The present study combines three data sets: (a) a representative survey among 900 German citizens; (b) a snowball survey among the interaction partners of these interviewees; and (c) a content analysis of newspaper, television, and radio coverage. The measurement of the independent variable was improved by an individual matching procedure of content analysis data and the media use patterns of each respondent. Whereas the aggregate-level analysis shows the usually high correspondence between media and societal agenda, the individual-level comparison of whole issue agendas indicates mutual dependencies, with the personal agenda leading the individual media agenda more frequently. Several path analysis models for single-issue relevance reveal that the importance of an issue in the actually received media coverage exerts only little influence on the assessment of issue importance of a respondent. Instead, personal factors, such as issue involvement, interpersonal communication, and the issue assessment of the network partners, exert a substantial impact.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J.
(1985). The origins of individual media-system dependency: A sociological framework. Communication Research, 12, 485-510.
2.
Becker, L. B.
(1982). The mass media and citizen assessment of issue importance: A reflection on agenda-setting research. In D. Whitney & E. Wartella (Eds.), Mass communication yearbook (Vol. 3, pp. 521-536). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Blood, W.
(1989). Public agendas and media agendas: Some news that may matter. Media Information Australia, 52, 7-15.
4.
Brosius, H. -B.
(1991). Schema-Theorie: ein brauchbarer Ansatz in der Wirkungsforschung? [Schematic information processing: A useful perspective for media effects research?]Publizistik, 3, 285-297.
5.
Brosius, H. -B.
, & Kepplinger, H. M. (1992). Linear and nonlinear models of agenda-setting in television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 36, 5-23.
6.
Burt, R. S.
(1984). Network items and the general society survey. Social Networks, 6, 293-339.
7.
Byrne, B. M.
(1995). One application of structural equation modeling from two perspectives: Exploring the EQS and LISREL strategies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 138-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Dearing, J. W.
, & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting (Communication Concepts 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Eaton, H., Jr.
(1989). Agenda-setting with bi-weekly data on content of three national media. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 942-948, 959.
10.
Ehlers, R.
(1983). Themenstrukturierung durch Massenmedien? Zum Stand der empirischen Agenda-Setting-Forschung [Structuring of issues by the mass media? On the state of empirical agenda-setting research]. Publizistik, 28, 167-186.
11.
Eichhorn, W.
(1996). Agenda-Setting-Prozesse: Eine theoretische Analyse individueller und gesellschaftlicher Themenstrukturierung [Agenda-setting processes: A theoretical analysis of individual and social structuring of issues]. Munich, Germany: Fischer.
12.
Erbring, L.
, Goldenberg, E. N., & Miller, A. H. (1980). Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science, 24, 16-49.
13.
Eyal, C. H.
, Winter, J. P., & DeGeorge, W. F. (1981). The concept of time frame in agenda-setting. In G. Wilhoit & H. DeBock (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 212-218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Fischer, C. S.
(1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Fiske, S. T.
, & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.
Frueh, W.
, & Schoenbach, K. (1982). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz: Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkungen [The dynamic and transactional approach: A new paradigm of media effects]. Publizistik, 27, 74-88.
17.
Ghanem, S.
(1997). Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda-setting. In M. McCombs, D. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 3-14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
Gonzenbach, W. J.
(1992). A time-series analysis of the drug issue, 1985-1990: The press, the president and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4, 126-147.
19.
Gonzenbach, W. J.
, & McGavin, L. (1997). A brief history of time: A methodological analysis of agenda-setting. In M. McCombs, D. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 115-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Graber, D. A.
(1984). Processing the news: How people tame the information tide. New York: Longman.
21.
Heise, D. R.
(1970). Causal inference from panel data. In E. Borgatta (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1970 (pp. 3-27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Hoyle, R.
(1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Hoyle, R.
, & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Hu, L.
, & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Huegel, R.
, Degenhardt, W., & Weiβ, H.-J. (1992). Strukturgleichungsmodelle fuer die Analyse des Agenda Setting-Prozesses [Structural equation models for the analysis of the agenda-setting process]. In W. Schulz (Ed.), Medienwirkungen. Forschungsbericht [Media effects. Research report] (pp. 144-159). Weinheim: VCH.
