|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Second Level Agenda Setting and Political Advertising:
Investigating the transfer of issue and attribute saliency during the
2004 U.S. presidential election
By:
Guy Golan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Manship School of Mass Communication
Louisiana State University
Summer Address:
19111 Collins Ave #801
Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160
Telephone: 225-578-3145
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Spiro K. Kiousis, Ph.D., APR
Assistant Professor
Department of Public Relations
University of Florida
2028 Weimer Hall
Gainesville, Florida
Telephone : 352-392-9359
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
and
Misti L McDaniel
Graduate Student
Manship School of Mass Communication
Louisiana State University
211 Journalism Building
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Abstract:
The current study examines the agenda setting function of televised
political advertisements during the 2004 U.S. presidential
election. Adding to the growing research on second level agenda
setting, we examined how the advertising agendas of the Bush and
Kerry campaigns may have impacted public evaluations of the two
candidates. Our results provide support for the agenda setting
hypothesis as well as mixed support for the second level
hypothesis. Research findings are discussed in terms of the larger
context of agenda setting research and theory.
9
Introduction:
During the past two decades, agenda setting scholars expanded their
query beyond the testing of the original hypothesis that predicts the
transfer of issue saliency from the media to the public agenda
(McCombs & Shaw, 1972) and towards such areas of agenda setting
research as the sources of the media agenda (Wanta and Foote, 1994),
intermedia agenda setting (Roberts & McCombs, 1994) and the
contingent conditions of agenda setting (Miller & Wanta, 1996). One
additional area of research of particular importance to this area of
scholarship has been the extension of the agenda setting hypothesis
towards the second level of agenda setting. Here the focus shifts
away from the mere transfer of issue saliency to also include the
transfer of attribute saliency (Kiousis & McCombs, 2004).
The current study aims to contribute to the growing second level
agenda setting research by providing one of the first empirical
investigations of the second level agenda setting function of
televised political advertisements during presidential campaigns.
Review of Literature:
Political Advertising
For decades, scholars have investigated the growing impact of
political advertising on modern presidential campaigns. As noted by
Roberts and McCombs (1994), political advertising directly targets
the public and serves as an unambiguous indicator of the issue
agendas that candidates wish to make salient. Johnston and Kaid
(2002: 281) argued that "two of the most important functions (of
advertising) are helping the candidate define or redefine his or her
image and providing a forum where campaign issues can be explained or
developed."
Indeed, scholars found evidence of the potential impact of political
advertising on voters' recall of candidate issue stands (McClure &
Patterson, 1974), voters' formation of candidate images (Cwalina et
al. 2002), political learning (Ridout et al. 2004) and voter
participation (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1994; Lemert & Wanta, 1999).
Scholars also examined the potential influence of candidate
advertising agendas on the news agendas of mainstream media (Roberts
& McCombs, 1994; Boyle, 2001) and the perceived impact of political
advertising on public opinion in the context of the third person
effect (Cohen & Davis, 1991; Duck, Hogg, & Terry, 1995).
The current study aims to contribute to knowledge on the role of
political advertising in the modern campaign by providing one of the
first examinations of how political ads may impact voters' agendas of
candidate issues and attributes. More specifically, this study will
provide one of the first investigations of the role of political
advertising in the second level agenda setting process.
Agenda Setting and political advertising
As observed by McCombs (1992), research on agenda setting has
produced more than a hundred studies that affirmed the original
agenda setting hypothesis. The investigation of the agenda setting
effect of advertising is of particular importance when considering
that the very purpose of advertising is to focus consumers' attention
to particular brands and brand attributes (Sutherland & Galloway,
1981). It appears that the nature of political advertising would
constitute a similar need. After all, much like brand
advertisements, political ads attempt to identify certain candidate
issues and attributes as more salient than others. Yet, a review of
relevant literature shows that despite the salient role of political
advertising in the modern campaign, research on the agenda setting
effect of political ads is somewhat limited.
In what is considered by many to be the original agenda setting
study, McCombs and Shaw (1972) reported the transfer of issue
saliency from political ads to public opinion. Bowers' (1973)
analysis of newspaper political ads of several senatorial and
gubernatorial campaigns along with public opinion polls indicated
that the issue agenda of the ads was significantly correlated with
the issue agendas reflected in public opinion. Atkin and Heald
(1976) found that voters' knowledge of candidate issue positions was
moderately correlated with radio and television advertising exposure.
