Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2452-0063
  • E-ISSN: 2452-0071
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study examines the effects of both the substantive and affective dimensions of issue attributes in the news coverage of climate change on the public’s perception of the importance of this environmental issue. Results from our analysis show that the four affective dimensions (e.g., positive and negative emotions, anger, and sadness) of the three attributes (e.g., existence, effects, and solutions) exerted strong influence on public issue priority. This study extends the concept of compelling arguments in agenda setting research by suggesting that compelling arguments effects are not solely dependent on substantive attributes. Their affective dimensions are influential, as well.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, A.
    (2009) Media, politics and climate change: Towards a new research agenda. Sociology Compass, 3(2), 166–182. doi:  10.1111/j.1751‑9020.2008.00188.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Ardèvol-Abreu, A., Saldaña, M. & McCombs, M.
    (2013) Agenda-setting in the beginning of the 1979 oil crisis: compelling arguments and public concern. Paper presented to theAEJMC Annual Conference in Washington, D.C.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arlt, D., Hoppe, I., & Wolling, J.
    (2011) Climate change and media usage: Effects on problem awareness and behavioural intentions. International Communication Gazette, 73, 45–63. 10.1177/1748048510386741
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510386741 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boykoff, M. T.
    (2011) Who speaks for the climate?: Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511978586
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978586 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M.
    (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. doi:  10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boykoff, M. T., & Roberts, T. J.
    (2007) Media coverage of climate change: Current trends, strengths, weaknesses. Human Development Report, New York, NY: United Nations.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C.
    (2012) Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US, 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114, 169–188. 10.1007/s10584‑012‑0403‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y [Google Scholar]
  8. Chambers, J. M., Mallows, C. L., & Stuck, B. W.
    (1976) A method for simulating stable random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(354), 340–344. doi:  10.1080/01621459.1976.10480344
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480344 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coppersmith, G. A., Harman, C. T., & Dredze, M. H.
    (2014, June). Measuring post-traumatic stress disorder in Twitter. Presented at theInternational Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Ann Arbor, MI.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Craft, S., & Wanta, W.
    (2004) US public concerns in the aftermath of 9–11: A test of second level agenda-setting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 456–463. 10.1093/ijpor/edh039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh039 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Vreese, C., & Boomgaarden, H.
    (2003) Valenced news frames and public support for the EU. Communications, 28(4), 361–381. 10.1515/comm.2003.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.024 [Google Scholar]
  12. DiSogra, C. & Callegaro, M.
    (2009) Computing response rate for probability-based web panels. InJSM Proceedings, Survey Research Method Section. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association, 5309–5320. Retrieved fromMay 15, 2020from: www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2009/Files/305748.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H.
    (2016) The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23. doi:  10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995 [Google Scholar]
  14. Entman, R.
    (1993) Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01304.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghanem, S.
    (1997) Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. InMaxwell E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. H. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-setting Theory (pp.3–14). Malden, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Guo, L., & McCombs, M.
    (2015) The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315726540
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726540 [Google Scholar]
  17. Guo, L., Vu, H. T., & McCombs, M.
    (2012) An expanded perspective on agenda-Setting effects: Exploring the third level of agenda setting. Revista de Comunicación, 11, 51–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jasperson, A. E., Shah, D. V., Watts, M., Faber, R. J., & Fan, D. P.
    (1998) Framing and the public agenda: Media effects on the importance of the federal budget deficit. Political Communication, 15(2), 205–224. doi:  10.1080/10584609809342366
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609809342366 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kahn, J. H., Tobin, R. M., Massey, A. E., & Anderson, J. A.
    (2007) Measuring emotional expression with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. The American Journal of Psychology, 120(2), 263–286. doi:  10.2307/20445398
    https://doi.org/10.2307/20445398 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, K., & McCombs, M.
    (2007) News story descriptions and the public’s opinions of political candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(2), 299–314. doi:  10.1177/107769900708400207
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400207 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, G.
    (2010) Who let priming out? Analysis of first- and second-level agenda setting effects on priming. International Communication Gazette, 72(8), 759–776. doi:  10.1177/1748048510380814
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510380814 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C. Y., & Leiserowitz, A. A.
    (2015) Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 1014–1020. doi:  10.1038/nclimate2728
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728 [Google Scholar]
  23. Leiserowitz, A. A.
    (2005) American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1433–1442. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑6261.2005.00690
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewin, K.
    (1951) Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harpers & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, X., Lindquist, E., & Vedlitz, A.
