Conventional models of agenda setting hold that mainstream media influence the public agenda by leading audience attention, and perceived importance, to certain issues. However, increased selectivity and audience fragmentation in today’s digital media environment threaten the traditional agenda-setting power of the mass media. An important development to consider in light of this change is the growing use of social media for entertainment and information. This study investigates whether mainstream media can influence the public agenda when channeled through social media. By leveraging an original, longitudinal experiment, I test whether being exposed to political information through Facebook yields an agenda-setting effect by raising participants’ perceived importance of certain policy issues. Findings show that participants exposed to political information on Facebook exhibit increased levels of issue salience consistent with the issues shared compared with participants who were not shown political information; these effects are strongest among those with low political interest.
AlthausScott L.TewksburyDavid. 2002. “Agenda Setting and the ‘New’ News: Patterns of Issue Importance among Readers of the Paper and Online Versions of the New York Times.” Communication Research29 (2): 180–207.
2.
AnspachNicolas M.2017. “The New Personal Influence: How Our Facebook Friends Influence the News We Read.” Political Communication34 (4): 590-606.
3.
ArceneauxKevinJohnsonMartin. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels: Partisan News in the Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BakshyEytanMessingSolomonAdamicLada A.2015. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook.” Science348 (6239): 1130–32.
5.
BakshyEytanRosennItamarMarlowCameronAdamicLada. 2012. “The Role of Social Networks in Information Diffusion.” Paper read at Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, Lyon France, April.
6.
BartelsLarry M.2006. “Three Virtues of Panel Data for the Analysis of Campaign Effects.” Capturing Campaign Effects, edited by BradyHenry E.JohnstonRichard, 134–63.
7.
BaumMatthew A.2002. “Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public.” American Political Science Review96 (1): 91–109.
8.
BaumMatthew A.JamisonAngela S.2006. “The Oprah Effect: How Soft News Helps Inattentive Citizens Vote Consistently.” The Journal of Politics68 (4): 946–59.
9.
BennettW. LanceManheimJarol B.2006. “The One-Step Flow of Communication.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science608 (1): 213–32.
10.
BenzMatthiasMeierStephan. 2008. “Do People Behave in Experiments as in the Field?—Evidence from Donations.” Experimental Economics11 (3): 268–81.
11.
BodeLeticia. 2016. “Political News in the News Feed: Learning Politics from Social Media.” Mass Communication and Society19:24–48.
12.
BrehmJohn.1993. The phantom respondents: Opinion surveys and political representation: Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
13.
BulkowKristinUrbanJulianeSchweigerWolfgang. 2013. “The Duality of Agenda-Setting: The Role of Information Processing.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research25 (1): 43–63.
14.
ChaffeeSteven H.MetzgerMiriam J.2001. “The End of Mass Communication?” Mass Communication and Society4 (4): 365–79.
15.
ChaffeeSteven H.WilsonDonna G.1977. “Media Rich, Media Poor: Two Studies of Diversity in Agenda-Holding.” Journalism Quarterly54 (3): 466–76.
16.
ColemanRenitaMcCombsMaxwell. 2007. “The Young and Agenda-Less? Exploring Age-Related Differences in Agenda Setting on the Youngest Generation, Baby Boomers, and the Civic Generation.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly84 (3): 495–508.
17.
ConversePhilip. 1962. “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly26 (4): 578–99.
18.
ConwayBethany A.KenskiKateWangDi. 2015. “The Rise of Twitter in the Political Campaign: Searching for Intermedia Agenda-Setting Effects in the Presidential Primary.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20 (4): 363–80.
19.
Delli CarpiniMichael X.KeeterScott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
DownsAnthony. 1972. “Up and Down with Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle.’”The Public Interest28: 38–50.
21.
FunkhouserG. Ray. 1973. “The Issues of the Sixties: An Exploratory Study in the Dynamics of Public Opinion.” Public Opinion Quarterly37 (1): 62–75.
22.
GottfriedJeffreyShearerElisa. 2016. “News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016.” Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.
23.
HolbertR. LanceHansenGlenn J.2006. “Fahrenheit 9-11, Need for Closure and the Priming of Affective Ambivalence: An Assessment of Intra-affective Structures by Party Identification.” Human Communication Research32 (2): 109–29.
24.
HolbertR. LancePillionOwenTschidaDavid A.ArmfieldGreg G.KinderKellyCherryKristin L.DaultonAmy R.2003. “The West Wing as Endorsement of the U.S. Presidency: Expanding the Bounds of Priming in Political Communication.” Journal of Communication53 (3): 427–43.
25.
HolbrookR. AndrewHillTimothy G.2005. “Agenda-Setting and Priming in Prime Time Television: Crime Dramas as Political Cues.” Political Communication22 (3): 277–95.
26.
IyengarShantoKinderDonald R.1987. News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
IyengarShantoPetersMark D.KinderDonald R.1982. “Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not-so-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs.” American Political Science Review76 (04): 848–58.