Ghorpade (1986) analyzed television political ads from the 1984
senatorial campaign race between Helms and Hunt in North
Carolina. Through a statewide telephone survey, she found that the
advertising agendas of both campaigns were significantly correlated
with the public's agenda of campaign issue saliency. Roberts (1991)
examined the agenda setting function of political advertising in the
1990 Texas gubernatorial campaign. Her study indicated that
political ads led to a rise in issue concerns amongst voters.
Research clearly indicates that the saliency of issues in political
advertising is likely to impact the public agenda as predicted by the
original agenda setting hypothesis, Based on previous research on the
agenda setting function of both the news media and political
advertisements, we predict the following:
H1: The salience of issues in televisions news reports would be
positively associated with the salience of political issues in public opinion.
H2: The salience of issues in candidate political advertisements
would be positively associated with the salience of political issues
in public opinion.
Second Level Agenda Setting
Moving beyond the original agenda setting hypothesis, scholars have
expanded their investigations into the second level of agenda
setting. Scholars have identified that beyond the agenda of objects,
there is an agenda of attributes (Lopez-Escobar et al. 1998). Each
news object has numerous potential attributes that may be linked to
it (McCombs et al. 2000). As argued by Kiousis and McCombs (2004),
it is important to recognize that at the core of agenda setting
theory is the transfer of salience from one agenda to another
agenda. Thus the transfer of an agenda of attributes would
constitute an example of second level agenda setting. It is
important to note that second level of agenda setting is more complex
than the mere transfer of issue saliency. Ghanem (1997) argues that
second level agenda setting consists of four dimensions: subtopics,
framing mechanisms as well as affective and cognitive elements.
While researchers have tested the second level hypothesis on a
variety of subjects such as financial reporting (Hester & Gibson,
2003), international news coverage (Wanta, Golan & Lee, 2004), public
reactions to September 11th (Craft & Wanta, 2004) and public
evaluation of local issues (Kim et al. 2002), the majority of
published second level studies focused on political candidates and elections.
In one of the earliest second level studies, Weaver et al. (1981)
examined presidential candidate attributes in the 1976
elections. While the term second level agenda setting was yet to be
coined, the authors identified the transfer of attribute saliency
between the media and public agendas. McCombs et al. (1997)
investigated second level agenda setting during the 1995 Spanish
regional elections. They identified significant correlations between
candidate attributes as presented in newspaper advertisements and
media coverage and public perceptions of candidate
attributes. Furthermore, McCombs et al. (2000) found support for the
second level hypothesis in their study of the 1996 Spanish elections
where they identified significant correlations between media coverage
of candidates and media (both broadcast and print) coverage of the candidates.
Golan and Wanta (2001) examined the second level agenda setting
process during the 2000 presidential primaries in New
Hampshire. Their results suggested that media agenda of candidate
issues and attributes as presented in three newspapers was
significantly associated with voters' evaluations of the two
candidates. The impact of media coverage of candidate attribute on
that of the public agenda was further demonstrated by Kiousis et al.
(1999) whose experiment revealed that people's impression of
candidates' traits closely mirrored media portrayals of those traits.
In addition to impacting public salience of attributes, contemporary
agenda setting scholarship suggests that media salience of attributes
can also influence public salience of objects themselves (Ghanem,
1997). Also known as the "compelling arguments" hypothesis, little
research has explored this process through an examination of
political ads, news media content, and public opinion.
Thus, the current study aims to contribute to the growing scholarship
on second level agenda setting by presenting one of the first
empirical investigations of how televised political advertisements
and television news impact public evaluations of issue
salience. More specifically, we will measure the association between
the advertising and news media agendas of candidate issues and
attributes and the public agenda of issue importance. It is
important to note that so far, no published study has examined the
second level agenda setting function of political advertisements in
American presidential elections. Based on previous research on
second level agenda setting, we ill predict the following:
H3: The salience of attributes in political ads would be positively
related to the salience of issues in public opinion
Methods:
The analysis of the present study compared responses to a public
opinion survey, political advertising and media coverage in the
period leading up to the 2004 U.S. presidential elections. Two
separate content analyses were conducted in order to assess the
agenda of candidate issues and attributes in political advertisements
and the agenda of issues in television newscasts. Of interest were
issue and attribute saliency in the broadcast media and their
subsequent effect on public opinion.
