The document summarizes several key mass communication theories including agenda-setting, priming, framing, elaboration likelihood model, and third-person effects. It discusses how agenda-setting research examines how media influence public salience and perception of issues. Priming extends this to include evaluation standards and voting behavior. Framing looks at how language and schemas shape audience interpretation. The elaboration likelihood model examines central and peripheral message processing. Third-person effects propose people see media as influencing others more than themselves.

1. Mass Communication
Theories

2. Agenda Setting
 First Level (McCombs & Shaw, 1972):
 “The mass media set the agenda of issues…by influencing the
salience of issues” among audiences (McCombs & Reynolds,
2002, p. 2).
 Second Level (Becker & Mccombs, 1978; Weaver, McCombs,
& Spellman, 1975)
Increasing media coverage of an attribute of an issue or person leads
the increase of perceived importance of the attribute in the public
mind.
 Criticism (particularly focusing on the first level):
Lack of “content-oriented observations” (Edelstein, 1993, p. 86; also
Chaffee & Wilson, 1977; Kosicki, 1993; Swanson, 1988; Weis, 1992)
Lack of cognitive examination (Lang & Lang, 1982)
 Lack consistence in variables operationalization (Becker, 1982)

3. Priming
 Political Science research (Iyengar & Kinder, 1991):
Media coverage primes an issue and puts it as a criterion
for public to evaluate a politician's performance (a
temporal extension of agenda-setting)
The dependent variable of agenda-setting was extended
to from perceived importance and evaluation standard to
voting behavioral intentions (Sheafer & Weimann, 2005).
 Psychology research (Josephson, 1987):
Violent television viewing elicits the audience's
aggression.

4. How McCombs Connect
Agenda-Setting and Priming
From
McCombs &
Reynolds,
2002, p. 11.
Using the
term of
priming
defined by
political
science
research

5. Framing
 Framing analysis (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Goffman,
1974; Pan & Kosicki, 1993):
Identifying frames and framing devices
 Framing effects:
Psychology research (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981): a plan of
killing 400 vs. a plan of saving 200
Political science research (Iyengar, 1991; Druckman, 2001,
2004): Episodic frames vs. Thematic frames; Logically (but not
transparent) equivalent statements generating different
responses
Communication research (Scheufele, 1999; Price &
Tewksbury, 1997; Shen, 2005): different news frames generate
different audience interpretations and attitudes.

6. Debate between Agenda-
Setting and Framing Effects
 Agenda-setting researchers believe that agenda-setting
research, particularly the second level, includes framing
effects research with agenda-setting research
(McCombs & Shaw, 1993; Craft & Wanta, 2003)
 Framing researchers believe that framing research
studies language (Pan & Kosicki, 1993) and Schema
(Kosicki, 1993). It has a different underlying
psychological mechanism (Scheufele, 2000) and
dependent variable (Edy & Meirick, 2007).
 The consensus tends to be that the three processes are
not identical but similar and that uniting the three
theories may benefit understanding of news media
effects (Benoit & Holbert, 2010).

7. An attempt of integration
From Yao (2008), p.102.

8. Elaboration Likelihood Model
(Cacioppo & Petty, 1979,1985; Petty, Priester, & Brinol,
2002)
 Basic concepts:
Elaboration = Motivation * Capability
 Predictions:
Central route (processing high elaboration messages):
focusing on argument quality, and generating long-term
attitude changes.
Peripheral route (processing low elaboration messages):
focusing on message heuristics such as source credibility,
cues, and the ways of presentations. Generating short-
term attitude changes.

9. Third Person Effects
 Third-person effects (Davison, 1983):
People tend to perceive media coverage of (socially
undesirable) issues as having greater influence on others
than on the self. They also tend to propose remediation
based on such perceptions.
 First person-effects (Davison, 1996; Golan & Day, 2008):
People tend to perceive media coverage of socially desirable
issues as having greater influence on the self than on others.
 Presumed media effects (Gunther & Storey, 2003; Tal-
Or, Cohen, Tsfati, & Gunther, 2010):
People can make decisions and take actions based on their
perceived media power on others.

