This study investigated the network agenda setting (NAS) model with data gathered from Taiwan’s 2012 presidential election. Networks of important objects and candidate attributes in the news were compared with the counterparts generated from public opinion. The overall correlation between the media and public network agendas was positive and significant, thus supporting the NAS model in a non-Western context. In addition, this study found that the NAS model offered more predictive power at the attribute than the object level. The effects of selective exposure in a partisan media system were also incorporated into the investigation. Results showed that partisan selective exposure did not lead to consistent findings about the accentuated association between like-minded media consumption and candidate evaluation.
BorgattiS.P.EverettM.G.FreemanL.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
5.
BudgeI.FarlieD. J. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in 23 democracies. London, England: Allen & Unwin.
6.
CarrollC. E. (2015). Mapping the contours of the third level of agenda setting. In GuoL.McCombsM. (Eds.), The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting (pp. 34-52). New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
ChenK. Y.LoV. (2010). Media use and political capital in northern and southern Taiwan. Issues & Studies, 46, 187-225.
8.
ChengY. (2016). The third-level agenda-setting study: An examination of media, implicit, and explicit public agendas in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 26, 319-332.
9.
ChengY.ChanC. M. (2015). The third level of agenda setting in contemporary China: Tracking descriptions of moral and national education (MNE) in media coverage and people’s minds. International Journal of Communication, 9, 18.
10.
CumminsR. (1996). Representations, targets, and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
DekkerD.KrackhardtD.SnijdersT. A. (2007). Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika, 72(4), 563-581.
12.
FellD. (2012). Government and politics in Taiwan. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
GuoL. (2012). The application of social network analysis in agenda setting research: A methodological exploration. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 616-631. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.732148
15.
GuoL. (2013). Toward the third level of agenda setting theory: A network agenda setting model. In JohnsonT. (Ed.), Agenda setting in a 2.0 world: New agendas in communication (pp. 112-133). New York: Routledge.
16.
GuoL.McCombsM. (2011, May). Network agenda setting: A third level of media effects. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Boston.
17.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
18.
IyengarS.HahnK. S.KrosnickJ. A.WalkerJ. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. The Journal of Politics, 70, 186-200. doi:10.1017/S0022381607080139
19.
KaplanS. (1973). Cognitive maps in perception and thought. In DownsR. M.SteaD. (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior (pp. 63-78). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
20.
KiousisS.KimJ. Y.RagasM.WheatG.KochharS.SvenssonE.MilesM. (2015). Exploring new frontiers of agenda building during the 2012 US presidential election pre-convention period: Examining linkages across three levels. Journalism Studies, 16, 363-382. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2014.906930
21.
KiousisS.RagasM. W.KimJ. Y.SchweickartT.NeilJ.KochharS. (2016). Presidential agenda building and policymaking: Examining linkages across three levels. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10, 1-17.
22.
Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2012). Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election. Journal of Communication, 62, 628-642. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01651.x
23.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448. doi:10.1177/0093650209333030
24.
KrackhardtD. (1987). QAP partialling as a test of spuriousness. Social Networks, 9, 171-186. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(87)90012-8
25.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1944). The people’s choice. New York, NY: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.
26.
LoaL.WangC. (2012, January15). 2012 elections: Ma wins re-election. Taipei Times, p. 1.
27.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187. doi:10.1086/267990
28.
McCombsM.WeaverD. (1973, April). Voters’ need for orientation and use of mass media. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal.
29.
McCombsM.Lopez-EscobarE.LlamasJ. P. (2000). Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication, 50, 77-92. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02842.x
30.
McCombsM. (2014). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
31.
MerazS. (2011). Using time series analysis to measure intermedia agenda-setting influence in traditional media and political blog networks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 176-194. doi:10.1177/107769901108800110
32.
PepitoneA.TriandisH. C. (1987). On the universality of social psychological theories. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 471-498. doi:10.1177/0022002187018004003
33.
PetrocikJ. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850. doi:10.2307/2111797
34.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
RampalK. R. (2011). The media’s “public sphere” for civil society in Taiwan’s democratic consolidation. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 7, 69-93.
36.
RoesslerP. (1999). The individual agenda-designing process: How interpersonal communication, egocentric networks, and mass media shape the perception of political issues by individuals. Communication Research, 26(6), 666-700. doi: 10.1177/009365099026006002
37.
SaldañaM.Ardèvol-AbreuA. (2015). From compelling arguments to compelling associations at the third level of agenda setting. In GuoL.McCombsM. (Eds.), The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting (pp. 104-118). New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
SearsD. O.FreedmanJ. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31, 194-213.
39.
ShehataA.StrömbäckJ. (2013). Not (yet) a new era of minimal effects: A study of agenda setting at the aggregate and individual levels. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 234-255.
40.
StroudN. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341-366. doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9
41.
StroudN. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60, 556-576. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
42.
VargoC.GuoL.McCombsM.ShawD. L. (2014). Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64, 296-316. doi:10.1111/jcom.12089
43.
VuH.GuoL.McCombsM. (2014). Exploring “the world outside and the pictures in our heads”: A network agenda-setting study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 669-686. doi:10.1177/1077699014550090
44.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
WuH. D.ColemanR. (2009). Advancing agenda-setting theory: The comparative strength and new contingent conditions of the two levels of agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 775-789. doi:10.1177/107769900908600404
