A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5375 |
Resumo: | 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. |
id |
RCAP_2ae0b8b252f04abe08904aeac7744e8c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/5375 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesisagenda-setting; aggregation; design choice; data analysis; data linkage; methodological artefactsThe 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.Cogitatio2022-08-31info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5375oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/5375Media and Communication; Vol 10, No 3 (2022): Enlightening Confusion: How Contradictory Findings Help Mitigate Problematic Trends in Digital Democracies; 118-1322183-2439reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5375https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5375https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5375/5375https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/downloadSuppFile/5375/2349Copyright (c) 2022 Stefan Geißinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGeiß, Stefan2022-12-20T10:58:43Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/5375Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:21:06.393747Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis |
title |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis |
spellingShingle |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis Geiß, Stefan agenda-setting; aggregation; design choice; data analysis; data linkage; methodological artefacts |
title_short |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis |
title_full |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis |
title_fullStr |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis |
title_full_unstemmed |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis |
title_sort |
A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis |
author |
Geiß, Stefan |
author_facet |
Geiß, Stefan |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Geiß, Stefan |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
agenda-setting; aggregation; design choice; data analysis; data linkage; methodological artefacts |
topic |
agenda-setting; aggregation; design choice; data analysis; data linkage; methodological artefacts |
description |
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. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-08-31 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5375 oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/5375 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5375 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/5375 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5375 https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5375 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5375/5375 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/downloadSuppFile/5375/2349 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Stefan Geiß info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Stefan Geiß |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Media and Communication; Vol 10, No 3 (2022): Enlightening Confusion: How Contradictory Findings Help Mitigate Problematic Trends in Digital Democracies; 118-132 2183-2439 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130658077933568 |