GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

COURSE TITLE: ADVANCING AND BUILDING COMMUNICATION

SCIENCE THEORY

DATE: 4TH OCTOBER, 2020

NAME OF STUDENT: ISSAKA ADAMS

NUMBER OF STUDENT: 12762865

EMAIL: ADAMSISSKA@GOOGLEMAIL.COM

NAME OF LECTURER: DR. PIET VERHOEVEN

WORD COUNT:3, 740

TITLE OF PAPER: AGENDA SETTING: A KEY TO THEORETICAL DEBATES OF

MEDIA EFFECTS
Introduction

This paper reviews one of the classical theories of communication known as agenda-setting.
First, the paper explains the theory by analysing its theoretical and conceptual models including
main assumption and relationship between constructs. Next, using criteria for evaluation
scientific theories developed by Chaffee and Berger (1987), the paper examines the strengths
and weaknesses of the theory. The paper argues that agenda-setting is highly heuristically
provocative. In addition, it is a falsifiable theory with a strong predictive power. Furthermore,
agenda-setting is parsimonious with fairly internal consistency as a result of its simple or micro
nature. However, the theory has low or narrow explanatory power. It ignores confounding or
spurious factors that could also serve as a mechanism for explaining the phenomena it intends
to describe. This leaves the theory in need of further explication to reveal the hidden factors
that would help build knowledge around the fundamental idea of the theory. The conclusion
section deals with the summary of a brief findings from the arguments and discussions made
about the theory.

Agenda-Setting: Unpacking the theory

The Agenda-setting theory is credited to Max McCombs and Donald Shaw. The fundamental
idea of the theory is that if the media devote attention to a particular news item by covering it
frequently, it would be regarded by the public as important ((McLeod et al., 1974; McCombs
and Stone, 1976; Shaw and McCombs, 1977). Before McCombs and Shaw, the postulate of the
theory had been expressed by other academics, notably the first chapter of Walter Lippmann's
Public Opinion in which he asserted "The World Outside And The Pictures In Our Heads"
(Lippmann, 1922), explaining that the mass media are the main link between events in the
world and the images in the minds of the public (Erbring, Goldenberg, & Miller, 1980). Bernard
Cohen also famously observed the proposition about the media that it "may not be successful
much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its
readers what to think about" (Cohen, 1963, quoted in McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p.177).
Furthermore, Bernard Berelson, Hazel Gaudet, Joseph Trenaman, Denis McQuail, Lang and
Lang expressed similar ideas about the media.

McCombs and Shaw formalized the theory during the 1968 American presidential election.
They conducted a quantitative study looking for a correlation between the media’s frequently
most covered stories and as Lippmann puts it "The Pictures In Our Heads" [what the public
think is important]. It is therefore obvious that McCombs and Shaw took inspiration from these
earlier works. In fact, they demonstrate this by quoting verbatim from these earlier works, using
it as a theoretical model to test their hypothesis. This shows the theory is based on a deductive
approach, that is developing the hypothesis on existing theory. Bryman (2012) describes this
as “the principle of reductivism”, adding “the purpose of theory is to generate hypotheses that
can be tested” (p. 28). However, it must be pointed out that the existing theoretical model that
agenda-setting used is not coherent. As pointed out earlier, several authors had expressed
similar ideas, so it was bit and pieces that McCombs and Shaw brought together to form
agenda-setting. But nevertheless, those bit and pieces are crucial to the development of the
theory.

McCombs and Shaw (1972) hypothesized that “the mass media set the agenda for each
political campaign, influencing the salience of attitudes toward the political issues” (p. 177).
This hypothesis can be considered as a mediating effect. Mediating effect is the causal
mechanism by which an independent variable influences a dependent variable (Baron &
Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, & Baron, 2004). Miller (2007) argues that “In the case of agenda
setting, media attention to an issue presumably causes a change in a mediating variable in the
minds of citizens, which in turn produce a change in importance” (p. 690).

Two constructs can be taken from the hypothesis—what media reports frequently and what
people think is important. Media was operationalized as newspapers, television, and news
magazines for the purpose of measurement. Of course not all these media can be included in
the study, so the authors chose specific ones. They describe their operationalization of the
constructs below:

A pretest in spring 1968 found that for the Chapel Hill community almost all the mass media political information
was provided by the following sources: Durham Morning Herald, Durham Sun, Raleigh News and Observer,
Raleigh Times, New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and NBC and CBS evening news broadcasts (McCombs &
Shaw, 1972, p.178).