26.
Hull, J. G.
, Tedlie, J. C., & Lehn, D. A. (1995). Modeling the relation of personality variables to symptom complaints: The unique role of negative affectivity. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 217-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Iyengar, S.
(1988). New directions of agenda-setting research. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 595-602). London: Sage Ltd.
28.
Iyengar, S.
(1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Iyengar, S.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Joereskog, K. G.
, & Soerbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
31.
Kepplinger, H. M.
, & Martin, V. (1986). Die Funktion der Massenmedien in der Alltagskommunikation [The functions of mass media in everyday communication]. Publizistik, 31, 118-128.
32.
Kim, J. K.
, Shoar-Gaffari, P., & Gustainis, J. J. (1990). Agenda-setting functions of a media event: The case of “Amerika.”Political Communication and Persuasion, 7, 1-10.
33.
Kosicki, G. M.
(1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 100-127.
34.
Kraus, S.
, & Davis, D. (1976). The effects of mass communication on political behavior. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
35.
Lasorsa, D. L.
(1991). Political outspokenness: Factors working against the spiral of silence. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 131-140.
36.
Lemert, J. B.
(1981). Does mass communication change public opinion after all? A new approach to effects analysis. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
37.
Lippmann, W.
(1992). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
38.
Luhmann, N.
(1996). Die Realitaet der Massenmedien [The reality of mass media] (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
39.
McCombs, M.
(1981). The agenda-setting approach. In D. Nimmo & K. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 121-140). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
McCombs, M.
, Danielian, L., & Wanta, W. (1995). Issues in the news and the public agenda: The agenda-setting tradition. In T. Glasser & C. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 281-300). New York: Guilford.
41.
McCombs, M. E.
, & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
42.
McCombs, M. E.
, & Shaw, D. L. (1977). Agenda-setting and the political process. In D. Shaw & M. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press (pp. 149-156). St. Paul, MN: West.
43.
McCombs, M.
, & Weaver, D. H. (1985). Toward a merger of gratifications and agenda-setting research. In K. Rosengren, L. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research (pp. 95-108). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
McLeod, J. M.
, Becker, L. B., & Byrnes, J. E. (1974). Another look at the agenda-setting function of the press. Communication Research, 1, 131-165.
45.
McLeod, J. M.
, Kosicki, G. M., & Pan, Z. (1991). On understanding and misunderstanding media effects. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp. 235-266). London: Arnold.
46.
McLuskie, E.
(1992). The mediacentric agenda of agenda-setting research: Eclipse of the public sphere. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 15, pp. 410-424). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Miller, A. H.
, & Asp, K. (1985). Learning about politics from the media: A comparative study of Sweden and the United States. In S. Kraus & R. Perloff (Eds.), Mass media and political thought: An information-processing approach (pp. 241-266). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
48.
Myers, J. H.
, & Alpert, M. I. (1977). Semantic confusion in attitude research: Salience vs. importance vs. determinance. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 106-110.
49.
Pan, Z.
, & McLeod, J. M. (1991). Multilevel analysis in mass communication research. Communication Research, 18, 140-173.
50.
Price, V.
, & Tewksbury, D. (1995). News values and public opinion: A process. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising (pp. 265-309). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
Protess, D. L.
, & McCombs, M. (Eds.). (1991). Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Ramparasad, J.
(1983). Agenda-setting: Is not a 1984 view or is a 1984 view. Gazette, 32, 119-135.
53.
Roessler, P.
(1997). Agenda-Setting: Theoretische Annahmen und empirische Evidenzen einer Medienwirkungshypothese [Agenda-Setting: Theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence of a media effects hypothesis]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
54.
Rogers, E. M.
, & Dearing, J. W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 555-594). London: Sage Ltd.
55.
Rozelle, R. M.
, & Campbell, D. T. (1969). More plausible rival hypotheses in the cross-lagged panel correlation technique. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 74-80.
56.
Schoenbach, K.
