Second-Level Agenda Setting
Also known as: Attribute agenda setting, Second-level agenda-setting analysis, Attribute salience transfer, İkinci Düzey Gündem Belirleme
Second-level (attribute) agenda setting extends classic agenda-setting theory from the salience of objects — which issues or people the public thinks about — to the salience of their attributes — which characteristics the public associates with them. The method codes the attributes media emphasize when covering an object and correlates that attribute agenda with the attributes salient in public perceptions.
Key highlights
- Extends agenda setting from importance to characterization, capturing how media shape the image of objects.
- Distinguishes substantive from affective attribute agendas, offering a richer account than object salience alone.
- Bridges agenda setting and framing, providing an operational link between the two traditions.
- Applies across domains — political image, reputation, and country branding — with a consistent salience-transfer logic.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use second-level agenda-setting analysis when your interest is not whether an object is salient but which of its characteristics dominate public perception, and whether media emphasis shapes that. It suits studies of candidate image, country and corporate reputation, and issue characterization, and it pairs naturally with first-level agenda setting and framing. It assumes attributes can be reliably coded in coverage and validly elicited from the public, and that salience can be meaningfully ranked. It is less appropriate when objects lack stable attributes, when public attribute salience cannot be measured cleanly, or when you need causal proof of transfer — the correlational design shows correspondence, not causation, so experimental or over-time evidence is needed to support a media-to-public influence claim.
Strengths & limitations
- Extends agenda setting from importance to characterization, capturing how media shape the image of objects.
- Distinguishes substantive from affective attribute agendas, offering a richer account than object salience alone.
- Bridges agenda setting and framing, providing an operational link between the two traditions.
- Applies across domains — political image, reputation, and country branding — with a consistent salience-transfer logic.
- Correlational design cannot establish that media attribute emphasis causes public attribute salience.
- Defining and bounding the attribute set is judgment-laden and affects the resulting correlation.
- Overlaps conceptually with framing, prompting debate about whether attribute agenda setting and framing are distinct.
- Public attribute salience is hard to measure cleanly, especially with closed-ended scales that may impose attributes.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
What is the difference between first- and second-level agenda setting?
First-level agenda setting concerns the salience of objects — whether the public considers an issue or person important, driven by how much coverage it receives. Second-level agenda setting concerns the salience of attributes — which characteristics of that object become prominent in public perception, driven by which attributes coverage emphasizes. First level is about what to think about; second level is about how the object is characterized.
How is attribute agenda setting different from framing?
They overlap and are sometimes equated, since both concern emphasis on aspects of an object. The common distinction is mechanism: attribute agenda setting describes the transfer of attribute salience via accessibility, while framing emphasizes the applicability of considerations and the construction of interpretive packages. Many scholars treat second-level agenda setting as the salience-transfer face of framing, while others insist framing's interpretive, package-based logic is theoretically distinct from mere attribute prominence.
What are substantive and affective attributes?
Substantive (cognitive) attributes are the descriptive characteristics of an object — a candidate's issue positions, qualifications, or ideology. Affective attributes are the evaluative tone associated with the object — positive, negative, or neutral. Second-level analyses typically build separate agendas for each, because media and public can correspond strongly on one dimension and weakly on the other, and reporting them separately reveals which kind of salience transferred.
Sources
- 1.McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
- 2.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.ISBN 9780275907389
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Second-Level Agenda Setting. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/communication/second-level-agenda-setting