Agenda theories suggest that problem indicator, focusing event, and information feedback enhance issue attention. However, few studies have systematically tested this. This study, using time series data and vector autoregression (VAR), examines how climate problem indicator, high-profile international event, and climate science feedback influence media and congressional attention to global warming and climate change. The findings confirm that these attention-grabbing factors indeed generally promote issue salience, but these factors may work differently across agenda venues. Attention inertia, interagenda interaction, and partisan advantage on agenda setting are also included and analyzed in the VAR modeling. Implications of the study and recommendations for future research are discussed in conclusion.
Baumgartner, F.R., and B.D. Jones.1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Birkland, T.A.1996. Natural disasters as focusing events: Policy communities and political response. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters14 (2): 221-43.
3.
Birkland, T.A.1997. After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy and focusing events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
4.
Birkland, T.A.1998. Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy18 (3): 53-74.
5.
Birkland, T.A.2001. Scientists and coastal hazards: Opportunities for participation and policy change. Environmental Geosciences8 (1): 61-67.
6.
Birkland, T.A.2004. "The world changed today": Agenda setting and policy change in the wake of September 11 terrorist attacks. Review of Policy Research2 (2): 179-200.
7.
Birkland, T.A., and R. Nath.2000. Business and the political dimension in disaster management. Journal of Public Policy20 (3): 279-303.
8.
Bodansky, D.2001. The history of the global climate change regime. In International relations and global climate change, ed. U. Luterbacher and D. F. Sprinz, 23-42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Briggs, H.2007. 50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy. BBC News, December 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7120770.stm.
Cobb, R.W., and C.D. Elder.1983. Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
12.
Cohen, B.1963. The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Dearing, J., and E. Rogers.1996. Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Dessler, A.E., and E.A. Parson.2006. The science and politics of global climate change: A guide to the debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Downs, A.1972. Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public Interest28:38-50.
16.
Dunlap, R.E., C. Xiao, and A.M. McCright.2001. Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism . Environmental Politics10 (4): 23-48.
17.
Easton, D.1965. A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
18.
Emanuel, K.A.2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature436:686-88.
19.
Fiske, S.T., and S.E. Taylor.1984. Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20.
Granger, C.W.J.1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross spectral models. Econometrica37:424-38.
21.
Hansen, J.E.2005. Is there still time to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with global climate? A tribute to Charles David Keeling. Presented at the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco.
22.
Hilgartner, S., and C. Bosk.1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94 (1): 53-78.
23.
Hill, K.Q.1998. The policy agendas of the president and the mass public: A research validation and extension. American Journal of Political Science42 (4): 1328-34.
24.
Houghton, J.T.2004. Global warming: The complete briefing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Hoyos, C.D., P.A. Agudelo, P.J. Webster, and J.A. Curry.2006. Deconvolution of the factors contributing to the increase in global hurricane intensity. Science312:94-97.
26.
Hunt, V.F.2002. The multiple and changing goals of U.S. immigration reform: A comparison of House and Senate activity, 1947-1993. In Policy dynamics, ed. F. Baumgartner and B. D. Jones.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Iyengar, S.1990. Shortcuts to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility. In Information and democratic process, ed. J. A. Ferejohn and J. H. Kuklinski.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
28.
Iyengar, S., and D. Kinder.1987. News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Jones, B.D.1994. Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Jones, B.D.2001. Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Jones, B.D., and F.R. Baumgartner .2005. The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Kingdon, J.W.1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins .
33.
Landsea, C.W., B.A. Harper, K. Hoarau, and J.A. Knaff.2006. Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones? Science313:452-54.
34.
Lawrence, R.G., and T.A. Birkland.2004. Guns, Hollywood, and criminal justice: Defining the school shootings problem across public arenas. Social Science Quarterly85 (5): 1193-1207.
35.
Liu, X.2006. Modeling bilateral international relations. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
36.
Liu, X., A. Vedlitz, and L. Alston.2008. Regional news portrayals of global warming and climate change. Environmental Science and Policy11 (5): 379-93.
37.
Lütkepohl, H.2007. New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
38.
MacLeod, M.C.2002. The logic of positive feedback: Telecommunications policy through the creation, maintenance, and destruction of a regulated monopoly . In Policy dynamics, ed. F. Baumgartner and B. D. Jones.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Mann, M.E., and K.A. Emanuel.2006. Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change. Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union87:233-44.
40.
May, P.J.1990. Reconsidering policy design: Policies and publics. Journal of Public Policy (11): 187-206.
41.
McComas, K., and J. Shanahan.1999. Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research26 (1): 30-57.
42.
McCright, A.M., and R.E. Dunlap.2003. Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems50 (3): 348-73.
43.
Menard, S.1991. Longitudinal research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44.
Mooney, C.2005. The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.
45.
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).2006 . U.S. Climate Extremes Index. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cei/cei.html.
Pew Research Center.2005. Two-in-three critical of Bush’s relief efforts: Huge racial divide over Katrina and its consequences. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=255 .
48.
Pielke, R.A., Jr., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, and R. Pasch.2005. Hurricanes and global warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society86:1571-75.
49.
Rankin, W.L., S.M. Nealey, and B. Descow Melber .1984. Overview of national attitudes toward nuclear energy: A longitudinal analysis. In Public reaction to nuclear power: Are there critical masses? ed. W. R. Freudenburg and E. A. Rosa.Boulder, CO: Westview.
50.
Richardson, G.P.1991. Feedback thought in social science and systems theory . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
51.
Rochefort, D., and R. Cobb.1994. The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
52.
Schattschneider, E.E.1960. The semi-sovereign people. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
53.
Shanahan, J., and J. Good.2000. Heat and hot air: Influence of local temperature on journalists’ coverage of global warming. Public Understanding of Science9 (3): 285-95.
54.
Sheingate, A.D.2006. Structure and opportunity: Committee jurisdiction and issue attention in Congress. American Journal of Political Science50 (4): 844-59.
55.
Soroka, S.N.2002. Agenda-setting dynamics in Canada. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press .
56.
True, J.L.1999. Attention, inertia, and equity in the Social Security program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory9 (4): 571-96.
57.
Ungar, S.1992. The rise and (relative) decline of global warming as a social problem. Sociological Quarterly33:483-501.
58.
Vertzberger, Y.1990. The world in their minds: Information processing, cognition, and perception in foreign policy decisionmaking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
59.
Walker, J.L., Jr.1977. Setting the agenda in the U.S. Senate: A theory of problem selection. British Journal of Political Science7:423-45.
60.
Weart, S.R.2004. The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61.
Webster, P.J., G.J. Holland, J.A. Curry, and H.R. Chang.2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in warming environment. Science309:1844-46.
62.
Wood, B.D., and J.S. Peake.1998. The dynamics of foreign policy agenda setting. American Political Science Review92 (1): 173-84.
