dc.contributor.author | Geiß, Stefan | de |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-07-24T08:32:02Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-07-24T08:32:02Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | de |
dc.identifier.issn | 2183-2439 | de |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/87883 | |
dc.description.abstract | The media's capacity to stimulate public concern and create a common ground for issues can counteract the fragmentation of society. Assessing the intactness of the media's agenda-setting function can be an important diagnostic tool for scholars. However, the manifold design choices in agenda-setting research raise the question of how design choice impacts analysis results and potentially leads to methodological artefacts. I compare how the choice between 20 plausible analysis configurations impacts tests of the agenda-setting hypothesis, coefficients, and explanatory power. I also explore changes in agenda-setting effect size over time. I develop a typology of analysis configurations from five basic study design types by four ways of linking content analysis to survey data (5 × 4 = 20). The following design types are compared: three single-survey/between designs (aggregate-cross-sectional, aggregate-longitudinal, and individual-level) and two panel-survey/within designs (aggregate-change and individual-change). I draw on the German Longitudinal Election Study data (2009, 2013, and 2017). All 20 tests of the agenda-setting hypothesis support the hypothesis, independent of the analytical configuration used. The choice of analysis configuration substantially impacts the coefficients and explanatory power attributed to media salience. The individual-level analyses indicate that agenda-setting effects became significantly weaker at later elections, though not linearly. This study provides strong empirical support for the agenda-setting hypothesis independent of design choice. | de |
dc.language | en | de |
dc.subject.ddc | Publizistische Medien, Journalismus,Verlagswesen | de |
dc.subject.ddc | News media, journalism, publishing | en |
dc.subject.other | agenda-setting; data analysis; data linkage; design choice; methodological artefacts | de |
dc.title | A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis | de |
dc.description.review | begutachtet (peer reviewed) | de |
dc.description.review | peer reviewed | en |
dc.identifier.url | https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5375 | de |
dc.source.journal | Media and Communication | |
dc.source.volume | 10 | de |
dc.publisher.country | PRT | de |
dc.source.issue | 3 | de |
dc.subject.classoz | Kommunikatorforschung, Journalismus | de |
dc.subject.classoz | Communicator Research, Journalism | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Aggregation | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | aggregation | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Aggregatdatenanalyse | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | aggregate data analysis | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | agenda setting function | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | agenda setting function | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Selektion | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | selection | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Nachrichten | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | news | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | öffentliche Meinung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | public opinion | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Medien | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | media | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Wirkung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | effect | en |
dc.rights.licence | Creative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0 | de |
dc.rights.licence | Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 | en |
internal.status | formal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossen | de |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10034716 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10034711 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10063282 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037471 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10052870 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10052047 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10035302 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037483 | |
dc.type.stock | article | de |
dc.type.document | Zeitschriftenartikel | de |
dc.type.document | journal article | en |
dc.source.pageinfo | 118-132 | de |
internal.identifier.classoz | 1080406 | |
internal.identifier.journal | 793 | |
internal.identifier.document | 32 | |
internal.identifier.ddc | 070 | |
dc.source.issuetopic | Enlightening Confusion: How Contradictory Findings Help Mitigate Problematic Trends in Digital Democracies | de |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5375 | de |
dc.description.pubstatus | Veröffentlichungsversion | de |
dc.description.pubstatus | Published Version | en |
internal.identifier.licence | 16 | |
internal.identifier.pubstatus | 1 | |
internal.identifier.review | 1 | |
internal.dda.reference | https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/oai/@@oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/5375 | |
ssoar.urn.registration | false | de |