28.
KatzElihuLazarsfeldPaul Felix1955. Personal Influence, the Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York, NY: The Free Press.
29.
KingdonJohn W.1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
30.
KobayashiTetsuroIchifujiYu. 2015. “Tweets that Matter: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Japan.” Political Communication 32 (4): 574–593.
31.
KrosnickJon A.KinderDonald R.1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming.” American Political Science Review84:497–512.
32.
LinKuan-YuLuHsi-Peng. 2011. “Why People Use Social Networking Sites: An Empirical Study Integrating Network Externalities and Motivation Theory.” Computers in Human Behavior27 (3): 1152–61.
33.
MaierScott. 2010. “All the News Fit to Post? Comparing News Content on the Web to Newspapers, Television, and Radio.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly87 (3–4): 548–62.
34.
MatthesJörg. 2006. “The Need for Orientation towards News Media: Revising and Validating a Classic Concept.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research18 (4): 422–44.
35.
McCombsMaxwell E.2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.
36.
McCombsMaxwell E.2005. “A Look at Agenda-Setting: Past, Present and Future.” Journalism Studies6 (4): 543–57.
37.
McCombsMaxwell E.ReynoldsAmy. 2009. “How the News Shapes Our Civic Agenda.” In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by BryantJenningsOliverMary Beth, 1–16.
38.
McCombsMaxwell E.ShawDonald L.1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly36 (2): 176–87.
39.
McCombsMaxwell E.ShawDonald L.WeaverDavid H.2014. “New Directions in Agenda-Setting Theory and Research.” Mass Communication and Society17 (6): 781–802.
40.
McCombsMaxwell E.WeaverDavid H.1973. “Voters’ Need for Orientation and Use of Mass Communication.” Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada, April25–28.
41.
McCombsMaxwell E.ZhuJian-Hua. 1995. “Capacity, Diversity, and Volatility of the Public Agenda: Trends from 1954 to 1994.” Public Opinion Quarterly59 (4): 495–525.
42.
MessingSolomonWestwoodSean J.2014. “Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online.” Communication Research41 (8): 1042-63.
43.
NorrisPippa. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PariserEli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin.
45.
PriceVincentTewksburyDavid. 1997. “News Values and Public Opinion: A Theoretical Account of Media Priming and Framing.” In Progress in the Communication Sciences, edited by BarnettGeorgeBosterFranklin J., 173–212. Greenwich: Ablex.
46.
PriorMarkus.2007. Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
PutnamRobert D.2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
48.
Quan-HaaseAnabelYoungAlyson L.2010. “Uses and Gratifications of Social Media: A Comparison of Facebook and Instant Messaging.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society30 (5): 350–61.
49.
SayreBenBodeLeticiaShahDhavanWilcoxDaveShahChirag. 2010. “Agenda Setting in a Digital Age: Tracking Attention to California Proposition 8 in Social Media, Online News and Conventional News.” Policy & Internet2 (2): 7–32.
50.
ScheufeleDietram A.DavidTewksbury2007. “Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models.” Journal of Communication57 (1): 9–20.
51.
SearsDavid O.1986. “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51 (3): 515–30.
52.
SmithAaron.2014. “6 New Facts about Facebook.” Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.
53.
StroudNatalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
TanYueWeaverDavid H.2013. “Agenda Diversity and Agenda Setting from 1956 to 2004: What Are the Trends over Time?” Journalism Studies14 (6): 773–89.
55.
TewksburyDavidRittenbergJason. 2012. News on the Internet: Information and Citizenship in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
56.
TrillingDamianTolochkoPetroBurscherBjörn. 2017. “From Newsworthiness to Shareworthiness How to Predict News Sharing Based on Article Characteristics.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 94 (1): 38–60. doi:10.1177/1077699016654682.
57.
TurcotteJasonYorkChanceIrvingJacobSchollRosanne M.PingreeRaymond J.2015. “News Recommendations from Social Media Opinion Leaders: Effects on Media Trust and Information Seeking.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20:520–35. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12127.
58.
WantaWayne.1997. The Public and the National Agenda: How People Learn about Important Issues. New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
WattJames H.MazzaMarySnyderLeslie. 1993. “Agenda-Setting Effects of Television News Coverage and the Effects Decay Curve.” Communication Research20 (3): 408–35.
60.
WeaverDavid H.1977. “Political Issues and Voter Need for Orientation.” In The Emergence of American Political Issues, edited by ShawDonaldMcCombsMaxwell E. 107–19. St. Paul: West Group.
61.
WeaverDavid H.1980. “Audience Need for Orientation and Media Effects.” Communication Research7 (3): 361–73.
62.
WilliamsBruce A.Delli CarpiniMichael X.2011. After Broadcast News: Media Regimes, Democracy, and the New Information Environment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
63.
ZallerJohn.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
