PropertyValue
?: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. (xsd:string)
?:author
?:comment
  • (GLES) (xsd:string)
?:dataSource
  • GLES-Bibliography (xsd:string)
?:dateCreated
  • 12. Fassung, Dezember 2022 (xsd:gyear)
?:dateModified
  • 2022 (xsd:gyear)
?:datePublished
  • 2022 (xsd:gyear)
?:doi
  • 10.17645/mac.v10i3.5375 ()
?:duplicate
?:fromPage
  • 1 (xsd:string)
is ?:hasPart of
?:inLanguage
  • english (xsd:string)
?:isPartOf
?:issn
  • 2183-2439 ()
?:issueNumber
  • 3 (xsd:string)
is ?:mainEntity of
?:name
  • A Matter of Perspective? The Impact of Analysis Configurations on Testing the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis (xsd:string)
?:publicationType
  • article (xsd:string)
?:reference
?:sourceInfo
  • Bibsonomy (xsd:string)
  • In Media and Communication, 10(3), 1-15, 2022 (xsd:string)
?:studyGroup
  • German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) (xsd:string)
?:tags
  • 2022 (xsd:string)
  • CCBY (xsd:string)
  • FDZ_Wahlen (xsd:string)
  • GLES (xsd:string)
  • GLES_input2022 (xsd:string)
  • GLES_pro (xsd:string)
  • GLES_version12 (xsd:string)
  • OA_SSOAR (xsd:string)
  • OAproved (xsd:string)
  • SCOPUSindexed (xsd:string)
  • SSCIindexed (xsd:string)
  • article (xsd:string)
  • german (xsd:string)
  • indexproved (xsd:string)
  • jak (xsd:string)
  • review_proved (xsd:string)
  • reviewed (xsd:string)
  • transfer22 (xsd:string)
  • zsextract (xsd:string)
?:toPage
  • 15 (xsd:string)
rdf:type
?:uploadDate
  • 22.12.2022 (xsd:gyear)
?:url
?:volumeNumber
  • 10 (xsd:string)