sellillg fullCIrOIl of lire press (pp. 133-148).51. Paul, MN: West. Nelson, B. J. (1984r Milking all issue of child abuse: Political agenda u ttillg for social problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nelson, B. ]. (1991). Making an issue of child abuse. In D. L. Shaw &; M. E. McCombs (Eds.), Agtlldll-sellillg: Rtadings Oil media, publil opillioll alld poUcymnkillg (pp. 161-170). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenCi! Erlbaum. Neuman, W. R (1990). The threshold of pUblic attention. Public Opillion Quorttrly 54, 159-176. ' Neuman, W..R, & Fryling. A. C. (1985). Patterns of political cognition: An exploration of the public mind. InS. Kraus & R M. PerloH (Eds.), Mass media

alld politicallhought: An illfonnation processing approach (pp. 223-240). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Neuman, W. R, Just, M. R, & Crigler, A. N. (1992). ComlfWn knowledgt: Ntws and Iht COIlSlfUltioll of polilical meallillg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Neville, J. F. (1990, August). Tilt Rostnbtrgs alld lire Notiollill Guardiall: Cold war ogmda-sellillg, 1951-1953. Pape r p resented at the Association for Ed ucation in Journalism and Mass Communication, Minneapolis. Nord, D. P. (1981). The politics of agend a setti ng in late 19th Ci!ntury cities. Toumalism Quarttrly, 58, 565-514, 612. Okada, N. (1987). Ajenda-Seuei Kenkyu no Gaikan to Kadai fA review and research agenda of agenda-selling resea rch]. In M. Mita & T. M iyajima (Eds.), Bunka to Ctlldai Shakai (pp. 115-207). Tokyo: Uni ven ity of Tokyo

"""'.

O'Keefe, G. ,., & Reid-Nash, K (1987). Crime news and rea l-world blu es: The effects of the media on social reality. Commullicalioll Rtstarch, 14(2), 141·163. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. Americall Political Sciellu Review, 77, 115-190. Page, B.I., Shapiro, R Y.,k Dempsey, G. R (1987). What moves public opinion? American Political Sdenu Rwiew, 81(1), 23- 43. Palmg reen, P., &. Clarke, P. (1917). Agenda.setting with local and national issues. Comnumicalioll Rtsearlil, 14, 435-452. Park, R E. (1922). TIre immigrallt press and its COIl/rol. New York: Harper. Pertschuk, M. (1987). The role of public interes t groups in selling the public agenda for the '90s. TournaI ofConSlimer Affoirs, 21(2), 111-182. Peterson, S. (1912). Events, mass opinion, and elite attitudes. In R L. Merritt (Ed.), ColI/mullication ill illttrnallollal polilics (pp. 252-211). Urba na: University of Illinois Press. Piotrow, P. T. (1913). Public Q/Ilbiguity lwd gotKnlment nOl1policy: World populatiol1 crisis: The Uniltd Slalts re6pollSt. New York: Pueger. Ploughman, P. (1984). TIre lrealioll of newsworthy even/s: AlIlIllli/ysis of Iltwspaptr covtrtlg~ of lire man-mode disasler al LotK Canal. Unp ublished doctora l disse rtation, State University of New York, Buffalo. Pollack, J. C, Robinson,]. L., Jr., & Murray, M. C. (1913). Media agendas and hu man rights: The Supreme Court decis ion on abortion.loUrllalisIII Quarterly, 55(3), 544-569. Pritchard, O. (1981). Homicide and bargained justice: The agenda-setting effecl of crime news on prosecutors. In M. Gurevitch & M. R Levy (Eds.), Mass communication ~rbook 6 (pp. 384-4(0). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Protess, D. L., Cook, F. L., Curtin, T. R, Gordon, M. T., Left, D. R., M cCombs, M. E., & Miller, P. (1987). The impact of investigative reporting on public opinion and policy making: Targeting toxic waste. PliblilOpinion QUilrltrly, 51, 166-185. Protess, D. L., Cook,. F. L., Doppell,]. c., Ettema, J. 5., Gordon, M. T., Leff, D. R., & Miller, P. (1991). The jounw/ism of outragt. New York: Guilford. Proless, D. L., LeU, D. R, Brooks, S. c., &Gord on, M. T. (1985). Uncovering rape: The watchdog p ress and the limits of agenda-setting. Public Opinioll QUllrItrly, 49(1), 19-31. Protess, O. L., & McCombs, M. E. (1991). Age/lda-sellillg: Readings ollmtdill, public opi/lioll and policymalring. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence & Ibaum. Rabinowitz, G., Prothro, J. W., & Jacoby, w. (1982). SalienCi! as a factor in the impact of issues on candidate evaluation.lounwl of PoliliC$, 44, 41-63. Ramaprasad, J. (1983). Agenda-setting: Is not a 1984 or is a 1984 view. GilU!lIe, 32, 119-135.

