In recent years, profound media environmental changes have sparked a controversy regarding whether we are entering a new era of minimal effects. Focusing on one of the most important media effect theories, agenda setting, this study combines a panel survey and a media content analysis to test three claims derived from the new era of minimal effects discussion: (1) that recent media environmental changes have reduced the agenda setting influence of traditional news media to non-significance, (2) that increased opportunities for media choice have made partisan selective exposure the key mechanism behind media effects, and (3) that the availability of alternative online news sources reduces susceptibility to agenda setting effects from the traditional news media. Among other things, the results show that traditional news media still exert agenda-setting influence on both the aggregate and individual levels, but that these effects are weakened by use of multiple online news media. Overall, the results suggest that a generalized “we” have not (yet) entered a new era of minimal effects, and that certain media system characteristics are likely to condition the pace of any potential transition to a new minimal effects era.
AalbergTorilCurranJames, eds. 2011. How Media Inform Democracy. A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge.
2.
AalbergTorilvan AelstPeterCurranJames. 2010. “Media Systems and the Political Information Environment: A Cross-National Comparison.” The International Journal of Press/Politics15 (3): 255–71.
3.
AllenMikePreissRaymond G.BurrellNancy. 2007. “The Challenge of Media Effects for Teaching and Policy.” In Mass Media Effects Research. Advances through Meta Analysis, ed. PreissRaymond W.GayleBarbara MaeBurrellNancyAllenMikeBryantJennings, 489–504. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
AlthausScott L.KimYoung Mie. 2006. “Priming Effects in Complex Information Environments: Reassessing the Impact of News Discourse on Presidential Approval.” The Journal of Politics68:960–76.
5.
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.
6.
ÅsardErikLanceBennett W.1997. Democracy and the Marketplace of Ideas: Communication and Government in Sweden and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
AspKent. 2011. Mediernas prestationer och betydelse [The Role and Performance of the Media]. Göteborg, Sweden: JMG/Göteborgs universitet.
8.
BennettW. LanceIyengarShanto. 2008. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication.” Journal of Communication58 (4): 707–31.
9.
BennettW. LanceIyengarShanto. 2010. “The Shifting Foundations of Political Communication. Responding to a Defense of the Media Effects Paradigm.” Journal of Communication60 (1): 35–9.
10.
BlekesauneArildElvestadEiriAalbergToril. 2012. “Tuning Out the World of News and Current Affairs—An Empirical Study of Europe’s Disconnected Citizens.” European Sociological Review28 (1) 110–126. doi:10.1093/esr/jcq051.
11.
BlumlerJayKavanaghDennis. 1999. “The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features.” Political Communication16 (3): 209–30.
12.
BoomgardenHajovan SpanjeJoostVliegenthartRensde VreeseClaes H.2011. “Covering the Crisis: Media Coverage of the Economic Crisis and Citizens’ Economic Expectations.” Acta Politica46:353–79.
BryantJenningsMironDorina. 2004. “Theory and Research in Mass Communication.” Journal of Communication54 (4): 662–704.
15.
BryantJenningsZillmannDolf. 2009. “A Retrospective and Prospective Look at Media Effects.” In The Sage Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, ed. NabiRobin L.OliverMary B., 9–17. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
16.
BulkowKristinUrbanJulianeSchweigerWolfgang. 2012. “The Duality of Agenda-Setting: The Role of Information Processing.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Online First. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds003.
17.
ChaffeeSteven H.MetzgerMiriam J.2001. “The End of Mass Communication?” Mass Communication and Society4 (4): 365–379.
18.
ColemanRenataMcCombsMaxwell. 2007. “The Young and the Agenda-Less? Exploring Age-Related Differences and Agenda Setting on the Youngest Generation, Baby Boomers, and the Civic Generation.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly84 (3): 495–508.
19.
ErbringLutzGoldenbergEdie N.MillerArthur H.1980. “Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media.” American Journal of Political Science24:16–49.
20.
EsserFrankDe VreeseClaesStrömbäckJespervan AelstPeterAalbergTorilStanyerJamesLengauerGünther. et al. 2012. “Political Information Opportunities in Europe: A Longitudinal and Comparative Study of Thirteen Television Systems.” The International Journal of Press/Politics17 (3): 247–74.
21.
