This study used rigorous meta-analytic approaches to analyze empirical agenda-setting studies published from 1972 to 2015, and 67 studies that met the inclusion criteria for analysis produced a moderate grand mean effect size of 0.487. A multiple regression analysis revealed one most notable predictor that classified the basis for the study correlation as either content categories or survey participants. A multiple regression of a subgroup using content categories produced homogeneity. The mean effect size for these studies was 0.51. This is an indication of consistency in findings across agenda-setting studies and the presence of strong news media’s public agenda-setting effects.
AlbækE.van DalenA.JebrilN.de VreeseC. (2014). Political journalism in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AlthausS. L.TewksburyD. (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 Research, 29, 180-207.
3.
AtwaterT.SalwenM. B.AndersonR. B. (1985). Interpersonal discussion as a potential barrier to agenda-setting. Newspaper Research Journal, 6(4), 37-43.
4.
BeckerL. B.McCombsM. E. (1978). The role of the press in determining voter reactions to presidential primaries. Human Communication Research, 4, 301-307.
5.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707-731.
6.
BenoitW. L.HansenG. J.VerserR. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monograph, 70, 335-350.
7.
BentonM.FrazierP. J. (1976). The agenda setting function of the mass media at three levels of “information holding.”Communication Research, 3, 261-274.
8.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
9.
BoulianneS. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26, 193-211.
10.
BoulianneS. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 524-538.
11.
ButuroiuD. R.CorbuN. (2015). Moderators of framing effects on political attitudes: Is source credibility worth investigating?Central European Political Studies Review, 17, 155-177.
12.
CardN. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
13.
ChaffeeS. H.MetzgerM. J. (2001). The end of mass communication?Mass Communication and Society, 4, 365-379.
14.
CohenB. C. (1963). Press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
ConwayM.PattersonJ. R. (2008). Today’s top story? An agenda-setting and recall experiment involving television and internet news. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 24, 31-48.
18.
CraftS.WantaW. (2004). U.S. public concerns in the aftermath of 9-11: A test of second level agenda-setting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 456-463.
19.
DearingJ. W.RogersE. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
DemersD. P.CraffD.ChoiY. H.PessinB. M. (1989). Issue obtrusiveness and the agenda-setting effects of national network news. Communication Research, 16, 793-812.
21.
Dursun-OzkancaO. (2011). European Union enlargement and British public opinion: The agenda-setting power of the press. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 12, 139-160. doi:10.1080/15705854.2011.572642
GhorpadeS. (1986). Agenda setting: A test of advertising’s neglected function. Journal of Advertising Research, 26, 23-27.
24.
GolanG.WantaW. (2001). Second-level agenda setting in the New Hampshire primary: A comparison of coverage in three newspapers and public perceptions of candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 247-259.
25.
GroshekJ.GroshekM. C. (2013). Agenda trending: Reciprocity and the predictive capacity of social networking sites in intermedia agenda setting across topics over time. Media and Communication, 1, 15-27.
26.
GuoL. (2012). The application of social network analysis in agenda setting research: A methodological exploration. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 616-631. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.732148
27.
GuoL. (2013). Toward the third level of agenda setting theory: A network agenda setting model. In JohnsonT. (Ed.), Agenda setting in a 2.0 world: New agendas in communication (pp. 112-133). New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
GuoL.McCombsM. (2011, May). Network agenda setting: A third level of media effects. Paper presented at the ICA, Boston, MA.
29.
HallinD. C.ManciniP. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30.
HanitzschT.HanuschF.MelladoC.AnikinaM.BerganzaR.CangozI.. . . Wang YuenE. K. (2011). Mapping journalism cultures across nations: A comparative study of 18 countries. Journalism Studies, 12, 273-293.
HesterJ. B.GibsonR. (2007). The agenda-setting function of national versus local media: A time-series analysis for the issue of same-sex marriage. Mass Communication and Society, 10, 299-317.
33.
HigginsJ.GreenS. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.0). The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org
34.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
35.
IyengarS. (1979). Television news and issue salience: A reexamination of the agenda-setting hypothesis. American Politics Quarterly, 7, 395-416.
36.
IyengarS.CurranJ.LundA. B.Salovaara-MoringI.HahnK. S.CoenS. (2010). Cross-National versus individual-level differences in political information: A media systems perspective. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 20, 291-309.
37.
IyengarS.KinderD. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
38.
KimK.McCombsM. (2007). News story descriptions and the public’s opinions of political candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 299-314.
39.
KimY.KimY.ZhouS. (2017). Theoretical and methodological trends of agenda-setting theory: A thematic analysis of the last four decades. The Agenda Setting Journal, 1, 5-22
40.
