Though research has shown that candidates and the media can influence the importance voters ascribe to political issues, little work has sought to test the interactive agenda-setting effects of each—in particular, to determine whether the ability of candidates to set the public's agenda depends on the media's willingness to reflect their issue emphases. Using an experiment conducted during the early stages of the 2006 Texas gubernatorial election, the author shows that candidate attempts to influence voter issue salience are most effective when the media focus on the same topics. The findings suggest the value for candidates of enlisting the news media in helping to pass their messages along and serve as a point of departure for more work on the influence of candidate-media agenda convergence.
Abelson, Robert P.1959. Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas. Journal of Conflict Resolution3:343-52.
2.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar.1994. Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly58:334-57.
3.
Aronson, Elliot, and Burton W. Golden .1962. The effect of relevant and irrelevant aspects of communicator credibility on opinion changeJournal of Personality30:135-46.
4.
Bartels, Larry M.2000. Panel effects in the American National Election Studies. PoliticalAnalysis8:1-20.
5.
Behr, Roy L., and Shanto Iyengar.1985. Television news, real-world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly49:38-57.
6.
Bennett, W. Lance.1996. An introduction to journalism norms and representations of politics. Political Communication13:373-84.
7.
Brians, Craig Leonard, and Martin P. Wattenberg .1996. Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news, and newspapersAmerican Journal of Political Science40:172-93.
8.
Budge, Ian, and Dennis J. Farlie .1983. Explaining and predicting elections: Issue-effects and party strategies in 23 democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.
9.
Cappella, Joseph N., and Kathleen Hall Jamieson .1997. Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
Carsey, Thomas M.2000. Campaign dynamics: The race for governorAnn Arbor: University of Michigan Press .
11.
Dalton, Russell J., Paul Allen Beck, Robert Huckfeldt, and William Koetzle .1998. A test of media-centered agenda setting: Newspaper content and public interests in a presidential electionPolitical Communication15:463-81.
12.
Damore, David F.2005. Issue convergence in presidential campaigns. Political Behavior27:71-97.
13.
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter.1996. What Americans know about politics and why it matters . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
Druckman, James N.2004. Priming the vote. Political Psychology25:577-94.
15.
Druckman, James N., Lawrence R. Jacobs, and Eric Ostermeier .2004. Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics66:1180-1202.
16.
Erbring, Lutz, Edie N. Goldenberg, and Arthur H. Miller .1980. Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science24:16-49.
17.
Farnsworth, Stephen J., and S. Robert Lichter .2006. The nightly news nightmare: Network television's coverage of U.S. presidential elections, 1988-20042nd ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
Graber, Doris A.2001. Processing politics: Learning from television in the Internet age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
———. 2005. Mass media and American politics. 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press .
20.
Ha, Sungtae.2004. Who accepts the news? News coverage of presidential campaigns, voters' information processing ability and media effects susceptibility. Dissertation , University of Texas at Austin.
21.
Hammond, Thomas H., and Brian D. Humes .1993. The spatial model and elections . In Information, participation, and choice, ed. Bernard Grofman . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
Hayes, Danny.2005. Agenda convergence in presidential campaigns: Candidates, the media, and the dynamics of issue attention. Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
23.
Hovland, Carl I., and Walter Weiss.1951. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly15:635-50.
24.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder .1987. News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Iyengar, Shanto, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder .1982. Experimental demonstrations of the “not-so-minimal” consequences of television news programs . American Political Science Review76:848-58.
26.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Nicholas A. Valentino .2000. Who says what? Source credibility as a mediator of campaign advertising. In Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality, ed. Arthur Lupia, Matthew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin.Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
27.
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro .1994. Issues, candidate image, and priming. American Political Science Review88:527-40.
28.
Just, Marion, Ann N. Crigler, Dean E. Alger, Timothy E. Cook,Montague Kern, and Darrell M. West .1996. Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin.1996. The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns . New York: Columbia University Press.
30.
Kaplan, Noah, David K. Park, and Travis N. Ridout .2006. Dialogue in American political campaigns? An examination of issue convergence in candidate television advertising . American Journal of Political Science50:724-36.
31.
Keeter, Scott, Cliff Zukin, Molly Andolina, and Krista Jenkins.2002. The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portraitCIRCLE Report, September 19. http://www.civicyouth.org/research/products/Civic_Political_Health.pdf (accessed July 30, 2007).
