The need for orientation towards news media: Revising and validating a classic concept

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 422-444

  Matthes, Jörg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845269129     PISSN: 09542892     EISSN: 14716909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edh118     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. American Association for Public Opinion Research (2000). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR.
2. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: Small Waters.
3. Atkin, C. (1973). Instrumental utilities and information seeking. In P. Clark (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 205-242). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
4. Benton, M., & Frazier, P. J. (1976). The agenda-setting function of the mass media at three levels of information-holding. Communication Research, 3, 261-274.
5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
6. Breckler, S. J. (1990). Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology: Cause for concern? Psychological Bulletin, 107, 260-273.
7. Cacioppo, J. T.; Petty, R. E.; Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. J. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
8. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
9. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.
10. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non-normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.
11. Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12. Demers, D. P., Craff, D., Choi, Y.-H., & Pession, B. M. (1989). Issue obtrusiveness and the agenda-setting effects of national network news. Communication Research, 16, 793-812.
13. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457.
14. Erbring, L., Goldenberg, E. N., & Miller, A. H. (1980). Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science, 24, 16-49.
15. Gabler, S., & Häder, S. (2002). Idiosyncrasies in telephone sampling - the case of Germany. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 339-345.
16. Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 62-72.
17. Gold, M. S., Bentler, P. M., & Kim, K. H. (2003). A comparison of maximum-likelihood and asymptotically distribution-free methods of treating incomplete nonnormal data. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 47-79.
18. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communications sciences. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551.
19. Hügel, R., Degenhardt, W., & Weiß, H.-J. (1989). Structural equation models for the analysis of the agenda setting process. European Journal of Communication, 4, 191-210.
20. John, O. P., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2004). Revision und Validierung einer Skala zur Erfassung von Vertrauen in Journalismus [Revising and validating a scale for the measurement of trust in journalism]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 52, 377-385.
22. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. London: Guilford.
23. López-Escobar, E, Llamas, J. P., & McCombs, M. (1998). Agenda setting and community consensus: First and second level effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10, 335-348.
24. MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modification in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490-504.
25. McCombs, M. E. (2004). Setting the agenda: The news media and public opinion. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
26. McCombs, M. E., & Ghanem, S. I. (2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives of media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 67-81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. McCombs, M. E., López-Escobar, E., & Llamas, J. P. (2000). Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 77-92.
28. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
29. McCombs, M. E., & Weaver, D. H. (1973). Voters' need for orientation and use of mass communication. Presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association. Montreal, Canada.
30. McCombs, M. E., & Weaver, D. H. (1985). Toward a merger of gratifications and agenda setting research. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research (pp. 95-108). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
31. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19-30.
32. Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 622-647.
33. Peter, J. (2003). Country characteristics as contingent conditions of agenda setting: The moderating influence of polarized elite opinion. Communication Research, 30, 683-712.
34. Rössler, P. (1999). The individual agenda-designing process. Communication Research, 26, 666-700.
35. Rössler, P., & Schenk, M. (2000). Cognitive bonding and the German reunification: Agenda-setting and persuasion effects of mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 29-47.
36. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.
37. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297-316.
38. Schönbach, K., & Weaver, K. (1985). Finding the unexpected: Cognitive building in a political campaign. In S. Kraus & R. M. Perloff (Eds.), Mass media and political thought: An information-processing approach (pp. 157-176). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39. Shaw, D. L., & McCombs, M. E. (1977). The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press. St. Paul: West Publishing.
40. Shaw, D. L., McCombs, M. E., Weaver, D. H., & Hamm, B. J. (1999). Individuals, groups, and agenda melding: A theory of social dissonance. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11, 2-24.
41. Swanson, D. L. (1988). Feeling the elephant: Some observations on agenda-setting research. Communication Yearbook, 11, 603-619.
42. Takeshita, T. (2006). Current critical problems in agenda-setting research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 275-296.
43. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology - combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage.
44. Wanta, W. (1997). The public and the national agenda: How people learn about important issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Wanta, W., & Wu, C.-C. (1992). Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting process. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 847-855.
46. Weaver, D. H. (1977). Political issues and voter need for orientation. In D. L. Shaw & M. E. McCombs (Ed.), The emergence of American public issues (pp. 107-120). St. Paul, MN: West.
47. Weaver, D. H. (1980). Audience need for orientation and media effects. Communication Research, 3, 361-376.
48. Weaver, D. H., Graber, D. A., McCombs, M. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). Media agenda-setting in a presidential election: Issues, images, and interest. New York: Praeger.
49. Weaver, D. H., McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (2004). Agenda-setting research: Issues, attributes, and influences. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), The handbook of political communication research (pp. 257-283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2000). Analysis and design for nonexperimental data: Addressing causal and noncausal hypotheses. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 412-450). New York: Cambridge University Press.
51. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables. Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Winter, J. P. (1981). Contingent conditions in the agenda-setting process. In G. C. Wilhoit & H. deBock (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook 2 (pp. 235-243). Beverly Hills, CA: Praeger.
53. Yagade, A., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). The media agenda-setting effect of concrete versus abstract issues. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 3-10.