KingP. T. (1997). The press, candidate images, and voter perceptions. In McCombsM. E.ShawD. L.WeaverD. (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 29-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
KiousisS.WuX. (2008). International agenda-building and agenda-setting: Exploring the influence of public relations counsel on US news media and public perceptions of foreign nations. International Communication Gazette, 70, 58-75. doi:10.1177/1748048507084578
42.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
LippmannW. (1946). Public opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Lopez-EscobarE.LlamasJ. P.McCombsM. (1998). Agenda setting and community consensus: First and second level effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10, 335-348.
46.
LuoY. (2014). The Internet and agenda setting in China: The influence of online public opinion on media coverage and government policy. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1289-1312.
47.
McClureR. D.PattersonT. E. (1976). Print vs. network news. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 23-28.
48.
McCombsM. E. (1981). The agenda-setting approach. In NimmoD. D.SandersK. R. (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 121-140). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
49.
McCombsM. E. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
50.
McCombsM. E.LlamasJ. P.Lopez-EscobarE.ReyF. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second level agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 703-717.
51.
McCombsM. E.Lopez-EscobarE.LlamasJ. P. (2000). Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication, 50, 703-717.
52.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
53.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L.WeaverD. H. (1997). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 781-802.
54.
MelladoC.LagosC. (2013). Redefining comparative analyses of media systems from the perspective of new democracies. Information, Communication & Society, 26(4), 1-24.
55.
MuddimanA.StroudN. J.McCombsM. (2014). Media fragmentation, attribute agenda setting, and political opinions about Iraq. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58, 215-233. doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.906433
56.
PeterJ. (2003). Country characteristics as contingent conditions of agenda setting: The moderating influence of polarized elite opinion. Communication Research, 30, 683-712.
57.
PetersonR.BrownS. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 175-181.
58.
PralleS. B. (2006). Timing and sequence in agenda-setting and policy change: A comparative study of lawn care pesticide politics in Canada and the US. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 987-1005.
59.
PriceV.TewksburyD. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In BarnettG. A.BosterF. J. (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 173-212). New York, NY: Ablex.
60.
PriorM. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-127.
61.
ProtessD.McCombsM. E. (2016). Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking. New York, NY: Routledge.
62.
RandolphJ.EdmondsonR. S. (2005). Using the Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) to present the magnitude of effect sizes to the evaluation audience. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(14), 1-7.
63.
RobertsM.WantaW.DzwoT. H. D. (2002). Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research, 29, 452-465.
64.
RosenthalR. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
65.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
66.
Russell NeumanW. R.GuggenheimL.Mo JangS.BaeS. Y. (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 193-214. doi:10.1111/jcom.12088
67.
ShehataA.StrömbäckJ. (2013). Not (yet) a new era of minimal effects: A study of agenda setting at the aggregate and individual levels. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18, 234-255. doi:10.1177/1940161212473831
68.
ShoemakerP. J.WantaW.LeggettD. (1989). Drug coverage and public opinion, 1972-1986. In ShoemakerP. J. (Ed.), Communication campaigns about drugs: Government, media and the public (pp. 67-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69.
StoneG. C.McCombsM. E. (1981). Tracing the time lag in agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 51-55.
70.
StrömbäckJ.KiousisS. (2010). A new look at agenda-setting effects—Comparing the predictive power of overall political news consumption and specific news media consumption across different media channels and media types. Journal of Communication, 60, 271-292. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01482.x
71.
TakeshitaT.MikamiS. (1995). How did mass media influence the voters’ choice in the 1993 general election in Japan?Keio Communication Review, 17, 27-41.
72.
TanY.WeaverD. H. (2007). Agenda-setting effects among the media, the public, and congress, 1946–2004. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 729-744.
73.
TanY.WeaverD. H. (2013). Agenda diversity and agenda setting from 1956 to 2004: What are the trends over time?Journalism Studies, 14, 773-789. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2012.748516
74.
WantaW.GhanemS. (2007). Effects of agenda setting. In PreissR. W.GayleB. M.BurrellN.AllenM.BryantJ. (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 37-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75.
WantaW.GolanG.LeeC. (2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 364-377.
76.
WantaW.HuY. W. (1994). Time-lag differences in the agenda-setting process: An examination of five news media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6, 225-240.
77.
WantaW.WuY. C. (1992). Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting process. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 69, 847-855.
78.
WeaverD. H. (1980). Audience need for orientation and media effects. Communication Research, 7, 361-376.
79.
WeaverD. H.GraberD.McCombsM.EyalC. (1981). Media agenda-setting in a presidential election: Issues, images, and interest. New York, NY: Praeger.
WinterJ. P.EyalC. H. (1981). Agenda-setting for the civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 376-383.
82.
WuH. D.ColemanR. (2009). Advancing agenda-setting theory: The comparative strength and new contingent conditions of the two levels of agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 775-789.
