Agenda setting

Agenda Setting (Engl.) Or agenda-setting refers to the setting of concrete themes. In political science , agenda setting is particularly perceived as part of the policy cycle drafted in the 1950s .

In journalism and communication studies , empirical communication research or media impact research in the agenda setting approach ("thematization approach", thematization theory ) deals with the thematization function and the structuring function of the mass media . This approach also forms the basis for the theory of the spiral of silence . An extension of the approach is the agenda building theory by Lang & Lang from 1981.

Origin of the approach in journalism

The basis of the theory of the agenda setting is the thesis of Bernard C. Cohen (1963) that the media does not have a great influence on what the audience thinks about individual topics, but a considerable influence on what it thinks about at all. Communication scientists McCombs and Shaw empirically substantiated this thesis as part of an investigation, the so-called Chapel Hill Study , in the run-up to the US presidential election campaign in 1968 and published it in an article in the Public Opinion Quarterly in 1972 , where they were the first to publish the Introduced the concept of agenda setting. A topic is understood here to mean controversial questions and problems in society.

Using content analyzes, McCombs and Shaw compared the ranking of topics in the media with the ranking of topics on the audience agenda , which they determined in surveys, in their article Agenda-Setting-Function of Mass Media 1972. The result: There was a high positive correlation (over 90 percent) between the media agenda and the public agenda .

However, this first study on agenda setting showed various methodological deficiencies: the sample was small, media usage was not recorded, only aggregated data was evaluated. It was particularly criticized that the researchers had designed their study as a cross-sectional study , although the interactions between the audience and media agenda can only be seen in longitudinal studies .

Agenda setting research models

There are three models in agenda setting research:

Attention model (Engl. Awareness model )

the recipient becomes aware of topics that are particularly emphasized via the media.

In this model, the media have a thematic function.

Highlighting model (Engl. Salience model )

The importance that the recipient ascribes to a topic is influenced by the different weighting and emphasis of the topics by the media.

The media have a weighting function in this model (salience primarily relates to a single topic in the Ggs. To the priorities model, in which the overall structure of the agenda, the priority of topics as a whole is the subject of the model).

Topic selection model (English priorities model )

the priority of the media is taken over 1: 1 by the recipient.

The media have a structuring function in this model.

How effective the agenda-setting effect is depends on the obtrusiveness of the topic: The effect is less for topics that can be experienced directly (weather, etc.) than for topics that can hardly be experienced firsthand (wars abroad or similar). Differences also arise from the type of medium: TV reporting has a rather short-term spotlight effect , while reporting in the print media leads to long-term agenda-setting.

The course of the agenda setting process

There are six models for the impact of the agenda setting process:

Accumulation model

An intensification of the reporting leads directly to a higher ranking of the topic on the audience agenda.

Threshold model

In order for a topic to get on the public agenda, a minimum amount of reporting is necessary.

Acceleration model

The population reacts faster and more intensely than average to the media issue.

Inertial model

If a topic has achieved a certain importance on the audience's agenda, increases can hardly be achieved even through more intensive reporting.

Echo model

A topic stays on the audience agenda longer than on the media agenda.

Reflection model

The audience agenda determines the media agenda. (Counterpoint to the agenda-setting approach, see below)

Supporters of the agenda-setting theory assume that the media are strong: the media control which topics people deal with ( control hypothesis ). Say the audience takes over the media agenda. The advocates of the mirroring hypothesis argue in exactly the opposite way : According to them, the media content only reflects the social opinion and topic, so the media agenda arises from the audience's agenda.

Further development of the agenda setting approach and criticism

The further development of the theory takes into account four intervening variables in the agenda setting process:

Content effects

The intensity of the effect depends on the sensitivity of the user to a topic: Personal concern supports the agenda-setting process.

Usage effects

New topics have a particularly strong effect on sensitized users. Topics that have already been introduced are more likely to have an effect on less sensitized users.

Binding effects

Media dependency (use of only a single medium) increases the agenda-setting effect.

Context effects

The influence of the environment on the audience agenda is always stronger than the influence of the media.

Ray Funkhouser's study Issues of the 60s supplements the research design for agenda setting studies with the control variable reality. This is included in the investigation via statistical data or the like. His research essentially supports McCombs and Shaw's study of the correlation between the media agenda and the audience agenda. In addition, Funkhouser was able to prove that the media does not reflect the real problems of reality. "The news media did not give an accurate picture of what was happening in society during the 1960s". The reporting either ran ahead of the development or did not reveal any connection with it. According to this, Funkhouser demonstrated a strong discrepancy between the media and public agenda and the actual development of reality.