122

123

Ramsey, M. (1992). A n~ almptlig" to p/auchi/dren's issues on the community agrnda. Mas ter's thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Reese, S. D. (1991). Selling the media's agenda: A power balance perspective. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communit:illion yearbook 14 (pp. 309-J.W). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Reese, S. D., &: Luclg, D. (1989). Intermedia influence and the drug iss ue: Converging on cocaine. In P. J. Shoemaker (Ed.), CommuniclItion campaigns tlbout drugs: Got¥rnmtnl, medill and the public (pp. 47-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reinarman, C. (1988). The social construction of an alcohol problem: The case of Mothen Against Drunk Drivers and social control in the 1980'5. Theory rmd Society, 17, 91-120. Roberts, M. (1992). Predicting voting behavior via the agenda-setting tradition.

Journalism Quarterly, 69(4), 87S-S92. Rogers, E. M., &: C hang. S. (1991). Media coverage of technology issues: Ethiopian drought of 1984, AIDS, Challenger and Chemobyl. In L. Wilkens &: P. Patterson (Eds.), Risky busillrss: CommuniCtltillg issues 0/ sdtm:t, risk alld pUblic policy (pp. 75-96). New York: Greenwood. Rogers, E. M., &: Dearing, J. W. (1988). Agenda-selling resean::h: W here has it been? Where is it going? InJ. A. Anderson (Ed.), Commun iCtltiOI/ yellrbook 11 (pp . .$55.594). Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Rogers, ~. M., Dea ring. J. W., &: Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of agendase tlmg research. Journnl ojCommuniClllion, 43(2A), 68-84. Rogers, E. M., Dearing. J. W., &: Chang. S. (1991). AIDS in the 19805: The agenda-setting process for a public issue. Joumalism Monographs, 126. Rogers, E. M ., Dearing,]. W., & Liu, W. (1992, September). Lookillg backward and jonvardatapproac/r(s 10agellda-5tlthrg rrs(arcir. Paper presented at theAmerican Political5dence Association, Chicago. Rogers, E. M., McGilly, K., & Mcintosh, K M. (1990). Diffusion of innovatiOns: How the environmental crisis got on thenalional agenda. InS. H. Broderick &: L B. Snyder (&is.), Procudings oj 1M Symposium on VolullluN twd CommUllialtiOlr in Natu ral Resouru EduCiltiOIl (pp. 3-11). Storrs: Un iversity of ConnectiUlt Cooperative Extensiou System. Rosenau,]. N. (1961). Public opillioll olld jortiglr policy. New York: Random House. Rosenau,]. N. (1971). Pre- theories and theories of foreign policy.ln J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), Tht sdnrlijic study a/fortigll policy. New York: Free Press. Salwen: M. B. (1985a). An agtnda for agem/a-stttillg r!!Starch: Problems ill tM paradrgm. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association, Sanjuan, Puerto Rico. Snlwen, M. B. (1985b). Agmda-sttlillg with emlirollll1elltal issue:;: A study oj time p',ocess, mttlia dtptndellCY, auditllCt salitnCt, alld newspaptT rtadillg. Unpublished doctoral d issertation, Michigan Slate University, Easl Lansing. Salwen, M. 8. (1986, May). Time i'l agtl,da-sttting: nit accumulatioll of media rovtragt on auditllu issue :;aUellct. Paper presented at the International Com muni ca tiOn Association, Chicago. Salwen, M. B. (in press). News of Hurricane Andrew: The agenda of sources and the source's agenda. Joumalisrll Quarterly, 73. Salwen, M. B., &Mate ra, F. R. (1992). Public salience of foreign nations. Journalism QUllrterly, 69, 623-632. Sawicki, F., & Leland, C. M. (1991). The formation of the electoral agenda: A case stud y in social welfare issues in the United States and France. In Mtdiated 110litics in two culturN: Presidential campaigning in the Uniltd Stattsalld Frllllu. New York: Praeger.