Political Advertising
A total of 116 political advertisements were analyzed in the current
study, 54 ads from the campaign of President Bush and 62 from the
campaign of Senator John Kerry. All ads were gathered from the
official websites of the candidates during the period between March
3rd (the date of the airing of the first ad) and Election Day in
November of 2004.
The unit of analysis was the individual advertisement. Each ad was
coded for the presence or non presence of an issue or an attribute on
an affective scale that ranged from 0-3. This coding allows for a
single measurement of both the substantive and affective dimensions
(positive, neutral, negative) of the issue or attribute that is
linked to the news object (candidate). A score of zero indicate that
the issue or attribute were not present in the ad, a score of one
indicated that the issue or attribute were mentioned in a positive
manner, a two indicated that the issue or attribute was mentioned in
a negative manner and a three indicate neutral presence. Each ad was
coded for the following issues and attributes:
Issues: Economy, Iraq, health care, taxes, social security,
candidates' past, education, moral issues, homeland security, global
war on terror, jobs and other. Each issue was coded as a separate
variable to indicate whether the issue was linked to candidate Bush or Kerry.
Attributes: Cares about people, leadership, honesty, reformer,
patriotism, vagueness, uniter, other. Each attribute was coded as a
separate variable to indicate whether the attribute was linked to
candidate Bush or Kerry.
Television Newscasts
The sample for the television news included 6:30pm evening news
programs from the ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN networks during a randomly
selected 90 days between March 3rd and November 1st from the
Vanderbilt News Abstracts Archive (2004). The unit of analysis was
the individual story in the newscast. A total of 1465 news stories
were coded for the following issues:
Economy, Iraq, health care, taxes, social security, candidates' past,
education, moral issues, homeland security, global war on terror,
jobs and other.
In order to insure intercoder reliability, 10% of all ads and
newscasts were coded by a second coder. Holsti (1969) scores of .87
(for ads) and .92 (for newscasts) provided evidence of intercoder reliability.
The Public Agenda
The public agenda of issues and candidate attributes was assessed
using polling data from the Gallup Organization. A nationwide panel
survey of more than one thousand adults who were deemed likely to
vote in the 2004 elections was conducted in the months leading to the
presidential elections (last round of surveying on Oct.
22-24th). Survey respondents were asked to indicate how important
the issues of terrorism, Iraq, economy, social security, healthcare,
education and medicate were to them. The scale went from issue is
extremely important to not important. In addition, survey
respondents were asked to assess whether Bush or Kerry would do a
better job on those issues. Finally, survey respondents were asked
to assess whether the following attributes apply to candidates Bush
and Kerry: Cares about the needs of people like you, is a strong
leader, is honest and trustworthy, shares your values, will unite and
not divide.
Results
When examining the overall patterns of news attention to issues, the
major foreign policy concern (and top concern overall) dominating
media reports was the conflict in Iraq, which received twice the
attention of any other issue in news stories. This top ranking of the
Iraq issue was consistent across all four broadcast networks.
Meanwhile, the major domestic concern in terms of total media
coverage was the economy, though its position within individual
networks varied. Table 1 reports the salience of political issues on
television news during the 2004 presidential election.
Table 1: Media Salience of Political Issues during 2004 Presidential Election
ABC
CBS
CNN
NBC
Total
Economy
50
115
49
115
329
Iraq
171
178
305
191
845
Health Care
75
75
23
56
226
Taxes
0
4
1
1
6
Social Security
0
1
0
0
1
Candidate's Past
5
8
15
9
37
Education
6
4
7
3
20
Moral Issues
20
25
25
22
92
National/Homeland Security
69
75
100
79
323
War on Terror
18
27
40
23
108
National/homeland security, health care, and the War on Terror
rounded out the top-five issues mentioned on in television news
during the election. Notably, social security, which has received
significant policy and media attention since the election, was ranked
dead last for media salience in the present study.
In comparison to the media coverage, health care and the War on
Terror were the top issues emphasized in political advertisements.
There was some variation in attention with respect to the specific
campaigns, however. Table 2 reports the salience of issues in
political advertisements from the Bush and Kerry campaigns.
