“What I tweet is not what I think”: towards a comprehensive multi-version two-way agenda-setting framework
OA Version
Citation
Abstract
While the traditional agenda-setting theory assumes that a unified issue salience pattern (“the agenda”) will transfer from news media to the public, the emergence of the Internet has challenged this classic communication theory in three ways: by providing two versions of the public agenda (i.e., self-reported issue importance measured by a survey versus social media expressions), by affording two versions of the media agenda (i.e., presented on news websites versus on organizations’ Twitter accounts), and by enabling potential two-way agenda-setting effects. This dissertation aims to construct a multi-version two-way agenda-setting framework via (1) elaborating on the theoretical and practical reasons behind the proposed framework and (2) empirically testing the framework by combining survey and digital texts data around the 2020 US presidential election. The results show an imbalanced two-way agenda-setting relationship, with the traditional media-to-public direction still stronger than the reverse. While the two versions of the media agenda were similar to each other, what people thought was found to be different from what they tweeted.
This dissertation also explored the moderating effects of issue-, media-, and individual-level characteristics on the direction and strength of the agenda-setting effects. The issue-wise comparison showed stronger effects in both directions among obtrusive issues, compared to non-obtrusive issues. Interestingly, traditional, non-digital-native media presented a slightly stronger two-way agenda-setting relationship between their news tweets and citizens' tweets compared to digital-native media. This difference, however, was not found in news websites. Individuals with specific characteristics, such as being females, being older, being white, as well as having lower income, lower opinion leadership, and lower social capital, were more likely to influence and be influenced by the media agendas compared to their counterparts. Also, while the well-educated population followed the agenda of news websites more closely, the group with a lower education level followed news tweets on more issues. Finally, the last chapter discusses theoretical, methodological, and practical implications.
传统的议程设置理论假设统一的议题显著性（“议程”）将从新闻媒体转移到公众心中，但互联网的出现从三个方面挑战了这一经典传播理论：通过提供两个版本的公共议程（即问卷调查中受访者自我汇报的议题重要性与社交媒体表达中体现的议题显著性），通过提供两种版本的媒体议程（即新闻网站上与在机构推特账户上展示的议题显著性），及通过使双向议程设置作用成为可能。本论文旨在通过（1）阐述所提出框架背后的理论和实践原因，（2）结合 2020 年美国大选前后的数字文本数据对该框架进行实证测试，来构建一个多版本的双向议程设置框架。本论文的结果显示了一种不平衡的双向议程设置关系：传统媒体对公众的议程设置作用（即传统议程设置方向）仍然强于反向议程设置。虽然媒体议程的两个版本彼此相似，但人们所想与他们在推特上发布的内容并不相同。 本论文还探讨了议题、媒体和个人层面特征对议程设置效果的方向和强度的调节作用。议题特征层面的比较表明，与非侵入性问题相比，侵入性问题在两个方向上都有更强的议程设置作用。有趣的是，与数字原生媒体相比，传统的非数字原生媒体在其新闻推文和公民推文之间呈现出略强的双向议程设置关系。然而，在新闻网站中没有发现这种媒体间差异。具有特定特征的个人，例如女性、年长、白人、收入较低、意见领导力较低和社会资本较低的受访者，更可能影响媒体议程并受其影响。此外，虽然受过良好教育的人群更密切地关注新闻网站的议程，但教育水平较低的人群更关注新闻推文中的议题。最后一章讨论了本论文在理论、方法和实践上的意义和贡献。
传统的议程设置理论假设统一的议题显著性（“议程”）将从新闻媒体转移到公众心中，但互联网的出现从三个方面挑战了这一经典传播理论：通过提供两个版本的公共议程（即问卷调查中受访者自我汇报的议题重要性与社交媒体表达中体现的议题显著性），通过提供两种版本的媒体议程（即新闻网站上与在机构推特账户上展示的议题显著性），及通过使双向议程设置作用成为可能。本论文旨在通过（1）阐述所提出框架背后的理论和实践原因，（2）结合 2020 年美国大选前后的数字文本数据对该框架进行实证测试，来构建一个多版本的双向议程设置框架。本论文的结果显示了一种不平衡的双向议程设置关系：传统媒体对公众的议程设置作用（即传统议程设置方向）仍然强于反向议程设置。虽然媒体议程的两个版本彼此相似，但人们所想与他们在推特上发布的内容并不相同。 本论文还探讨了议题、媒体和个人层面特征对议程设置效果的方向和强度的调节作用。议题特征层面的比较表明，与非侵入性问题相比，侵入性问题在两个方向上都有更强的议程设置作用。有趣的是，与数字原生媒体相比，传统的非数字原生媒体在其新闻推文和公民推文之间呈现出略强的双向议程设置关系。然而，在新闻网站中没有发现这种媒体间差异。具有特定特征的个人，例如女性、年长、白人、收入较低、意见领导力较低和社会资本较低的受访者，更可能影响媒体议程并受其影响。此外，虽然受过良好教育的人群更密切地关注新闻网站的议程，但教育水平较低的人群更关注新闻推文中的议题。最后一章讨论了本论文在理论、方法和实践上的意义和贡献。
Description
License
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International