Therefore the construct media was operationalized to get the individual specific media outlets
which are variables, while people became residents of Chapel Hill or Chapel Hill Community
in the study. Bacharach (1989) makes clearly how variables are derived from construct by
arguing “a construct may be viewed as a broad mental configuration of a given phenomenon,
while a variable may be viewed as an operational configuration derived from a construct”
(p.500).
McCombs and Shaw used amount of coverage of a specific news item (measured in airtime or
column inches) by the specific media outlets to get what is frequently covered by the media.
This can be said to be the media agenda. What the public (residents of Chapel Hill) think is
important was measured by aggregate of opinion polls by simply asking “respondent to outline
the key issues as he saw them, regardless of what the candidates might be saying at the
moment” (McCombs & Shaw 1972, p.178). This can also be said to be the public agenda.

McCombs and Shaw set out to test whether indeed media attention to an issue will causes a
change in the minds of citizens. The relationship between media attention and what in the minds
of citizens can be said to be the mechanism that explains the phenomena under investigation.
The authors were looking for correlational and not a causal relationship—whether the media
agenda (what is covered frequently by the media) correlated with the public agenda (what the
public think is important).

The study reveals the media exerts considerable impact on the judgement of Chapel Hill
residents with regards to what they think is important of the election campaign during the
period (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The extent of the correlation is revealed in the findings of
the study:

The correlation between the major item emphasis on the main campaign issues carried by the media and voters'
independent judgments of what were the important issues was +.967. Between minor item emphasis on the main
campaign issues and voters' judgments, the correlation was +.979. In short, the data suggest a very strong
relationship between the emphasis placed on different campaign issues by the media (reflecting to a considerable
degree the emphasis by candidates) and the judgments of voters as to the salience and importance of various
campaign topics. (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p.180-181)

To put what has been discussed in this section in perspective, the first coherent agenda-setting
theory is a micro and easy to grasp theory. It is built from an incoherent or pieces of thoughts
by other academics. McCombs and Shaw rely used these thoughts as a theoretical model to
conduct their study, confirming the idea that the media is successfully in telling people what to
regard as important.

The next section of the paper evaluates the theory by looking at the strengths and weaknesses.
Evaluating Agenda-setting

The evaluation section contains quality and critique (strengths and weaknesses) of the theory.
The main claim of this paper is built in this section. Using a criteria for evaluation scientific
theories developed by Chaffee and Berger 1987, the paper argues out the strengths and
weaknesses of the theory. In summary, agenda-setting has low or narrow explanatory power
but highly heuristically provocative. It is a falsifiable theory with a strong predictive power.
Furthermore, agenda-setting is parsimonious with fairly internal consistency as a result of its
simple or micro nature.

Agenda-setting: Pioneer in communication science theory

Even if for nothing at all, the mere fact that this paper is discussing agenda setting in Advancing
and Building Communication Science course means it is important in communication science.
And it even goes beyond communication science to include political science, sociology among
other academic disciplines.

The theory’s explanatory power is obvious although it is a narrow one. Establishing correlation
that the media is capable of influencing salience of national issues among the public leaves
room for more questions to be asked. More of this in the critique section. However, the narrow
nature of the theory is one of its biggest advantage as it has paved way for many studies to be
conducted on the subject. For example, Chaffee and Berger (1987) conclude that “Most
important to researcher, it has [agenda-setting] been heuristically provocative, many studies
have been organized around the idea” (p. 105). A simple search of the word agenda-setting on
the digital library JSTOR as of 22 September 2020 gives over a whopping147,000 individual
articles in various languages including English, German, Spanish, French, Hebrew among
others (Jstor.org). Although it is obvious that not all these articles are devoted to the theory
agenda-setting as they are mere semantic use of the word, it nevertheless shows that the
semantic coining of the word from the theory has gained grounds in academic circles.
Specifically, it is said over 400 studies have been conducted on the agenda setting hypothesis
(Delwiche, 2005). The number is likely to be higher than this today as Delwiche gave this
figure 15 years ago.

A good theory should be able to act as a catalyst, generating debate for more papers to be
published. The heuristic nature of the theory also leads to having a strong predictive power.
Although there are conflicting studies of the predictive power of the theory (more of this also
in the critique section), a good number of studies have confirmed the findings of the theory.
Iyengar and Simon (1993) confirm this:

"Agenda setting effects have been captured for all forms of mass media coverage, in both experiments and survey-
based studies ... These effects have been observed for both local and national problems. In all these areas, research
has shown that individuals habitually refer to issues or events 'in the news' when diagnosing current social and
political ills” (p. 368).