Table 2: Campaign Advertising Salience of Political Issues during
2004 Presidential Election
Bush Ads
Kerry Ads
Total
Economy
15
16
30
Iraq
6
24
30
Health Care
19
33
52
Taxes
16
18
34
Social Security
9
2
11
Candidate's Past
0
11
11
Education
7
4
11
Moral Issues
0
1
1
National/Homeland Security
10
11
21
War on Terror
24
14
38
In contrast to the aggregate advertising results, the Bush campaign
mentioned the War on Terror more than health care. Although health
care was the top-ranked issue in the Kerry ads, the situation in Iraq
was covered extensively in Kerry ads as well. Despite several
post-election reports speculating on the importance of morality in
voter decisions, moral issues themselves received least attention in
candidate controlled communications. It should be noted though that
they were emphasized in greater proportion in media reports than in
ads. To assess whether the aforementioned trends in news content and
candidate ads were meaningful, we now turn to the hypothesis testing,
which explored the linkages among the media, campaign, and public
agendas for object and attribute salience during the 2004
presidential election.
H1 stated that the salience of issues in televisions news reports
would be positively associated with the salience of political issues
in public opinion. Consistent with previous research, the data
offered robust support the basic agenda-setting hypothesis (? = .81, p < .01).
Table 3 shows the relationships among the media, campaign, and public
agendas for perceived issue salience during the 2004 presidential election.
Table 3: Correlations among media coverage, candidate ads, and public
opinion of issue salience
1
2
3
4
1. Media
1.00
2. Bush Ads
.10
1.00
3. Kerry Ads
.52#
.55*
1.00
4. Public opinion
.81**
.16
.60#
1.00
# p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01
H2 predicted a positive relationship between the salience of
political issues in candidate ads and public opinion. The data did
not support this hypothesis for the Bush ads, though modest evidence
was found for the Kerry campaign (? = .60, p < .10).
In addition to linkages with public opinion, a significant intermedia
agenda-setting relationship was observed between the Kerry ads and
news media content (? = .55, p < .01). There is also modest evidence
of a positive relationship between the Bush and Kerry campaign
agendas themselves (? = .52, p < .10).
The attribute salience portion of our analysis focused on the
relationship between political ads and public opinion. Table 4
displays the distribution of affective attributes in campaign ads
during the presidential election.
Table 4: Political Advertising Salience of Affective Issue Attributes
during 2004 Presidential Election
Bush Ads
Kerry Ads
Total
Economy
Positive
9
9
18
Negative
6
7
13
Iraq
Positive
1
7
8
Negative
5
17
22
Health care
Positive
7
18
25
Negative
12
15
27
Taxes
Positive
5
11
16
Negative
11
7
18
Social security
Positive
2
1
3
Negative
7
1
8
Candidate past
Positive
0
0
0
Negative
0
11
11
Education
Positive
4
3
7
Negative
3
1
4
Moral issues
Positive
0
1
1
Negative
0
0
0
National/homeland security
Positive
3
7
10
Negative
7
4
11
War on Terror
Positive
13
8
21
Negative
11
6
17
Consistent with prior research on political advertising, a
predominantly negative tone was observed when political issues were
mentioned in campaign spots (Hart, 2000). While both campaigns ran
more negative than positive ads, the Bush campaign ran a greater
proportion of negative ads (62 to 44) compared to Kerry (69 to 65).
From a theoretical perspective, an important question concerning
attribute salience influence is determining its impact on public
salience of objects (political issues in the present study).
Providing an empirical test of this compelling-arguments hypothesis,
H3 predicted that the salience of attributes in political ads would
be positively related to the salience of issues in public opinion.
Table 5 reports the data for these relationships.
Table 5: Affective attribute relationships between political ads and
public opinion
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Bush positive ads
1.00
2.
Bush negative ads
.74**
1.00
3.
Kerry positive ads
.80**
.80**
1.00
4.
Kerry negative ads
.14
.26
.45#
1.00
5.
Public Opinion
.40
-.02
.56#
.67*
1.00
# p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01
Paralleling the earlier object salience findings, the Kerry campaigns
ads supplied some support for this hypothesis while Bush campaign ads
did not. A positive relationship emerged for both positive (? = .56,
p < .10) and negative ads (? = .67, p < .05). The latter association,
which exceeds the correlation between general ad salience and public
opinion, suggests that attribute salience measures are not only
important for understanding the formation of attribute agendas but
object agendas as well.