FinkelSteven E.1995. Causal Analysis with Panel Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
22.
HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Three Models of Media and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HolbertR. LanceKellyGarrett R.GleasonLaurel S.2010. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? A Response to Bennett and Iyengar.” Journal of Communication60 (1): 15–34.
24.
IyengarShantoKinderDonald R.1987. News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
25.
KiousisSpiroBantimaroudisPhilemonBanHyun. 1999. “Candidate Image Attributes: Experiments on the Substantive Dimension of Second Level Agenda Setting.” Communication Research26:414–28.
26.
KiousisSpiroMaxwellMcCombs. 2004. “Agenda-Setting Effects and Attitude Strength: Political Figures during the 1996 Presidential Election.” Communication Research31:36–57.
27.
McCombsMaxwell E.2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.
28.
McCombsMaxwell E.LanceHolbert R.SpiroKiousisWantaWayne. 2011. The News and Public Opinion. Media Effects on Civic Life. Malden: Polity Press.
29.
MetzgerJ. Miriam. 2009. “The Study of Media Effects in the Era of Internet Communication.” In The Sage Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, ed. NabiRobin L.OliverMary B., 561–76. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
30.
Noelle-NeumannElisabethMathesRainer. 1987. “The ‘Event as Event’ and the ‘Event as News’: The Significance of ‘Consonance’ for Media Effects Research.” European Journal of Communication2:391–414.
31.
PerseElisabeth. 2007. “Meta-Analysis: Demonstrating the Power of Mass Communication.” In Mass Media Effects Research. Advances through Meta Analysis, ed. PreissRaymond W.GayleBarbara MaeBurrellNancyAllenMikeBryantJennings, 467–88. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
PeterJochen. 2004. “Our Long ‘Return to the Concept of Powerful Mass Media’—A Cross-National Comparative Investigation of the Effects of Consonant Media Coverage.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research16 (2): 144–68.
33.
PriorMarkus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy. How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
RoesslerPatrick. 1999. “The Individual Agenda-Designing Process. How Interpersonal Communication, Egocentric Networks, and Mass Media Shape the Perception of Political Issues by Individuals.” Communication Research26 (6): 666–700.
35.
RoesslerPatrick. 2008. “Agenda-Setting, Framing and Priming.” In The Sage Handbook of Public Opinion Research, ed. DonsbachWolfgangTraugottMichael W., 205–17. London: Sage.
36.
Roskos-EwoldsenDavid R.Roskos-EwoldsenBeverly. 2009. “Current Research in Media Priming.” In The Sage Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, ed. NabiRobin L.OliverMary B.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
37.
ShehataAdam. 2010. “Unemployment on the Agenda: A Panel Study of Agenda-Setting Effects during the 2006 Swedish National Election Campaign.” Journal of Communication60 (1): 182–203.
38.
ShehataAdam. 2012. “Programpreferenser och den svenska tv-nyhetspubliken” [Program Preferences and the Swedish Television Audience]. In I framtidens skugga, ed. WeibullLennartOscarssonHenrikBergströmAnnika. Göteborg, Sweden: SOM-institutet.
39.
SonYoung JunWeaverDavid H.2005. “Another Look at What Moves Public Opinion: Media Agenda Setting and Polls in the 2000 U.S. Election.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research18:174–97.
40.
StrömbäckJesperDjerf-PierreMonikaShehataAdam. 2012. “The Dynamics of Political Interest and News Media Consumption: A Longitudinal Perspective.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Online First. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds018.
41.
StrömbäckJesperKiousisSpiro. 2010. “A New Look at Agenda-Setting Effects—Comparing the Predictive Power of Political News Consumption and Specific News Media Consumption across Different Media Channels and Media Types.” Journal of Communication60:271–92.
42.
StrömbäckJesperNordLars. 2008. “Media and Politics in Sweden.” In Communicating Politics. Political Communication in the Nordic Countries, ed. StrömbäckJesperØrstenMarkAalbergToril, 103–21. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.
43.
StroudNatalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News. The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
TakeshitaToshio. 2005. “Current Critical Problems in Agenda-Setting Research.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research18 (3): 275–96.
45.
WillnatLars. 1997. “Agenda Setting and Priming: Conceptual Links and Differences”. In Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory, ed. McCombsMaxwellShawDonald L.WeaverDavid, pp. 51–66. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
