-Maxwell MeCombs

Agenda Setting
Functionof
MassMedia
Public relations practitioners have long attempted to persuade publics through mass
l'I1edia campaigns. Social scientists, likewise, have searched for the most persuasive mix
of l'I1essages and media. Most of this research, however, indicates that the media
s~~om change attitudes and behavior, and that persuasion is, therefore, an unrealistic
o tectiue for a media campaign.
Led by Maxwell McCombs, the author of this article, communication researchers
have discovered a logical and more realistic effect of media : While the media do not
~1l peo!'le what to think, they tell people what to think about. That is, the media
~ ete~me which issues-and which organizations-will be put on the public agenda
/t.r dlS~ussion. In this article, McCombs summarizes research on agenda-setting and
en dIScusses its implications for public relations.
McCombs holds a Ph.D. in Mass Communication Research from Stanford Uni-
ve .
r~lty, and is cu"ently John Ben Snow Professor of Newspaper Research at Syracuse
lJntversity.

M ost early behavioral science research on the effects of communication

fOCUsed on attitudes and behavior. We know the general outcome of
~hat line of inquiry, which dominated mass communication research in the
..9405 and 1950s; an outcome succinctly summed up in Hope Klapper's phrase,
the law of minimal consequences." While enuciation of that "law" settled the
Illat~er for some persons, there remained others who for a wide variety of
iotlYes and reasons continued to harbor the suspicion that mass cornmunica-
lO~ could have significant and profound social effects.
Since attitudes and overt behavior can be considered the final Jinks in a
~q~ence beginning with awareness and knowledge, recent research into the
s?C1al impact of mass communication has focused its attention there. In hind-
fIght, it is now clear that the early research strategy of primarily striking
t~rther along this sequence in the search for mass media effects was too ambi-
ef~us and too radical. Recent research which has restricted its attention to the
eets of the mass media on awareness and knowledge has documented a
-------------------------------
89
 P ..bU" Relations Review
broad array of significant findings. Considering that the overt goals of mass
communication are primarily to inform and to entertain, the fact that the mass
media have more impact on awareness and knowledge than on attitudes and
overt behavior is not that surprising.
In one regard, the fact that the mass media have major influence on aware-
ness of public issues and other major social topics is a truism. For the most
part, the objects which are the focus of public attention and public opinion are
not experienced firsthand by most members of the public. Recall that the open-
ing chapter of Walter Lippmann's classic book, Public Opinion, is entitled "the
World Outside and The Pictures in Our Heads." As Lippmann observed, that
part of our behavior pertinent to public opinion is, for the most part, a re-
sponse to the pictures in our heads shaped by mass media coverage of the
world outside.
Recent behavioral science research has begun to detail the pervasiveness of
this mass media influence on public attention. Through their day-by-daY
selection and display of the news, the mass media shape our perspectives of the
world and focus our attention, influencing our views about what are the im-
portant topics of the day. It is this ability of the press to influence the perceived
salience of topics that has come to be called the agenda-setting function of the
press. In short, while the press may not tell us what to think, it is stunningly
successful in telling us what to think about.
Through its patterns of selection and play of the daily news, the press pre-
sents the public a continuous stream of cues about the relative importance of
various topics and events. Newspapers clearly communicate salience through
page placement, headline size, and the amount of space accorded an item·
Television news formats also provide cues about the relative salience of neWS
events.
The idea of an agenda-setting function of mass communication is an asser-
tion that the audience learns these saliences from the mass media, incorporat-
ing a similar set of weights into their own personal agendas. Agenda-setting is
a relational concept specifying a positive relationship between the emphaseS
of the news media and the perceived importance of these topics to the neWs
audience.
Establishing these saliences among the public, placing an issue or topic on
the agenda so that it becomes the focus of public attention, thought, and dis-
cussion, is the first stage in the formation of public opinion. Consideration of
public opinion usually focuses on the distribution of opinions pro and con
once an issue is before the public. Agenda-setting directs our attention to an
earlier stage in the public opinion process, the stage at which an issue emerge5ci
At this point of initial emergence and opinion formation, policymakers an
planners still have numerous options at hand. Once an issue is highly salient
and opinions are largely shaped, public relations may be limited to a defen-
sive posture or a redundant "me too-ism." Effective public relations requires
lead time, and opportunities to communicate before an issue is approaching
its zenith. Knowledge of the agenda-setting process and its role in the forrn~­
tion of public opinion can provide these opportunities for effective publiC
relations at the time issues are first emerging on the public agenda.

