This study examined the role of attribute salience in the agenda setting process. Two experiments were conducted to investigate how media emphasis on certain political candidate attributes would influence public perceptions of those politicians. Specifically, media portrayals of candidate personality and qualification traits were explored. Findings suggest that people's impressions of candidate personality traits mirror media portrayals of those traits. However, media portrayals of personality traits do not affect a candidate's overall salience. The data also indicate that candidate qualifications do influence affective perceptions of politicians. Finally, the authors consider the ramifications of these results on future scholarship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ansolabehere, S.
, Behr, R., & Iyengar, S. (1993). The media game, American politics in the television age. Toronto, Canada: Maxwell Macmillian.
2.
Behr, R.
, & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real-world cues and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(4), 479-508.
3.
Bryan, K. (1997). Political communication and agenda setting in low-involvement races. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
4.
Dearing, J. W.
, & Rogers, D. M. (1996). Communication concept 6: Agenda setting. London: Sage.
5.
Funkhouser, G. R.
(1973). The issues of the sixties: An exploratory study of the dynamics of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 72-75.
6.
Ghanem, S.
(1997). Filling in the tapestry. In M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication & democracy (pp. 3-14). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Graber, D.
(1972). Personal qualities in presidential images: The contribution of the press. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16, 46-76.
8.
Iyengar, S.
(1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Iyengar, S.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Iyengar, S.
, Peters, M. D., & Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the “not-so-minimal” consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review, 76(4), 848-858.
11.
Lopez-Escobar, E.
, Llamas, J. P., & McCombs, M. E. (1997, September). Media and intermedia effects on candidate image building: Second level agenda setting effects in 1996 Spanish general elections. Paper presented for WAPOR conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
12.
Lopez-Escobar, E.
, Llamas, J. P., McCombs, M. E., & Lennon, F. R. (1998). Two levels of agenda setting among advertising and news in the 1995 Spanish elections. Political Communication, 15, 225-238.
13.
McCombs, M. E.
(1995, September). The media outside and the pictures in our heads: Surveying the second dimension of agenda setting. Paper presented at New Trends in Communication, a conference of the Universita Degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy.
14.
McCombs, M. E.
(1997, August). New frontiers in agenda setting: Agendas of attributes and frames. Paper presented to the Association for Education and Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
15.
McCombs, M. E.
, & Estrada, G. (1997). The news media and the pictures in our heads. In S. Iyengar & R. Reeves (Eds.), Do the media govern? Politicians, voters, and reporters in America (pp. 237-247). London: Sage.
16.
McCombs, M. E.
, & Evatt, D. (1995). Issues and attributes: Exploring a new dimension in agenda setting. Communicacion y Sociedad, 8(1), 7-32.
17.
McCombs, M. E.
, Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Rey, F. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second level agenda setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 4, 703-717.
18.
McCombs, M.
, & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
19.
McCombs, M. E.
, & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43, 58-67.
20.
Nimmo, D.
, & Savage, R. L. (1976). Candidates and their images: Concepts, methods, and findings. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
21.
Rogers, E. M.
, & Dearing, J. W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been? Where is it going? In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 11 (pp. 555-594). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Sigel, R. S.
(1964). Effects of partisanship on the perception of political candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28, 483-496.
23.
Takeshita, T.
, & Mikami, S. (1995). How did mass media influence the voters' choice in the 1993 general election in Japan? A study in agenda-setting. Keio Communication Review, 17, 27-41.
24.
Tankard, J.
, Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S. (1991, August). Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented to the Association for Education and Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
25.
Wanta, W.
(1988). The effects of dominant photographs: An agenda setting experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 107-111.
26.
Wanta, W.
(1997). The public and national agenda: How people learn about important issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Weaver, D. H.
(1977). Political issues and voter need for orientation. In D. L. Shaw & M. E. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues: The agenda setting function of the press (pp. 107-119). St. Paul, MN: West.
28.
Weaver, D. H.
(1998). Framing reconsidered. Communication Theory & Methodology Division of AEJMC.
29.
Weaver, D. H.
, Graber, D. A., McCombs, M. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). Media agenda-setting in a presidential election: Issues, images, and interest. New York: Praeger.
