Media agenda setting takes time. However, with the evolving media landscape altering how we consume news, many contemporary agenda-setting studies still rely on decade-old guidelines to determine time lags instead of empirically testing them. The literature also reveals inconsistent conceptualizations of “time lag.” To address this, we propose a two-dimensional typology to clarify this concept and conduct a systematic literature review of 1,444 articles published between 1972 and 2024 to trace conceptual and methodological trends of the time lag research, and identify factors influencing time lag length. Results show that, on average, it took 55 days of media exposure (accumulation) for the agenda-setting effect to appear at the aggregated level and 28 days at the individual level, with public response lagging by about 7 days (delay). Additionally, media agenda setting tends to take longer to manifest at higher levels and occur more quickly in collectivist societies compared to individualist ones.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.
2.
BrosiusH.-B.HaimM.WeimannG. (2019). Diffusion as a future perspective of agenda setting. The Agenda Setting Journal, 3(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1075/asj.18022.hai
3.
ChenZ.SuC. C.ChenA. (2019). Top-down or bottom-up? A network agenda-setting study of Chinese nationalism on social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3), 512–533.
4.
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, 1090–1107.
5.
CriglerA. N.JustM.NeumanW. R. (1994). Interpreting visual versus audio messages in television news. Journal of Communication, 44(4), 132–149.
6.
GeißS. (2022). The media’s conditional agenda-setting power: How baselines and spikes of issue salience affect likelihood and strength of agenda-setting. Communication Research, 49(2), 296–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219874968
7.
GonidisL.SharmaD. (2017). Internet and Facebook related images affect the perception of time. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(4), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12429
8.
GuoL.McCombsM. (Eds.). (2016). The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting. Routledge.
9.
GuoL.SuC. C.ChenH.-T. (2023). Do news frames really have some influence in the real world? A computational analysis of cumulative framing effects on emotions and opinions about immigration. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 30(1), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612231204535
10.
HigginsE. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). Guilford.
11.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
12.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
13.
KimY.KimY.ZhouS. (2017). Theoretical and methodological trends of agenda-setting theory: A thematic analysis of the last four decades of research. The Agenda Setting journal, 1(1), 5–22.
LuoY.BurleyH.MoeA.SuiM. (2019). A meta-analysis of news media’s public agenda-setting effects, 1972-2015. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 150–172.
16.
McCombsM. (1997). Building consensus: The news media’s agenda-setting roles. Political Communication, 14(4), 433–443.
17.
McCombsM.Lopez-EscobarE.LlamasJ. P. (2000). Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication, 50, 77–92.
18.
McCombsM.ReynoldsA. (2009). How the news shapes our civic agenda. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 1–17). Routledge.
19.
McCombsM.StroudN. J. (2014). Psychology of agenda-setting effects mapping the paths of information processing. Review of Communication Research, 2(1), 68–93.
20.
McCombsM.ValenzuelaS. (2021). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.
PengT. Q.ZhuJ. J. (2024). Competition, cooperation, and coexistence: An ecological approach to public agenda dynamics in the United States (1958–2020). Communication Research, 51(8), 952–976.
23.
PetticrewM.RobertsH. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
24.
PingreeR. J.StoycheffE. (2013). Differentiating cueing from reasoning in agenda-setting effects. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 852–872.
25.
PriceV.TewksburyD. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In BarettG. A.BosterF. J. (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 173–212). Ablex.
26.
RagasM. W.TranH. L (2019). Peeling back the onion: Formative agenda building in business journalism. International Journal of Communication, 13(2019), 4465–4486.
27.
RobertsM.WantaW.DzwoT.-H. D. (2002). Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research, 29(4), 452–465.
28.
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.BichselJ.HoffmanK. (2002). The influence of accessibility of source likability on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 137–143.
29.
SantiaM.PingreeR. J.BryanovK.WatsonB. K. (2022). Agenda setting by news and by the audience in a news portal panel experiment. Mass Communication and Society, 25(4), 554–577.
30.
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (2006). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20.
31.
ShehataA.StrömbäckJ. (2013). Not (yet) a new era of minimal effects: A study of agenda setting at the aggregate and individual levels. International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 234–255.
32.
TakeshitaT. (2006). Current critical problems in agenda-setting research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(3), 275–296.
33.
Tenenboim-WeinblattK.NeigerM. (2018). Temporal affordances in the news. Journalism, 19(1), 37–55.
34.
TewksburyD.ScheufeleD. A. (2019). News framing theory and research. In OliverM. B.RaneyA. A.BryantJ. (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 51–68). Routledge.
35.
TriandisH. C. (2018). Individualism and collectivism. Routledge.
36.
VordererP.HefnerD.ReineckeL.KlimmtC. (2017). Permanently online, permanently connected. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group London.
37.
WangX.ZhangJ. M.ShiM.WantaW. (2024). Tracking attention about COVID-19 vaccines on twitter and newspapers: A dynamic agenda-setting approach. Telematics and Informatics Reports, 13, Article 100122.
38.
WantaW.HuY. W. (1994). Time-lag differences in the agenda-setting process: An examination of five news media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(3), 225–240.
39.
WarnerS. B. (2023). Analyzing attention to scandal on twitter: Elites Sell what supporters buy. Political Research Quarterly, 76(2), 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221114145
40.
WattJ. H.MazzaM.SnyderL. (1993). Agenda-setting effects of television news coverage and the effects decay curve. Communication Research, 20(3), 408–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365093020003004
41.
WeaverD. H. (1980). Audience need for orientation and media effects. Communication Research, 7(3), 361–373.
42.
WeeksB. E.LaneD. S. (2020). The ecology of incidental exposure to news in digital media environments. Journalism, 21(8), 1119–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915354
43.
WyerR. S.Jr. (2003). Social comprehension and judgment: The role of situation models, narratives, and implicit theories. Psychology Press.
44.
YükselE.KoçakA.DinginA. (2024). The optimal time-lag for media’s third-level agenda-setting effect. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, (66), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2024-1406846
45.
ZhangG.ShaoG.BowmanN. D. (2012). What is most important for my country is not most important for me: Agenda-setting effects in China. Communication Research, 39(5), 662–678.
46.
ZhuY.WeiR.LoV. H.ZhangM.LiZ. (2021). Collectivism and altruistic behavior: A third-person effect study of COVID-19 news among Wuhan residents. Global Media and China, 6(4), 476–491.
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.
