Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The public agenda is an ecosystem in which public issues interact and compete to gain public attention. Whether this ecosystem is primarily competitive or cooperative is an unsettled question in the literature on agenda-setting. This study employs an ecological approach to explicate interissue relationships. It quantifies the nature and evolution of the issue ecosystem and examines the roles of the value orientations of issues and of individuals’ education levels and political partisanship in interissue relationships. The study compiled and analyzed the Gallup Most Important Problem polls in the United States from 1958 to 2020. The findings indicate that the issue ecosystem of the American public is essentially competitive and that the balance of competition and cooperation has remained unchanged over time. The interaction between public issues involving materialistic values was more likely to be competitive and the interaction between issues involving postmaterialistic values was more likely to be cooperative.

Keywords

dynamic conditional correlation issue competition issue cooperation issue ecosystem public agenda

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramson

P. R.

(2011, April 20). Critiques and counter-critiques of the postmaterialism thesis: Thirty-four years of debate. Escholarship. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3f72v9q4

Allen

R. L.

Izcaray

(1988). Nominal agenda diversity in a media-rich, less-developed society. Communication Research, 15(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365088015001002

Axelrod

Hamilton

W. D.

(1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396

Batstone

R. T.

Carscadden

K. A.

Afkhami

M. E.

Frederickson

M. E.

(2018). Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms. Ecology, 99(5), 1039–1050. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2188

Bennett

W. L.

Iyengar

(2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x

Blumler

J. G.

Kavanagh

(1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198596

Bobo

Licari

F. C.

(1989). Education and political tolerance: Testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(3), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1086/269154

Brooks

Manza

(1994). Do changing values explain the new politics? A critical assessment of the postmaterialist thesis. Sociological Quarterly, 35(4), 541–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1994.tb00416.x

Brosius

H.-B.

Kepplinger

M. H.

(1995). Killer and victim issues: Issue competition in the agenda-setting process of German television. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7(3), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/7.3.211

10.

Brown

R. D.

Carmines

E. G.

(1995). Materialists, postmaterialists, and the criteria for political choice in U.S. presidential elections. The Journal of Politics, 57(2), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960318

11.

Carmines

E. G.

Layman

G. C.

(1997). Value priorities, partisanship, and electoral choice: The neglected case of the United States. Political Behavior, 19(4), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024899805067

12.

Chinn

Hart

P. S.

Soroka

(2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985–2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290

13.

Christian

Nayyar

Riggio

Abrams

(2018). Them and us: Did Democrat inclusiveness and Republican solidarity lead to the 2016 US presidential election outcome? Leadership, 14(5), 524–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715018793733

14.

Coscia

(2013). Competition and success in the meme pool: A case study on quickmeme.com. Arxiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.1712.pdf

15.

Downs

(1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public Interest, 28, 38–50.

16.

Egan

P. J.

(2013). Partisan priorities. How issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. Cambridge University Press.

17.

Engle

(2002). Dynamic conditional correlation – A simple class of multivariate GARCH. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 20(3), 339–350.

18.

Gehl

K. M.

Porter

M. E.

(2017, September). Why competition in the politics industry is failing America. A strategy for reinvigorating our democracy. Election Reformers. https://electionreformers.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/why-competition-in-the-politics-industry-is-failing-america.pdf

19.

Geiss

(2011). Patterns of relationships between issues: An analysis of German prestige newspapers. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(3), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq050

20.

Ghalanos

(2019). The rmgarch models: Background and properties. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rmgarch/vignettes/The_rmgarch_models.pdf

21.

Hart

P. S.

Chinn

Soroka

(2020). Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication, 42(5), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950735

22.

Heffington

Park

B. B.

Williams

L. K.

(2019). The “Most Important Problem” dataset (MIPD): A new dataset on American issue importance. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36(3), 312–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894217691463

23.

Herring

(2021). Cooperative equilibrium in biosphere evolution: Reconciling competition and cooperation in evolutionary ecology. Acta Biotheoretica, 69, 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-021-09409-z

24.

Hertog

J. K.

Finnegan

J. R.

Kahn

(1994). Media coverage of AIDS, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases: A test of the public arenas model. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909407100204

25.

Hilgartner

Bosk

C. L.

(1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/228951

26.