Dearing and Rogers (1996) also add that extensive review of empirical works on the theory
reveal that the “relationship of the media agenda to the public agenda seems to hold under a
wide variety of conditions, for a diversity of issues, and when explored with diverse research
methods” (P. 92). This means although some studies failed to capture the effects, others did
and are documented. Consequently we can say with a degree of confidence that agenda-setting
has a strong predictive power.

As pointed already that there are conflicting studies on the predictive power of the theory, this
makes it falsifiable. In Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, the
distinguished Austrian-born British philosopher of science Karl Popper writes on falsification
that “for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific,
must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations” (Popper, 1963, p.
10). This means if we establish that there are conflicting studies on agenda-setting we can
confidently say it is a falsifiable theory and consequently be regarded as a scientific one.
Chaffee and Berger (1987) confirms that “several studies have searched for agenda-setting
effects and not found them” (P. 105). Weaver (1977), Erbring, Goldenberg &Miller (1980) all
argue that agenda-setting is effective on people with “high need of orientation’’. McLeod,
Becker &Byrnes (1974) also reveal they could not get same result in a study in in two-
newspaper study. These studies prove agenda-setting is a falsifiable theory.

As Popper (1963) postulates, all scientific theories are inherently fallible and that this allows
for more debates around the subject in order to generate new knowledge thereby contributing
to more scientific discoveries as well as strengthening the process. This indeed is a fundamental
foundation of science as the discipline is about building of knowledge through a systematic
way. Before astronomers like Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Johannes Kepler the
dominant idea about the position of planet Earth was that it is at the centre of the Universe and
that all the heavenly bodies revolved around it. As knowledge (science) was not subject to
contradiction then, evidence from these astronomers were hard to be accepted by the Church.
But today through evidence and counter evidence and a relentless work, we know the Earth is
not only at the centre of the Universe, it is also not even at the centre of our Solar System. This
illustrates Popper’s idea about the fallibility of scientific theories.

Agenda-setting is narrow due to its simple two-construct prediction—what media reports

frequently and what people think is important. Putting the two constructs in a quantitative
hypothesis allowed the theory to be simple. In a paper presented by McCombs at the London
School of Economics titled The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of
Public Opinion he exalts the quantitative approach by writing “ This quantitative measure
provides a substantial degree of precision for our comparisons, much as a thermometer’s
precise numbers are better than simply saying it seems cooler today than it was yesterday” (p.
3). The parsimony and precision enable even young and inexperienced researchers to easily
grasp the main concept of the theory. It is also worth noting that by taking this position on
quantitative over qualitative, the authors made a philosophical position of communication
science, stating that the field can borrow methods of the natural sciences and apply it in the
social sciences (Krcmar, Ewoldsen, & Koerner, 2016). The parsimonious nature of agenda-
setting and its subsequent logical concepts builds a compatible relationship that gives the theory
a high internal consistency (Chaffee & Berger, 1987). According to Wacker (1998) “refutation
[of theory] means that the theory logically explains the relationships between variables” (p.
365). This is exactly what agenda-setting is as many studies have refuted the theory by not
being able to discover agenda setting effects.

Agenda setting; problems and explication

As pointed out in the beginning of the evaluation section, agenda-setting has a low or narrow
explanatory power. Of course the narrowness allowed many studies to be conducted on the
idea. Wacker (1998) describes this criteria as fecundity—when the theory can generate new
ideas, models, and hypotheses. Two main arguments would be advanced in this section. First
is the correlation established by agenda setting that ignored possible spurious or confounding
factors. Although the authors tried to address this problem, it is still inadequate, and some
researchers have offered explanation to how this spurious factor could have eluded McCombs
and Shaw. Second, the media itself is embedded in the larger society. The authors view of the
media agenda appears to portray a powerful entity in society which exerts influence on the
public.
But it is possible for the media itself to be susceptible to outside influence thereby making their
agenda in reality not that of the media. These problems identified in agenda-setting has led to
new ideas and models built from the theory.

Let us begin with the first. McCombs and Shaw were aware of a possible confounding factors
influencing the correlational relationship they established, but they dismissed it in the following
text:

Interpreting the evidence from this study as indicating mass media influence seems more plausible than alternative
explanations. Any argument that the correlations between media and voter emphasis are spurious-that they are
simply responding to the same events and not influencing each other one way or the other-assumes that voters
have alternative means of observing the day-to-day changes in the political arena (McCombs & Shaw 1972,

p.185).