90
 Agenda Setting Funetlon Of Mass Media
Detailing the Concept
To fully understand the role of the agenda-setting function of the press in
the formation of public opinion, it is necessary to examine four major facets
of this idea in detail. Here we will examine:
• the nature of the public agenda;
• the nature of the mass media agendas;
• the time-lag between the appearance of items on the press agenda and
their later appearance on the public agenda;
• the exact nature of the relationship between the mass media and public
agendas.

Public Agendas
In considering the public agenda-those issues or topics in the forefront of
Public attention and concern-it is important to make several distinctions.
First, for each individual we must distinguish between the intrapersonal
agenda-those things which are personally most important to the individual-
and the interpersonal agenda-those things which the individual discusses
most often with others.
While there is considerable overlap between the contents of these two
agendas, it is far from perfect. 1 Many topics of major concern to an individual
~ay never show up as prominent topics of discussion with friends or family.
t ~~versely, a great deal of the content of daily conversation focuses on the
thnVt~1 and topics of passing moment, not the abiding issues and concerns of
ehme.
Beyond these personal agendas, each individual also perceives a community
agenda-those things which he or she believes to be the major concerns of the
]>rnrnunity in which he resides." Our experience during the 1976 elections
I Ustrates the divergence between personal agendas and perceived community
agendas. Among our random sample of respondents in New Hampshire, for
~:rnpl~, f~w persons listed taxes as a major personal concern, altho~gh ~e
c t maJonty told us that taxes were the major concern of most voters In their
ortununity
a So Weneed to distinguish three different public agendas-those issues which
ire personally most important; those issues discussed most often; and those
;~~f perceived as important in the community. Each involves a different
ic relations goal.

Media Agendas
p While most researchers have used quite straight-forward content analysis
tvrh~~dures to define the agenda of the mass media, there is the question of
fa rc . mass media to include. Most studies have used a mix of media, the
co~ntes.bei~g television and newspapers because they are the dominant mass
A rn~nlcahon channels for news.
m . t fIrst, television and newspapers were used in tandem as simply two
ajar news outlets. But recent work has begun to outline distinct agenda-set-
---~---------------=:-
91
 P ..bUc Relations Review
ting roles for television and newspapers. In other words, television and news-
paper impact are not simple replicates of each other.
For example, Shaw and McCombs found a major agenda-setting role on
political issues for newspapers and only a minor role for TV.' The gist of that
evidence shows that newspapers are the prime movers in organizing the public
agenda. They largely set the stage of public concern. But television news is not
wholly without influence. It has some short-term impact on the composition
of the public agenda. Perhaps the best way to describe and contrast these in-
fluences is to label the role of the newspaper as agenda-setting and the role of
television as spotlighting. The basic nature of the agenda seems often to be set
by the newspapers, while television primarily reorders or rearranges the top
items on the agenda.

Time-lag
This description of the roles played by newspapers and television brings US
to the third question: what is the time-lag between the appearance of an item
on the press agenda and the appearance of that item on the public agenda7
Our best evidence to date suggests that a three to five month process, on the
average, is involved in the agenda-setting influence of the press. & That, of
course, is an average. A few issues and topics move almost instantaneously
from the press to the public agenda. Others, like Watergate, take a long period
of incubation before they appear on the public agenda in any strength. In Our
detailed analysis of the 1972 Presidential election, voter concerns of the early
fall largely reflected press coverage of the late spring and early summer. One
of our continuing concerns in this research is to identify the variations in this
learning process among news audiences.
This question about the time-lag in the movement of topics from the press
agenda to the public agenda helps answer an additional question about the
extent of agenda-setting. The concept of agenda-setting is not pertinent to
every issue or concern which a society confronts. There clearly are boundaries
to agenda-setting, defined in part by journalism's view of the nature of neWs
and in part by the tenure of that news.
First of all, mass communication agendas and, hence, the agenda-set tin8
influence, are limited to that range of topics considered newsworthy. For
many topics the press will play no role at all in bringing them to public con-
sciousness. Second, if the newsworthy aspects of a topic or concern do not
persist over time, the press is unlikely to play any significant agenda-set tin8
role. The three to five month average lag in time reflects a continuing, long~
term influence process, one of slow accretion, not rapid "Ah Hal" effects. So.
a topic does not stay in the news over a considerable period of time, there IS
likely to be little impact on the public agenda .