Discussion
The results of our study point to two distinct candidate agendas of
issues with President Bush focusing a substantial part of his
campaign ads on the global war on terror and homeland security while
candidate Kerry's ads focused on the war in Iraq and
healthcare. Clearly, both candidates were attempting to influence
the media and publics' issue saliency using paid political
advertisements. Our analysis also indicates that both candidates
used negative advertising in an attempt to link negative attributes
and a variety of issues. Based on the agenda setting hypothesis on
both the first and second level, our study aimed to measure whether
or not the two campaigns were successful in shaping the public's
saliency of candidate issues and attributes. Our results indicated
that the candidate issue agendas as portrayed in their political
advertisements did not have a significant association with the
public's agenda of issue saliency. These finding are inconsistent
with previous studies that demonstrated the agenda setting function
of political ads (for example, Ghorpade, 1986).
The results of our study yielded evidence for second level agenda
setting influence between political ads and public opinion. More
specifically, we found the salience of affective attributes in
political advertising can impact perceived object salience as Kerry's
negative ads were significantly correlated with public opinion of
issues(? =.67, p <.05). Different from the first level of agenda
setting that is mostly a cognitive learning process, the second level
agenda setting process has a cognitive as well as an affective
dimension (Ghanem, 1997). This particular finding helped link to two
levels of agenda setting by showing how attribute salience shifts
provide compelling arguments in public opinion to shift the salience
of objects.
A recent study by Kiousis and McCombs (2004) suggested that at the
second level, agenda setting may also have an attitudinal
dimension. Our findings support the few studies that investigated
and found an affective second level effect. McCombs et al. (1997)
found significant correlations between media and voter agendas for
the affective dimension of candidate attributes. Golan and Wanta
(2001) identified a limited transfer of affective attribute saliency
between newspaper agendas and public opinion. These studies along
with the results of the current study suggest that the media agenda
of attribute saliency may not only impact attribute saliency but may
also impact the way individuals interpret these attribute
agendas. Thus, negative political ads by John Kerry that attacked
President Bush on the economy may not only suggest that it is
important to link the economy to President Bush, but may also suggest
that it is important to think negatively about his handling of the
economy when thinking about President Bush.
Our results indicate that the news agendas of the four television
networks identified Iraq, the economy, homeland security and health
care as the most salient issues during the election period. While
our results indicate that political ads had some agenda setting
effect on the public agenda of issue saliency, they also indicate
that the news media had a significant agenda setting effect at the
first level (? = .81, p < .01). This finding provides additional
support to the well established agenda setting role of television news.
While the main focus of our study examined the agenda setting
function of political advertising, our findings also point to a
secondary effect of political advertising. More specifically, our
results point to a strong inter-candidate agenda setting effect as
Bush and Kerry ads were significantly correlated on issues (? =55, p
< .05) and affective attributes between Bush and Kerry positive ads
(? =.80, p < .01). These findings suggest that the two campaigns
were likely refining their ads and campaign strategies in both
proactive and reactive ways in an attempt to shift the public focus
toward certain issues and attributes (Tedesco, 2001). Future
research ought to further examine the intercandidate agenda setting
effect and incorporate it into the larger body of literature on
agenda setting as a whole.
Conclusions
The current study provided what may be one of the initial
investigations of the second level agenda setting effect of political
advertising in U.S. presidential elections. We found significant
evidence of an agenda setting effect at the first level and mixed
evidence of a second level agenda setting function. Building upon a
growing knowledge of the second level process, our study results
offer evidence for the transfer of affective attribute saliency
between political advertising and voters' evaluation of issues. Our
study was limited by the fact that we combined the candidate
attribute dimensions along with an affective dimension which did not
allow us to measure the second level attribute agenda setting at the
cognitive level. Future studies should add to the limited knowledge
of the agenda setting influence of political advertising and to the
growing literature of second level agenda setting by further
investigating how political campaign advertising may impact voters'
agendas of candidate attribute and issues saliency at the cognitive
and affective dimensions.
References
Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994).
Does attack advertising
demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88(4), 829-838.
Atkin, C. K., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising.
Public Quarterly. 40, 216-218.
Bowers, T. A. (1973). Newspaper political advertising and the
agenda-setting function. Journalism Quarterly. 50, 552-556.
Boyle, Thomas. P (2001) "Inter-media agenda setting in the 1996
presidential election", Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
78(1), pp 26-44.
Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the
differential impact in
negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 680-688.