32.
Kelley, Stanley, Jr., and Thad W. Mirer.1974. The simple act of voting. American Political Science Review68:572-91.
33.
Kinder, Donald R., and Thomas Palfrey.1993. Experimental foundations of political science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
34.
Krosnick, Jon A., and Donald R. Kinder .1990. Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review84:497-512.
35.
Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk .2006. How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Lenz, Gabriel S.2005. Campaign and media attention to policy issues causes learning-based effects, not primingPaper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
37.
Lippmann, Walter.1922. Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.
38.
Lodge, Milton, and Ruth Hamill.1986. A partisan schema for political information processing . American Political Science Review80:505-20.
39.
Lodge, Milton, Kathleen McGraw, and Patrick Stroh.1989. An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation . American Political Science Review83:399-419.
40.
Lodge, Milton, Marco Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau.1995. The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review89:309-26.
41.
MacKuen, Michael B., and Steven L. Coombs .1981. More than news: Media power in public affairs. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
McCombs, Maxwell E.1993. The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication43:58-67.
43.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw.1972. The agenda-setting function of mass mediaPublic Opinion Quarterly36:176-87.
44.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and David H. Weaver .1973. Voters' need for orientation and use of mass communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
45.
McGuire, William J.1968. Personality and susceptibility to social influence . In Handbook of personality theory and research, ed. Edgar Borgatta and William Lambert.Chicago: Rand McNally .
46.
Miller, Joanne M., and Jon A. Krosnick .2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science44:295-309.
47.
Patterson, Thomas E.1994. Out of order. New York: Vintage.
48.
Patterson, Thomas E., and Robert D. McClure .1976. The unseeing eye: The myth of television power in national politics. New York: Putnam.
49.
Petrocik, John R.1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case studyAmerican Journal of Political Science40:825-50.
50.
Petrocik, John R., William L. Benoit, and Glenn J. Hansen .2003. Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952-2000Political Science Quarterly118:599-626.
51.
Price, Vincent, and John Zaller.1993. Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly57:133-64.
52.
Prior, Markus.2005. Warning: Use of media exposure measures may cause serious side effects, or: The pitfalls of self-reported news exposure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
53.
Racicot, Marc.2004. Angry Democrats strike again E-mail to Bush-Cheney 2004 Campaign listserve, June 1.
54.
Riker, William.1983. Political theory: The art of heresthetics. In Political science: The state of the discipline, ed. Ada Finifter.Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
55.
———. 1990. Heresthetic and rhetoric in the spatial model. In Advances in the spatial theory of voting, ed. James M. Enelow and Melvin J. Hinich.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Rogers, Everett M., and James W. Dearing .1994. Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? In Media power in politics , 3rd ed., ed. Doris A. Graber.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
57.
Schwartz, Tony.1973. The responsive chord. New York : Doubleday.
58.
Semetko, Holli A., Jay G. Blumler,Michael Gurevitch, and David H. Weaver .1991. The formation of campaign agendas: A comparative analysis of party and media roles in recent American and British elections. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59.
Shaw, Daron R.1999a. The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988-96American Political Science Review93:345-61.
60.
———. 1999b. The impact of news media favorability and candidate events in presidential campaigns. Political Communication16:183-202.
61.
Sides, John.2006. The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science36:407-36.
62.
Sigelman, Lee, and Emmett H. Buell Jr.2004. Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960-2000American Journal of Political Science48:650-61.
63.
Simon, Adam F.2002. The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Simon, Herbert A.1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics69:99-118.
65.
Taylor, Shelley E., and Jennifer Crocker .1981. Schematic bases of social information processing. In Social cognition: The Ontario symposium , ed. E. Tory Higgins, C. Peter Herman, and Mark P. Zanna.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
Vavreck, Lynn.2004. High fidelity? Presidential campaign content and the lack of media accountability Manuscript.
67.
Walster, Elaine, and Leon Festinger.1962. The effectiveness of “overheard” persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology65:395-402.
68.
Weaver, David H., Doris A. Graber, Maxwell E. McCombs, and Chaim Eyal.1981. Media agenda-setting in a presidential election: Issues, images, interest. New York: Praeger.
69.
West, Darrell M.2005. Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952-20044th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
70.
Zaller, John.1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
71.
Zaller, John, and Stanley Feldman.1992. A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science36:579-616.