Relationship of Mass Media Agenda and Public Agenda

So far I have spoken of agenda-setting without completely specifying the
precise nature of the relationship between the mass media agenda and the

92
 Agenda Setting Funetlon or Mass Media
-
public agenda. But there are at least three different ways to describe this
agenda-settinginfluence. I
The simplest version is awareness. Here the description is simply one of
aWareness versus ignorance. As stated previously, this basic notion of agenda-
Setting is a truism. If the media tell us nothing about a topic or event, then in
Illost cases it simply will not exist on our personal agendas.
However, the concept of agenda-setting, as it has been empirically de-
veloped, urges a more detailed version, namely that among the many topics
lhansmitted by the media, the same order of priorities will be transferred from
lhe media agenda to the public agenda. In short, we judge as important what
t e media judge important.
Intermediate between the awareness and the priorities versions is an agenda-
sett~ng effect we might label salience: heavy media emphasis on an issue or
tO~lC can move it into the top ranks of the personal agendas of the audience.
T~IS .version of agenda-setting extends beyond sheer simple awareness. A dis-
~hlmmation is made by the audience as to high and low importance items, but
e exact priorities of the media are not reproduced within personal agendas.
So there are at least three ways to describe the relationships between media
~gendas and public agendas. To date most of the research has used the priori-
lesmodel, the most radical of these three statements of press influence.
T~ this point I have talked primarily about the influence of the press on the
P~bl~c agenda of issues . But the concept of agenda-setting is not limited to the
r1 ahonship between the salience of issues in the mass media and the salience
Of ~hose issues to the audience. In addition to providing cues about the salience
~ . ISSues, the mass media also provide cues about the salience of various at-
~bhtes or facets of those issues. Not every attribute of an issue, idea, or event
III t ~ news is considered newsworthy. Among those attributes selected for
thentIon in the news, all are not accorded equal treatment. Just as the issues in
f e news have different saliences, the attributes of those issues also have dif-
erent saliences.
ce A study of a local environmental issue-development of a lake area in
th~tral .Indiana-found public views highly correlated with press coverage of
Co Jan?~s facets of the controversy.' The salience of these facets-sewage,
stan ~rnmlums, new roads, tourism, etc.-among citizens correlated sub-
nhally with the coverage of these topics in the local press.
M~othel' study of a national issue-the economy-among residents of
Cotnneapolis, Minnesota also found substantial correlations between press
t
Wi;h r 8e and the salience among the public of specific proposals for dealing
seeu ! e economic situation-tax rebates, gasoline rationing, changes in SOCIal
nty, etc.'
no~n ~ort, the.concept of an agenda-setting function of mass communication
of isa y descnbes the influence of the press in determining the general array
howSUeshconsidered by the public, this concept also details an influence on
influences
eac of these issues is structured. In abstract terms, the press not only
of th which objects are on the agenda it also influences which attributes
_____oseob'leas are on the agenda. '