Holbert

R. L.

(2005). Television news viewing, governmental scope, and postmaterialist spending: Assessing mediation by partisanship. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(4), 416–434. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4904_4

27.

Holbert

R. L.

Garrett

R. K.

Gleason

L. S.

(2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60, 15–34. x

28.

Hout

Brooks

Manza

(1995). The democratic class struggle in the United States, 1948-1992. American Sociological Review, 60(6), 805–828. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096428

29.

Howe

L. C.

Krosnick

J. A.

(2017). Attitude strength. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600

30.

Hutchinson

G. E.

(1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 22, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039

31.

Inglehart

(1971). The silent revolution in Europe: Intergenerational change in post-industrial societies. American Political Science Review, 65(4), 991–1017. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953494

32.

Inglehart

(1979). Political action: The impact of values, cognitive level, and social background. In Barnes

S. H.

Kaase

, et al. (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five Western democracies (pp. 343–380). SAGE Publications.

33.

Inglehart

(1990). Cultural shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University Press.

34.

Jones

B. D.

Baumgartner

F. R.

(2004). Representation and agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0190-292x.2004.00050.x

35.

Jost

J. T.

(2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407

36.

Jost

J. T.

Sterling

Stern

(2017). Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In Kopetz

Fishbach

(Eds.), The motivation-cognition interface; from the lab to the real world: A Festschrift in honor of Arie W. Kruglanski (pp. 56–87). Psychology Press.

37.

Kellstedt

P. M.

Linn

Hannah

A. L.

(2015). The usefulness of consumer sentiment: Assessing construct and measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(1), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu056

38.

Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810033001

39.

Kosicki

G. M.

(1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 100–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01265.x

40.

Krosnick

J. A.

(1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992332

41.

Layman

G. C.

Carmines

E. G.

(1997). Cultural conflict in American politics: Religious traditionalism, postmaterialism, and U.S. Political behavior. The Journal of Politics, 59(3), 751–777. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998636

42.

Lebo

M. J.

Box-Steffensmeier

J. M.

(2008). Dynamic conditional correlations in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 688–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00337.x

43.

Manheim

J. B.

(1987). A model of agenda dynamics. Annals of the International Communication Association, 10(1), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1987.11678659

44.

Mayer

W. G.

(1992). The changing American: How and why American public opinion changed between 1960 and 1988. University of Michigan Press.

45.

McCombs

Zhu

J. H.

(1995). Capacity, diversity, and volatility of the public agenda: Trends from 1954 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1086/269491

46.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990

47.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1976). Structuring the “unseen environment. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01374.x

48.

Moors

(2003). The two faces of (post)materialism: A decomposition approach. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(4), 396–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.4.396

49.

Myers

S. A.

Leskovec

(2012). Clash of the contagions: Cooperation and competition in information diffusion. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/topicmix-icdm12.pdf

50.

Peng

T. Q.

Sun

(2017). Interplay between public attention and public emotion toward multiple social issues on Twitter. PLoS One, 12(1), e0167896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167896

51.

Petrocik

J. R.

(1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797

52.

Rossteutscher

(2004). Explaining politics: An empirical test of competing value measures. European Journal of Political Research, 43(5), 769–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0304-4130.2004.00174.x

53.

Sun

Liu

Peng

T. Q.

Zhu

J. J. H.

Liang

(2014). EvoRiver: Visual analysis of topic coopetition on social media. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12), 1753–1762. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346919

54.

Valenzuela

(2011). Materialism, postmaterialism and agenda-setting effects: The values-issues consistency hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(4), 437–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr018

55.

Vargo

C. J.

Guo

McCombs

Shaw

D. L.

(2014). Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12089

56.

Volkens

Bara

Budge

McDonald

M. D.

(2014). Mapping policy preferences from texts: Statistical solutions for manifesto analysis. Oxford University Press.

57.

Wyer

R. S.

(2007). Principles of mental representation. In Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 285–307). The Guilford Press.

58.

Zhu

J. H.

(1992). Issue competition and attention distraction: A zero-sum theory of agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69(4), 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909206900403

59.

Zhu

J. H.

Boroson

(1997). Susceptibility to agenda setting: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of individual differences. In McCombs

Shaw

Weaver

(Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 69–84). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

17.11 MB

Competition,Cooperation,and Coexistence: An Ecological Approach to Public Agenda Dynamics in the United States (1958–2020)

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material