However, it is not only when the public have alternative means of observing the day-to-day
changes in the political arena that the spurious relationship could hold. Right from birth before
the individuals can make sense of the world, they are shaped and socialized by other actors of
society. Although the media is important in society, it is just one of the actors that socializes
the individual. Therefore individuals have perspectives and experiences, for example from
religion, ethnic/tribe, race, social class among others which shape their view of the world. They
would respond positively to issues they are already aligned with in the media. Commenting on
this important factor agenda-setting ignores, Erbring et al., (1980) writes:

This focus on the agenda as an overall pattern or gestalt ignores the obvious fact that issue concerns can and do
arise from sources other than media exposure notably from personal experiences, group perspectives, and real-
world conditions-and that these factors will vary not only across individuals, but also among issues and over time
(p.18).

This text shows there is a possible way to explain the correlation than what McCombs and
Shaw put forward. Also, the assumption that people with specific views would look out for
media outlets with coverage of issues that fit those views is labelled by Erbring et al., (1980)
as “differential media treatment”, in which individuals self-select media outlet of their choice
to meet what they want to hear, read, or watch. They thus conclude on their critique “even at
an issue-specific level the attempt to deal with the effects of agenda-setting by the news media
in isolation from other possible determinants of issue salience is likely to confound empirical
analysis” (p. 19). This is also closely related to David Weaver’s (2007) concept of
"individual's need for orientation", meaning media messages could be effective on individuals
if they have high motivation towards it. If the motivation is not there they simply ignore the
message as they deem it unimportant.

Delving deeper into the relationship between the media and its audience/public, some argue
that it is not always the case that the media sets the agenda for the public, but the opposite too
is true. This has led to a concept like agenda-building, a concept originally developed in the
field of political science.

Interest groups in society like civil society organizations such as ant-corruption campaigners,
and environmental movement groups among others are capable of setting news agenda for the
media due to influence they wield on a section of the public. According to Birkland (1998),
these interest groups and movements are not only capable of influencing the media agenda,
they also have the ability to even change policies using the media as a vehicle or a tool for
disseminating their ideas.

Erbring et al., (1980) explains further that even some studies on agenda-setting conducted
following the first study by McCombs and Shaw ignores the public agenda. They argue
“agenda-setting studies were not intended to investigate the influence of the public's agenda
over the media's agenda; they merely control for it as a means to buttress the claims of media
influence over the audience” (p. 20). To even prove the public exerts influence on the media is
the rise of the internet and subsequent proliferation of social media networks. The ability of
these networks to allow individuals to create messages or sort of create their own media,
reaching many people has the tendency to influence news coverage on traditional media outlets.
For example, a case study of pattern on the internet of mediated agenda-setting in South Korea
reveals opinion expressed by individuals on the internet/social media could influence public
opinion which ultimately influences news coverage (Lee, Lancendorfer, & Lee 2006).

In addition, some ethnographic studies focusing on how journalists work in newsrooms and
how they select the stories they cover reveal both journalists and their editors mostly consider
what they think audience would prefer ((Molotch &Lester, 1974; Lester, 1980).

Another factor worth mentioning before concluding this section is the influence of editors,
media owners, managers, politicians, and advertisers wields on the media. These actors are
capable of pushing their interest in the media agenda for the public (Shoemaker &Reese, 1991;
Iyengar, Xoroth &Hahn, 2004). This happens because of the symbiotic relationship that exists
between these actors in the media space. For example, commercial media outlets need
advertising revenue to keep a viable business (Herman & Chomsky, 2010), just as journalists
need politicians as sources of information for news coverage.

These examples show the media is after all not the only actor capable of making the public to
put salience on issues. Therefore, the relationship between the media and the public can be
spurious, and or the two affect each other depending on how events unfold in the society.

Final thought and concluding remarks

This paper reviewed one of the oldest and pioneering theories of communication science
developed by McCombs and Shaw—agenda-setting. The paper began by unpacking the
original theory published in 1972, explaining the theoretical and conceptual models including
main assumption and relationship between constructs. Then, using criteria for evaluation
scientific theories developed by Chaffee and Berger (1987), the paper examined the strengths
and weaknesses of the theory.