(1982). “The issues of the seventies.” Computerunterstuetzte Inhaltsanalyse und die langfristige Beobachtung von Agenda-Setting-Wirkungen der Massenmedien [“The issues of the seventies.” Electronic content analysis and the long range observation of agenda-setting effects of the mass media]. Publizistik, 27, 129-140.
57.
Schoenbach, K.
, & Semetko, H. A. (1992). Agenda-setting, agenda-reforcing or agenda-deflating? A study of the 1990 German national election. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 837-846.
58.
Schoenbach, K.
, & Weaver, D. H. (1985). Finding the unexpected: Cognitive bonding in a political campaign. In S. Kraus & R. Perloff (Eds.), Mass media and political thought: An information-processing approach (pp. 157-176). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
59.
Selvin, H. C.
(1958). Durkheim's suicide and problems of empirical research. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 607-619.
60.
Shaw, E. F.
(1977). The agenda-setting hypothesis reconsidered: Interpersonal factors. Gazette, 23, 230-240.
61.
Shaw, D. L.
, & Martin, S. E. (1992). The function of mass media agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 902-920.
62.
Shaw, D. L.
, & McCombs, M. E. (1977). The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press. St. Paul, MN: West.
63.
Stevenson, R. L., & Ahern, T. J. (1979). Individual effects of agenda-setting. Unpublished manuscript.
64.
Stoolmiller, M.
, Duncan, T. E., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). Predictors of change in antisocial behavior during elementary school for boys. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 236-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
Tardy, C. H.
, Gaughan, B. J., Hemphill, M. R., & Crockett, N. (1981). Media agendas and political participation. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 624-627.
66.
Taylor, S. E.
, & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition (pp. 89-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
Tipton, L.
, Haney, R. D., & Baseheart, J. R. (1975). Media agenda-setting in city and state election campaigns. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 15-22.
68.
Wanta, W.
, & Hu, Y. -W. (1994). The effects of credibility, reliance, and exposure on media agenda-setting: A path analysis model. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 90-98.
69.
Wanta, W.
, & Wu, Y. -C. (1992). Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting process. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 847-855.
70.
Weaver, D. H.
(1977). Political issues and voter need for orientation. In D. Shaw & M. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press (pp. 107-120). St. Paul, MN: West.
71.
Weaver, D. H.
(1980). Audience need for orientation and media effects. Communication Research, 7, 361-376.
72.
Weaver, D. H.
(1984). Media agenda-setting and public opinion: Is there a link? In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 8, pp. 680-691). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
73.
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.
74.
Weaver, D. H.
, Stehle, T. E., Auh, T. S., & Wilhoit, C. G. (1975). A path analysis of individual agenda-setting during the 1974 Indiana senatorial campaign. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Annual Convention, Ottawa, Canada.
75.
Weimann, G.
(1994). The influentials: People who influence people. New York: State University of New York Press.
76.
Weimann, G.
, & Brosius, H. -B. (1994). Is there a two-step-flow of agenda-setting?International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6, 23-341.
77.
Wicks, R. H.
(1992). Schema theory and measurement in mass communication research: Theoretical and methodological issues in news information processing. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 15, pp. 115-145). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
78.
Williams, W., Jr.
, & Semlak, W. (1978). Campaign `76: Agenda-setting during the New Hampshire primary. Journal of Broadcasting, 22, 531-540.
79.
Wilnat, L.
(1997). Agenda-setting and priming: Conceptual links and differences. In M. McCombs, D. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 51-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
80.
Winter, J. P.
, & Eyal, C. H. (1991). Agenda setting for the civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 376-383.
81.
Yan, J., Jiang, Y., Watt, J. H., Zhu, J. -H., & Snyder, L. (1992). A comparison of four agenda-setting models. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut.
82.
Zhu, J. -H.
(1992). Issue competition and attention distraction: A zero-sum theory of agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 825-836.
83.
Zhu, J. -H.
, Watt, J. H., Snyder, L. B., Yan, J., & Jiang, Y. (1993). Public issue priority formation: Media agenda-setting and social interaction. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 8-29.