Craft, S. and Wanta, W. (2004) U.S. Public Concerns in the Aftermath
Of 9–11: A Test of Second Level Agenda-Setting. International Journal
of Public Opinion Research. 16: 456-463
Cwalina, W., Falkowski, a. & Kaid, L. L. (2000), "Role of Advertising
in Forming the Image of Politicians: Comparative Analysis of Poland,
France, and Germany," Media Psychology, 2 (2000), 119-146.
Duck, J., Hogg, M., & Terry, D. (1995). Me, us and them: Political
identification and the
third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European
Journal of Social
Psychology, 25, 195–215.
Ghanem, S. (1997). "Filling in the Tapestry: The second level of
agenda setting." In Communication and Democracy, ed. M.E. McCombs,
D.L. Shaw and D. Weaver, pp. 3-14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
Ghorpade, S. (1986). Agenda setting: A test of advertising's
neglected function. Journal of Advertising Research, 26, 23 27.
Golan, G. & Wanta, W. (2001) Second-level agenda-setting in the New
Hampshire primaries: A comparison of coverage in three newspapers and
public perceptions of candidates. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 78(2): 247-259.
Hart, R. (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hester, B., & Gibson. R. (2003). The economy and second-level agenda
setting: A time-series analysis of economic news and public opinion
about the economy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80:1, 39-56 .
Johnston, A., & Kaid, L. L. (2002) Image Ads and Issue Ads in U.S.
Presidential Advertising: Using Video style to Explore Stylistic
Differences in Televised Political Ads from 1952 to 2000. Journal of
Communication, 52(2), 281-300.
Kim, S-H, Scheufele, D. A., & Shanahan, J.(2002). Think about it this
way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public's
evaluation of a local issue. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 79, 7-25.
Kiousis, S., Bantimaroudis, P., & Ban, H. (1999). Candidate Image
Attributes: experiments on the substantive dimension of second-level
agenda setting. Communication Research, 26, 414-428.
Kiousis, P., & McCombs, M. (2004). Agenda-Setting Effects and
Attitude Strength: Political Figures During the 1996 Presidential
Election. Communication Research, 31(1), 36-57.
Lemert, J. B., Wanta, W., & Lee, T. (1999). Party identification and negative
advertising in a U.S. senate election. Journal of Communication, 49, 123-134.
Lopez-Escobar, E., Llamas, J. P., McCombs, M., and Lennon, F. R.
(1998).Two levels of Agenda-setting among advertising and news in the
1995 Spanish Elections. Political Communication, 15(2), 225-238.
McClure, R. D., & Patterson, T. E. (1974). Television news and
political advertising: The impact of exposure on voter beliefs.
Communication Research, 1, 3-31.
McCombs, M. Explorers and Surveyors : Expanding Strategies for Agenda
Setting Research, Journalism Quarterly 69 (1992): 813– 824.
McCombs, Maxwell, Juan Pablo Llams, Esteban Lopez-Escobar, And
Frederico Rey (1997). "Candidate Images In Spanish Elections:
Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effects." Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 74: 703-716.
McCombs, M., Lopez-Escobar, E. and Llamas, J., P. (2000) Setting the
agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election, Journal of
Communication, 50 (2), 77-92.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of
mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
Miller, R. & Wanta, W. (1996). Race as a Variable in Agenda-Setting,
Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, pp. 913-925.
Ridout, T. N.; Shah, D. V.; Goldstein, K. M.; Franz, M. M..(2004)
Evaluating Measures of Campaign Advertising Exposure on Political
Learning Political Behavior, Vol. 26 (3), 201-226.
Roberts, M. (1991). The agenda-setting power of political
advertising. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of
Texas at Austin.
Sutherland, M. & Galloway, J. (1981). Role of advertising: persuasion
or agenda-setting? Journal of Advertising Research. 21(5), 25-29.
Tedesco, J. (2001). Issue and strategy agenda setting in the 2000
presidential primaries. American Behavioral Scientist 44, 1, 2048-2067.
Wanta, W., & Foote, J. (1994). The president-news media relationship:
A time series analysis of agenda-setting. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 38, 437-448.
Wanta, W., Golan, G. & Lee, C. (2004) Agenda Setting and
International News: Media Influence On Public Perceptions of Foreign
Nations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 364-377.
Weaver, D.H., Graber, D.A., McCombs, M.E. and Eyal, C.H.(1981). Media
agenda-setting in a presidential election. New York: Praeger.
|