    (2011) Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969–2005: An empirical test of agenda-setting theory, Political Research Quarterly, 64(2), 405–419. doi:  10.1177/1065912909346744
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909346744 [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu, X., Vedlitz, A., & Alston, L.
    (2008) Regional news portrayals of global warming and climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(5), 379–393. doi:  10.1016/j.envsci.2008.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lopez-Escobar, E., Llamas, J. P., McCombs, M., & Lennon, F. R.
    (1998) Two levels of agenda setting among advertising and news in the 1995 Spanish elections. Political Communication, 15(2), 225–238. doi:  10.1080/10584609809342367
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609809342367 [Google Scholar]
  28. McCombs, M. E.
    (2013) Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. McCombs, M. E., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Llamas, J. P.
    (2000) Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 77–92. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2000.tb02842.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02842.x [Google Scholar]
  30. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L.
    (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. doi:  10.1086/267990
    https://doi.org/10.1086/267990 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1993) The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58–67. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01262.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01262.x [Google Scholar]
  32. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E.
    (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. doi:  10.1111/j.1533‑8525.2011.01198.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A.
    (2012) A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 1105–1112. doi:  10.1007/s10584‑012‑0513‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pam, N.
    (April 2013a) Valence. Retrieved onJuly 4, 2019from: https://psychologydictionary.org/valence/
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (April 2013b) Affect. Retrieved onJuly 4, 2019from: https://psychologydictionary.org/affect/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E.
    (2015) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pennebaker, J. W., Slatcher, R. B., & Chung, C. K.
    (2005) Linguistic markers of psychological state through media interviews: John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, Al Gore in 2000. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 197–204. doi:  10.1111/j.1530‑2415.2005.00065.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00065.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Saldaña, M.
    (2017) Attribute agenda setting and information overload. The Agenda Setting Journal, 1(1), 23–44. doi:  10.1075/asj.1.1.04sal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/asj.1.1.04sal [Google Scholar]
  39. Saldaña, M., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A.
    (2015) From compelling arguments to compelling associations: Diagonal effects at the third level of agenda setting. InThe Power of Information Networks: New Directions for Agenda Setting. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Saldaña, M., Ardèvol-Abreu, A. & Guo, L.
    (2013) Compelling associations for understanding ‘the pictures in our heads’: A network agenda-setting study. Paper presented toMAPOR Annual Conference in Chicago, IL.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Saldaña, M., Ardèvol-Abreu, A., Guo, L., & McCombs, M.
    (2014, September). Compelling associations for addressing drug abuse and ‘war on drugs’ in the U.S.: Public opinion and agenda-setting effects. Presented at theWorld Association for Public Opinion Research (WAPOR) Annual Conference, Nice, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sampei, Y., & Aoyagi-Usui, M.
    (2009) Mass-media coverage, its influence on public awareness of climate-change issues, and implications for Japan’s national campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 203–212. doi:  10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schäfer, M. S., & Schlichting, I.
    (2014) Media representations of climate change: A meta-analysis of the research field. Environmental Communication, 8(2), 142–160. doi:  10.1080/17524032.2014.914050
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.914050 [Google Scholar]
  44. Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L.
    (2012) Political communication and influence through microblogging: An empirical analysis of sentiment in Twitter messages and retweet behavior. Inthe 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (3500–3509). doi:  10.1109/HICSS.2012.476
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.476 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W.
    (2010) The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. doi:  10.1177/0261927X09351676
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M. W., Raymond, A., & Vig, W.
    (2000) The interaction of news and advocate frames: Manipulating audience perceptions of a local public policy issue. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 804–829. doi:  10.1177/107769900007700406
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700406 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vu, H. T.
    (2015) Partisan media and their climate change agenda-setting effects on partisan publics: Examining the compelling arguments concept in the age of polarization. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
  48. Vu, H. T., Jiang, L., Chacón, L. M. C., Riedl, M. J., Tran, D. V., & Bobkowski, P. S.
    (2018) What influences media effects on public perception? A cross-national study of comparative agenda setting. International Communication Gazette, 81(6–8), 580–601. doi:  10.1177/1748048518817652
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518817652 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wanta, W., Golan, G., & Lee, C.
    (2004) Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 364–377. doi:  10.1177/107769900408100209
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100209 [Google Scholar]
  50. Watt, J. H., Mazza, M., & Snyder, L.
    (1993) Agenda-setting effects of television news coverage and the effects decay curve. Communication Research, 20(3), 408–435. doi:  10.1177/009365093020003004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365093020003004 [Google Scholar]
  51. Weber, E. U.
    (2010) What shapes perceptions of climate change?Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), 332–342. doi:  10.1002/wcc.41
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.41 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error