93
 PublJe RelatIons RevIew
Summing Up
-
As a behavioral process, agenda-setting is the transfer of saliences from one
communicator to another. In its original formulation agenda-setting was con-
cerned with the transfer of issue saliences from a mass medium to individuals
in the audience. The saliences of the press are its professional evaluations of
what are the most important topics of the day. The saliences of the public are
its psychological perceptions of the most important topics and issues of the
times. But as we have seen, agenda-setting is not limited to the transfer of issue
saliences from the news media to its audience. This transfer of salience, or
achieved consensus on salience, can involve any dyad involved in a coat-
munication situation, and it can involve the salience of objects and their at-
tributes other than public issues.
In large part, the concept of agenda-setting is transferable to so many coat-
munication situations because it comes to grips with the very essence of the
news and journalistic function played by mass communication. Agenda-set-
ting illuminates the signal function of news, what Lasswell in 1948 called the
surveillance function of communication. As part of that signal or surveillanc~
function, journalism is our social radar constantly scanning the environm etl
for the objects or events intruding into the community's life space.'
To fully understand how surveillance and signalling, narrowly defined, are
the essence of journalism, it is useful to recall sociologist (and former jOurn~l­
ist) Robert E. Park's' classification of news as a form of knowledge, dist~:
guishing between two fundamental types: "acquaintance with" and "knowf
edge about". As Park, and more recently, Roshco.v observed: the essence 0
news and journalism is "acquaintance with".
This also is what agenda-setting is about. Unlike other communication col'\"
cepts which are concerned with "knowledge and opinion about", agend~;
setting focuses on "recognition of" and "acquaintance with". Implicit in thi
"cognizance of" is the perception of the salience of the item.
Dealing with a more simple form of information, acquaintance with, thf
agenda-setting process extends public opinion theory into an earlier phase 0
behavior. To visualize the full public opinion process, imagine a curve repee;
senting the rise and fall of an issue across time. Undoubtedly, many diffe~tla
curves represent the topics of public opinion . Some rise and fall rapidly ~n e
short period of time. Others rise slowly over long periods of time to aC~l~
great heights and then diminish. There may be many such curves descrJ~J1le
the strength (represented by the height of the curve) and endurance across ~ se
(represented by the breadth of the curve) of public issues. But most of t t~YI
curves attain significant height before opinions exist, or more impo:ta n itt-
scientific observations and measures are made of these opinions. Pubhc oJ y.
ion polls, for example, measure opinions on the most salient topics of theC:ial
In other words, the polls measure topics after they are established on the s ceo
n
agenda, after the topic has passed some threshold of salience and importa the
While our research now often examines agendas of established issues, the
essence of the agenda-setting process is the initial movement of items o~

94
 Agenda Setting Funetlon or Mass Jledla
-
genda. That is the point in the public opinion process where there is both the
PPortunity and the need for effective public relations efforts.

Footnotes
'Maxwell McCombs, "A Comparison of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Agendas of Public
lUes," paper presented to the International Communication Assoc., New Orleans, 1974.
· lJack Mcleod, L. B. Becker, and J. E. Byrnes, "Another Look at the Agenda-Setting Function
· the Press:' Communication Research 1 (1974): pp, 131-166; Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann,
urbulences in the Climate of Opinion: Methodological Application of the Spiral of Silence
leory, " Public Opinion Quarterly 41 (1977): pp . 143-158.
'Donald Shaw and Maxwell McCombs, The Emergence of American Political lssues: The
r~da-Setting Function of the Press (St. Paul : West Publishing Co. , 1977).
'Maxwell McCombs and Henry Schulte, "The Expanding Domain of the Agenda-Setting Func-
:n of Mass Communication," paper presented to the World Association for Public Opinion
search, Montreaux, Switzerland, 1975; Shaw and McCombs, op, cit.
'Shaw and McCombs, op. cit.
· I£)~vid Cohen, "A Report on a Non-Election Agenda-Setting Study," paper presented to the
'SOciation for Education in Journalism, Ottawa, Canada, 1975.
~arc Benton and P. J. Frazier, ''The Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media at Three
ve of Information-Holding," Communication Research 3 (1976): pp. 261-274.
U~arold Lasswell, "The Structure and Function of Communication in Society," reprinted in
rbur Schr~l1\m and Donald Roberts (eds.) , The Process and Effects of Mass Communication
ana : University of llIinois Press, 1971}, pp . 84-99.
t~)Ohert E. Park, "The National History of the Newspaper:' American Journal of Sociology 29
: Pp. 273-289.
"Bernard Roshco, NltDsmaking (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975).

95