Abstract
In most decisions of everyday life, whether it be buying a car or electing an official representative, individuals use simple and synthetic operational means which take the form of statements summarizing a criterion for selecting information. These statements are called `abstracts for decision' and often take the form `x is true' and `x must be present'. This article analyses the way these statements circulate in communications networks as well as the importance they have in public opinion, and, in doing so, distinguishes three different phases in any public controversy. A simple model then describes the way in which these statements are selected, and adopted or rejected. Abstracts for decision can usefully complement an agenda-setting approach in an analysis of public controversy. It can be used to move from the notion of theme to that of problem, and thus to perceive the direction which any public debate is taking.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.