This study examines the first- and second-level agenda setting process and priming effects in the same experimental setting. Specifically, it explores the association between the two levels of agenda setting effects and priming effects. The main purpose of the study is to determine which of the two agenda setting effects better explains priming effects by using the global warming issue as the target object. By exposing three groups of subjects, respectively, to three kinds of pseudo online newspaper (High, Medium and No Exposure) stimuli, the experiment found that even if there were two levels of agenda setting and priming effects detected, second-level agenda setting effects were more closely connected to priming effects. With regard to the relationship between agenda setting and priming effects, it is recommended that various issues beyond the environment issue, which this study took, and their attributes should be tested in order to further understand media effects.
Ansolabehre S., Behr R. and Iyengar S. ( 1993) The Media Game, American Politics in the Television Age . Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada .
2.
Blumler JG and McQuail D. ( 1969) Television in Politics: Its Uses and Influence . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Ghanem S. ( 1996) Media coverage of crime and public opinion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin.
4.
Ghanem S. ( 1997) Filling the tapestry: The second level of agenda-setting . In: McCombs M, Shaw D and Weaver D (eds) Communication and Democracy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-14.
5.
Goethals GR and Nelson RE ( 1973) Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology25(1): 117-122.
6.
Golan G. and Wanta W. ( 2001) Second-level of agenda setting in the New Hampshire Primary: A comparison of coverage in three newspapers and perception of candidates . Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly78(2): 247-259.
7.
Ha S. ( 2004) Who accepts the news? News coverage of presidential campaigns, voters’ information processing ability, and media effects susceptibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin.
8.
Harrison TM, Stephen TD and Fehr BJ ( 1991) Image versus issues in the 1984 Presidential election . Human Communication Research18(2): 209-227.
9.
Hilmert CJ, Kulik JA and Christenfeld NJS ( 2006) Positive and negative opinion modeling: The influence of another’s similarity and dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90(3): 440-452.
10.
Iyengar S. and Kinder DR ( 1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Iyengar S. and Simon A. ( 1993) News coverage of the Gulf Crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda setting, priming and framing. Communication Research20(3): 365-383.
12.
Iyengar S., Peters MD and Kinder DR ( 1982) Experimental demonstrations of the ‘not-so-minimal’ consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review76(4): 848-858.
13.
Johnson A. ( 2003) Procedural memory and skill acquisition. In: Healy AF and Proctor RW (eds) Handbook of Psychology: Experimental Psychology , Vol. 4. New York: Wiley, 499-523.
14.
Jones EE and Gerard H. ( 1967) Foundations of Social Psychology. New York: Wiley.
15.
Katz E. ( 1996) Viewers work. In: Hay J, Grossberg L and Wartella E (eds) The Audience and its Landscape . Boulder, CO: Westview Press , 9-21.
16.
Katz E., Gurevitch M. and Haas H. ( 1973) On the use of the mass media for important things . American Sociological Review38(2): 164-181.
17.
Kim S., Scheufele DA and Shanahan J. ( 2002) Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly79(1): 7-25.
18.
King P. ( 1997) The press, candidate images and voter perceptions . In: McCombs M, Shaw D and Weaver D (eds) Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda Setting Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 29-40.
19.
Kiousis S., Bantimaroudis P. and Ban H. ( 1999) Candidate image attributes: Experiment on the substantive dimension of second level agenda setting. Communication Research26(4): 414-428.
20.
Lee G. and Yoo C. ( 2004) Attribute salience transfer of global warming issue from online papers to the public: Attribute of environment vs. attribute of economy . Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Convention , Toronto, Ontario, August.
21.
McCombs M. ( 2004) Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion . Cambridge: Polity Press.
22.
McCombs M. and Shaw D. ( 1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36: 176-187.
23.
McCombs M., Lopez-Escobar E. and Llamas J. ( 2000) Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication50(2): 77-92.
24.
Price V. and Tewksbury D. ( 1997) News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In: Barett GA and Boster FJ (eds) Progress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Persuasion, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: Ablex, 173-212.
25.
Scheufele DA ( 2000) Agenda-setting, priming and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society3(2 and 3): 297-316.
26.
Severin WJ and Tankard JW ( 2001) Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in Mass Communication, 3rd edn. New York : Addison-Wesley.
27.
Shaw DL and McCombs M. ( 1977) The Emergence of American Political Issues. St Paul, MN: West Publishing.
28.
Soroka SN ( 2002a) Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press.
29.
Soroka SN ( 2002b) Issue attributes and agenda setting by media, the public and policy makers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinions Research14(3): 264-285 (electronic version).
30.
Suls J., Martin R. and Wheeler L. ( 2000) Three kinds of opinion comparison: The triadic model. Personality and Social Psychology Review4(3): 219-237.
31.
Takeshita T. ( 2005) Current critical problems in agenda setting research . International Journal of Public Opinions Research18(3): 275-296.
32.
Weaver DH ( 1977) Political issues and voter need for orientation . In: McCombs M and Shaw D (eds) The Emergence of American Political Issues. St Paul, MN: West Publishing, 107-109.
33.
Weaver DH ( 1980) Audience need for orientation and media effects . Communication Research7(3): 361-376.
34.
Weaver DH, Graber DA, McCombs ME and Eyal CH ( 1981) Media Agenda Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images and Interest. New York: Praeger.
35.
Winter JP and Eyal CH ( 1981) Agenda-setting for the civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly45(3): 376-383.
36.
Xu Z. and Bengston DN ( 1997) Trends in national forest values among forestry professionals, environmentalists, and the news media, 1982-1993. Society and Natural Resources10: 43-59.
37.
Yagade A. and Dozier DM ( 1990) The media agenda setting effects of concrete versus abstract issues. Journalism Quarterly67(1): 3-10.
38.
Zillmann D. and Bryant J. ( 1985) Affect, mood, and emotion as determinants of selective exposure. In: Zillmann D and Bryant J (eds) Selective Exposure to Communication . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum , 157-190.
39.
Zimmerman BJ and Kitsantas A. ( 2002) Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology94: 660-667.
40.
Zucker HG ( 1978) The variable nature of news media influence. In: Ruben BD (ed.) Communication Yearbook , 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 225-240.