10. Reference
Becker, L. (1982). The mass media and citizen assessment of issue importance: A reflection on
agenda-setting research. In D. Whitney & E. Wartella (eds.) Mass communication review yearbook
(3rd ed, pp. 521-536). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Becker & McCombs. (1978). The role of press in determining voter reaction to presidential
primaries. Human Communication Research, 4, 301-307.
Benoit, W., & Holbert, R. (2010). Political communication. In C. Berger, M. Roloff, & D.
Roskos-Ewoldsen (eds). The Handbook of communication science (2nd ed, pp.437-452).
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1979). The effects of message repetition and position on cognitive
response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1985). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: The role of
message repetition. In L. Alwitt & A. mitchell (eds.) Psychological processes and advertising
effects: Theory, research, and application (pp. 91-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chaffee, S., & Wilson, D. (1977). Media rich, media poor: Two studies in diversity in agenda
holding. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 466-476.
Craft, S., & Wanta, W. (2003). U. S. public concerns in the aftermath of 9-11: A test of second
level agenda-setting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 456-463.
Davison, W. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-
15.
Davison, W. (1996). The third-person effect revised. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 8(2), 113-119.
Druckman, J. (2001). On the limits of faming effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics,
63, 1041-1066.
Druckman, J. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the
(ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
Edelstein, A. (1993), Thinking about the criteria variable in agenda-setting research. Journal of
Communication, 43, 85-99.
Edy, J., & Meirick, P. (2007). Wanted, dead, or alive: Media frames frame adoption, and support
for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57, 119-141.

11. Reference (Con’t)
Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power:
An constructional approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
Goffman, E. (1974). Framing analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press.
Golan, G.J. & Day, A.G. (2008) “The First-Person Effect and Its Behavioral Consequences: A
New Trend in the Twenty-Five-Year History of Third-Person Effect Research.” Mass
Communication and Society, 11(4), 539-556.
Gunther, A., & Storey. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication,
53(2), 199-215.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1991). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Josephson, W. (1987). Television violence and children’s agresssion: Testing the rpiming, social
script, and disinhibition predictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 882-890.
Kosicki, G. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of
Communication, 43, 100-127.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. (1993). Framing analysis: An apporach to news discourse. Political
Communication, 19, 55-76.
Price , V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of throught: The impact of news
frames on reader’s cognitive response. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.
McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2002). News influence on our pictures of the world. In J. Bryant
& D. Zillmann (eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp.1-18). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 36: 176-187.

12. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five
years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43, 58-67.
Yao, Q. J. (2008). Exploring the social, dynamics in the U.S. democracy: Presidential and
public opinions about, and media coverage of environmental issues (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from: http://udini.proquest.com/view/exploring-the-social-dynamics-in-
goid:304459472/
Scheufele. D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication. 49(1),
103-122.
Scheufele, D. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at
cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297-316.
Sheafer & Weimann, (2005). Agenda-building, agenda-setting, priming, individual voting
intentions, and the aggregated results: An analysis of four Israel elections. Journal of
Communication, 55, 347-365.
Shen, F. (2005). Effects of news frames and schemas on individuals’issue interpretations and
attitudes. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 400-416.
Swanson, D. (1988). Feeling the elephant: Some observations on agenda-setting research. In J.
Anderson (ed.) Communication yearbook (11th ed. Pp. 603-619). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tal-Or, Cohen, Tsfati, & Gunther. (2010). Testing causal direction in the influence of
presumed media influence. Communication Research, 37(6), 801-824.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of
choices. Science, 30, 453.
Weaver, McCombs, & Spellman. (1975). Watergate and the media: A case study of agenda-
setting. American Politics Quarterly, 3, 458-472.
Weis, H. (1992). Public issues and argumentation structures: An approach to the study of the
contents of media: Agenda-setting. In S. Deetz (ed). Communication yearbook (15th ed, pp.
374-396). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Reference (Con’t)