Second level agenda setting - framing and priming

Originally, the agenda setting approach mainly dealt with conveying the importance of topics through the media. In the meantime, however, the effect on the attitudes and behavior of the audience has also been integrated into the concept. This is summarized under the term “second level agenda setting”. Second-level agenda setting is no longer about setting the topic of the media per se, but about the potential of the media with regard to topic attributes. On the one hand, this is created by framing . This means "the selection of restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda when a particular object is discussed" Media therefore direct attention to certain topics and objects through selection, emphasis and omission and give the information a framework ( frame ). This makes it easier for the recipient to classify information. Framing emphasizes certain aspects while taking a back seat to others. Certain evaluations of a topic are suggested: "To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and / or treatment recommendation. ”Another concept that comes under the heading“ Second-Level-Agenda-Setting ”is priming . The concept describes that media content puts previously recorded information on a conveyed topic back to the first place in the mind of the audience.

Methodical criticism

One point of criticism raised above in connection with the study by McCombs and Shaw concerns the research design of agenda setting studies. Cross-sectional analyzes are unsuitable to demonstrate that the media agenda influences the audience's agenda. After all, the respective agenda is only measured at one point in time. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the audience's agenda was influenced by other factors or even the opposite effect took place: It is also conceivable that the audience influences the media's agenda. Methodologically, therefore, time-shifted cross-correlations ( cross-lagged correlations ) are suitable . Here, the relationship between the media agenda at the time of the first measurement (t1) and the audience agenda at the time of the second measurement (t2) is calculated, as well as the relationship between the audience agenda at time t1 and the media agenda at time t2. If the correlation coefficient for the former is greater than for the latter, the agenda setting hypothesis can be considered confirmed.

Critics of the theory particularly criticize the mediated omnipotence of the media and the neglect of sociological thematization processes (group behavior, etc.). In the meantime, however, there have also been studies that examine the extent to which the audience also influences the media and dictates certain topics to them. In studies by Brosius and Kepplinger (1990) and Brosius and Weimann (1995), this direction of influence could also be demonstrated. Studies that examine the role of interpersonal communication in agenda setting processes are now also available.

Agenda setting in the election campaign

In political science , too , the term agenda setting is used in particular to explain the priorities of certain topics by political parties. Well-known models are the trash can model and the multiple streams approach . In addition, the catchphrase “ Agenda Surfing” describes taking up an unplanned event (e.g. the Elbe flood in 2002 ) for one's own benefit and for political profiling. In contrast, the attempt to displace a certain event from the political agenda (for example by setting completely different priorities) is described with the term agenda cutting .

literature

• Klaus Beck : Communication Science. (= UTB basics ). 4th edition. UVK, Konstanz 2015, ISBN 978-3-8252-2964-1 , pp. 213-215.
• Heinz Bonfadelli , Thomas N. Friemel: Media Effects Research . 5th, revised edition. UVK, Konstanz 2015, ISBN 978-3-8252-4247-3 .
• Bernard Cohen: The press and foreign policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1963.
• Andreas Dörner : Political Myth and Symbolic Politics . West German Verlag, Opladen 1995.
• Michael Jäckel : Media Effects. An introductory study book. 3rd, revised and expanded edition. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2005.
• Patrick Rössler : Agenda setting. Theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence of a media effect hypothesis . Westd. Publishing house, Opladen 1997.
• Ulrich Sarcinelli : Political Communication and Democracy in the Media Society . West German Publishing house, Opladen 1998.
• Ralph Sartor : Symbolic Politics. A reassessment from a process and reception-oriented perspective . DUV, Wiesbaden 2000.
• Michael Schenk : Media Effects Research . Tübingen 2002. (overview)

Individual evidence

1. ^ Heinz Bonfadelli, Mirko Marr: Cognitive media effects. In: Bernad Batinic, Markus Appel (Hrsg.): Medienpsychologie. Heidelberg 2008, p. 131.
2. ^ Brosius, HB, & Kepplinger, HM: Linear and nonlinear models of agenda-setting in television . In: Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media . tape 36 , no. 1 , p. 5-23 .
3. ↑ M. Kunczik, A. Zipfel: Publizistik. 2005, p. 370.
4. ^ DH Weaver, ME McCombs, DL Shaw: International Trends in Agenda-Setting Research. In: C. Holtz-Bacha, H. Scherer, N. Waldmann (eds.): How the media create the world and how people live in it . Opladen / Wiesbaden 1998, pp. 189-203.
5. ↑ RM Entman: Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. In: Journal of Communication. 43, 1993, pp. 51-58. Here, p. 52.
6. ↑ M. Kunczik, A. Zipfel: Publizistik. 2005, p. 357.
7. ↑ H.-B. Brosius, HM Kepplinger: The Agenda-Setting Function of Television: Static and Dynamic Views. In: Communication Research. 17, 1990, pp. 183-211.
8. ↑ H.-B. Brosius, G. Weimann: Media or Population. Who sets the agenda? A contribution to the two-step flow of agenda setting. In: Radio & Television. 3, 1995, pp. 312-327.
9. ^ David H. Weaver et al: The Bridging Function of Interpersonal Communication in Agenda-Setting. In: Journalism Quarterly 69. No. 4, 1992, pp. 856-867.
10. ↑ J. Yang, G. Stone: The Powerful Role of Interpersonal Communication in Agenda Setting. In: Mass Communication & Society. 6, No. 1, 2003, pp. 57-74.