5chattschneider, E. E. (1960). Tht stmisovtrtign pt(1plt: A realist's trinvo/ dnnocracy in Amuial. New York: Holt, Rinehart« Winston. 5chl euder, J.. McCombs, M., « Wanta, W. (1991). Inside the agenda-selling process: How political advertising and lV news prime .v.iewers to t~~nk about issues and candidates. In F. Biocca (Ed.), TdwlSlon and polrtlcal adI}trtisillg I . PSYc/lologica/ processu (pp. 263-310). Hillsdale, NJ: Law rence Erlbaum. Schmeling. D. G.,« Wotring. C. E. (1976). Agenda-setting effects 01 drug abuse publiC service ads. Journalism QUIlrtuly, 54(4), 743-746. Schoenba ch, K.,« Semelko, H . A. (1992). Agenda-setting. agenda-reinforcing or agenda-defiating1 A study of the 1990 Gennan national election. loumalism QUI/fluly, 69(4), 837-846. Schoenfeld, A. C. (1979). The press and NEPA: The case of the missing agenda. /ournnlism Quarterly, 56(3), 577-585. Schoenfeld, A. C., Meier, R. F., &: Griffin, R. J. (1979). Cons tructing a social problem: The press and the environment. Socinl Probltnrs,.27, 38-61. Schweitzer, J. C., &. Smith, B. L (1991, Summer). Commuruty pressures on agenda-setting. Nnvsptlf'tf ReS('arch Journal, pp. 46-62. . Senl ctko, H., Blumler, )., Gurevitch, M., & Weaver, D. H . (1991). Tlltjomratroll oj

campaign agendas: A comparativt alia lysis oj p;lrty alld medill ro/(s ill recent Amtricalland British d~tions. Hillsdale, NJ: Law rence Erlbaum. Severin, W. L« Tankard,J. W.,J r. (1992). Agenda setting. In W. J. Severin &.}. W. Tankard, Jr. (Eds.), Communication theories: Origills, mt/hods, .lIId ustS III tht mllss mtdia (pp. 207-229). New York: Longman. Shaw D. L. (1977). The press agenda in a conununity setting. In D. L. Shaw & M: E. 'McCombs (Eds.), Tlzeemergenuoj Americoll politica/ isSrlts: Tlreagellda-5ttllllg junction of tilt preu (pp. 19-31). SI. Paul, MN: West. Shaw D. L, &. Clemmer, C. L (1977). News and the public response. Tn D. L Shaw &: M. E. McCombs (Eds.), The rnrergenaof AmmClIII politicol issues: Tht agellda-5tttilrg fimction of the prrss (pp. ~51). St. Paul, M~: West. . Shaw, D. L., & Marlin, S. E. (1992). The funchon of mass medIa agenda sellmg. Jormrll/ism Quarta/y, 69{4), 902-920. ." . Shaw, D. L., &.McCombs, M. (1977). Tile emergence oj Aruerrca71 polrtrca/lurus: Tire agellda-stftillgjunctiOlr ojtht press. St. Paul, MN: West. . Shaw, D. L., &: Slater, J. W. (1988). Press puts unemp loyment on agenda: Richmond Community Opinion, 1981-1984. JournaliSm Quartuly, 65~2), 407-:4.11 . Shaw, E. F. (l977a). The interpersonal agenda. Tht tmergenct oj Amtrlaln po/I/1Ctl1 issues: Thtllgenda-StttillxjullClioli of tilt prNS (pp. 69-81). St. Paul. MN: West. Shaw, E. F. (1977b). TIle agenda-sclling hypot hesis recons idered: Int erpersonal factors. Gilutte, 23, 230-240. Shaw, E. F. (1979). Agenda-setting and mass communication theory. Gilutte, 25(2),96-105. Shefner, C. L., &. Rogers, E. M. (1992, May). Hollywood lobb!ljst~ . How sochll ca~stS gel ill nt/work tt/wisioll. Paper presented at th e Intemallonal Commul1lc.3lion Association, Miami. Shoema ker, P. J. (Ed.). (1989). Commrwicll/ion clllIJpaigns about drugs: Govtrmnellt , mtdia, alld tire public. Hillsdale, NJ: La":rence Erlbaum.. . Shoemaker, P. J., Danielian, L. H.,« Brendlmger, N. (1991). DevIant acts, nsky business and US. interests: The newsworthiness of world events. /auTJIIllism Quarterly, 68(4), 781-1'95. . . Shoemaker, P.J., with Mayfield, E. K. (1981). Buddmg a theory of news content: A synthesis of current approa ches. Joumalism MOllographs, 103.

125 124 Shoemaker, P. L Wanta, W., & Leggett, D. (1989). Drug coverage and public opinion, 1