From the discussions, it emerged that agenda-setting is highly heuristically provocative. It has
inspired over 400 studies since it was first published 1972. Even the semantic coining of the
word “agenda-setting has gained grounds in academic circles. It has been used in other
disciplines from political science to sociology, among others. This proves the relevance of the
theory in communication science research. In addition, the theory is falsifiable as there are
many subsequent studies that have found or not found the effects of agenda-setting using the
same method or other methods since the first publication of the McCombs and Shaw paper.
This gives agenda-setting a strong predictive power as although some studies didn’t find effects
of theory, a good number of them detected the postulate of the theory in other research settings.
Furthermore, agenda-setting is parsimonious with also a fairly internal consistency as a result
of its simple or micro nature.

On the other hand, the downside of the theory is that it has low or narrow explanatory power.
It ignores confounding or spurious factors that could also serve as a mechanism for explaining
the phenomena it intends to describe. This leaves the theory in need of further explication to
reveal the hidden factors that would help build knowledge around the fundamental idea of the
theory. The narrowness of the original theory makes it not good for organizing knowledge by
itself, but when add the numerous studies conducted around the idea, it turns out that agenda-
setting is a force to reckon with as long as communication science theory is concern.
 REFERENCE LIST

Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The Academy
of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.doi: 10.2307/258555

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037//00223514.51.6.1173

Berger, C. R., S. H.,Chaffee . (1987). Handbook of communication science. Sage.

Birkland, T. (1998). Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting. Journal of Public
Policy, 18(1), 53-74.doi:10.1017/S0143814X98000038

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chaffee, S. H., & Berger, C. R. (1987). What do communication scientists do? In C. R. Berger
& S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 99-122). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Cohen, B (1963). The press and foreign policy. New York: Harcourt.

Dearing, J. W., Rogers, E. M., & Rogers, E. (1996). Agenda-setting (Vol. 6). Sage.

Delwiche, A. (2005). Agenda–setting, opinion leadership, and the world of Web logs. First
Monday, 10(12).doi:10.5210/fm.v10i12.1300

Erbring, L., Goldenberg, E., & Miller, A. (1980). Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A
New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media. American Journal of Political Science, 24(1),
16-49. doi:10.2307/2110923

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in
counselling psychology research. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2010). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the
mass media. Random House.

IYENGAR, S., & SIMON, A. (1993). News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion:
A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing. Communication Research, 20(3), 365–
383. doi: 10.1177/009365093020003002
Iyengar, S., Norpoth, H., & Hahn, K. (2004). Consumer Demand for Election News: The
Horserace Sells. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 157-175. doi:10.1046/j.1468-
2508.2004.00146.x

Krcmar, M., Ewoldsen, D.R., & Koerner A. (2016). Communication Science Theory and
Research. An advanced introduction (c hapters 4 and 5). Philosophical underpinning of the
communication science approach & Positivism/Causality/Explanation. (pp. 58-88). New
York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, B., Lancendorfer, K.M., & Lee, K.J. (2006) Agenda-setting and the internet: The
intermedia influence of internet bulletin boards on newspaper coverage of the 2000 general
election in South Korea. Asian Journal of Communication. 15 (1): 57–71.
doi:10.1080/0129298042000329793. S2CID 143528953.

Lester, M. (1980). Generating Newsworthiness: The Interpretive Construction of Public

Events. American Sociological Review, 45(6), . 984-994.doi: 10.2307/2094914

Lippmann, W (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt.

McCombs, M. (2002, June). The agenda-setting role of the mass media in the shaping of public
opinion. In Mass Media Economics 2002 Conference, London School of Economics:
http://sticerd. lse. ac. uk/dps/extra/McCombs. pdf.

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public
opinion quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. doi: 10.1086/267990.

McLeod, J. M., Becker, L. B., & Byrnes, J. E. (1974). Another Look At the Agenda-Setting
Function of the Press. Communication Research, 1(2), 131–
166. doi:10.1177/009365027400100201

Miller, J. (2007). Examining the Mediators of Agenda Setting: A New Experimental Paradigm
Reveals the Role of Emotions. Political Psychology, 28(6), 689-717. Retrieved September
22, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447084

Molotch, H., & Lester, M. (1974). News as Purposive Behavior: On the Strategic Use of
Routine Events, Accidents, and Scandals. American Sociological Review, 39(1), 101-112.
doi:10.2307/2094279

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge.

Routledge.
Shaw, Donald L., and Maxwell E. McCombs. 1977. The emergence of American political
issues: The agenda-setting function of the press. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message (pp. 781-795). White Plains,
NY: Longman.

Wacker, J. (1998). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building

research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4),
361–385. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00019-9

Weaver, D.H. (2007). Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming. Journal of
Communication. 57 (1): 142–147. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x