Agenda-setting Theory - Framing or Second-Level Agenda-Setting?

Framing or Second-Level Agenda-Setting?

As agenda setting theory has been developed, scholars pointed out attributes that describe the object. Each of the objects on an agenda has a lot of attributes containing cognitive component such as information that describes characteristics of the object, and an affective component including tones(positive, negative, neutral) of the characteristics on agenda.“Framing is a quality of communication that leads others to accept one meaning over another. It is a skill with profound effects on how organizational members understand and respond to the world in which they live. It is a skill that most successful leaders possess, yet one that is not often taught. According to Fairhurst & Sarr (1996) framing consists of three elements: language, thought and forethought.”(Fairhurst& Sarr, 1996)

McCombs et al. (1998) demonstrated that agenda-setting research at the second level deals with the influence of ‘attribute’ salience, whereas the first level agenda-setting illustrates the influence of ‘issue’ salience. Balmas and Sheafer (2010) argued that the focus at the first level agenda-setting which emphasizes media’s role in telling us "what to think about" is shifted to media’s function of telling us "how to think about" at the second level agenda-setting. The second level of agenda-setting considers how the agenda of attributes affects public opinion (McCombs & Evatt, 1995). Furthermore, Ghanem(1997) demonstrated that the certain attributes agendas in the news with low psychological distance, drove compelling arguments for the salience of public agenda. The second level agenda setting differs from traditional agenda setting in that it focus on attribute salience, and public’s attribute agenda is regarded as one of the important variables.

There is a debate over whether framing theory should be subsumed within agenda-setting as "second-level agenda-setting." McCombs, Shaw, Weaver and colleagues generally argue that framing is a part of agenda-setting that operates as a "second-level" or secondary effect. Dietram Schefuele has argued the opposite. Scheufele argues that framing and agenda-setting possess distinct theoretical boundaries, operate via distinct cognitive processes (accessibility vs. attribution), and relate to different outcomes (perceptions of issue importance vs. interpretation of news issue). According to Weaver, framing and second-level agenda setting have the following characteristics:

Similarities:

- Both are more concerned with how issues or other objects are depicted in the media than with which issues or objects are more or less prominently reported.

- Both focus on most salient or prominent aspects of themes or descriptions of the objects of interest.

- Both are concerned with ways of thinking rather than objects of thinking

Difference:

- Framing does seem to include a broader range of cognitive processes – moral evaluations, causal reasoning, appeals to principle, and recommendations for treatment of problems – than does second-level agenda setting (the salience of attributes of an object)

Based on these shared characteristics, McCombs and colleagues recently argued that framing effects should be seen as the extension of agenda setting. In other words, according to them, the premise that framing is about selecting "a restricted number of thematically related attributes" for media representation can be understood as the process of transferring the salience of issue attributes (i.e., second-level agenda setting). That is, according to McCombs and colleagues’ arguments, framing falls under the umbrella of agenda setting.

According to Price and Tewksbury, however, agenda setting and framing are built on different theoretical premises: agenda setting is based on accessibility, while framing is concerned with applicability (i.e., the relevance between message features and one’s stored ideas or knowledge). Accessibility-based explanation of agenda setting is also applied to second-level agenda setting. That is, transferring the salience of issue attributes (i.e., second-level agenda setting) is a function of accessibility.

For framing effects, empirical evidence shows that the impact of frames on public perceptions is mainly determined by perceived importance of specific frames rather than by the quickness of retrieving frames. That is, the way framing effects transpires is different from the way second-level agenda setting is supposed to take place (i.e., accessibility). On a related note, Scheufele and Tewksbury argues that, because accessibility and applicability vary in their functions of media effects, "the distinction between accessibility and applicability effects has obvious benefits for understanding and predicting the effects of dynamic information environments."

Taken together, it can be concluded that the integration of framing into agenda setting is either impossible because they are based on different theoretical premises or imprudent because merging the two concepts would result in the loss of our capabilities to explain various media effects.