Σύγκριση μεθόδων

	Network Agenda-Setting	Ανάλυση Καθορισμού Ατζέντας
Πεδίο	Communication	Σπουδές Μέσων Επικοινωνίας
Οικογένεια	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Έτος προέλευσης	2011	1972
Δημιουργός	Lei Guo & Maxwell McCombs	Maxwell McCombs, Donald Shaw
Τύπος	Network-analytic extension of agenda-setting theory	Empirical method for studying how media coverage affects issue salience and public concern
Θεμελιώδης πηγή	Guo, L. (2012). The application of social network analysis in agenda-setting research: A methodological exploration. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 616–631.	McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
Εναλλακτικές ονομασίες	Network agenda setting model, Third-level agenda setting, NAS model, Ağ Gündem Belirleme	agenda-setting theory, media agenda analysis, issue salience
Συναφείς	4	5
Σύνοψη	Network agenda-setting (NAS), also called third-level agenda setting, extends classic agenda-setting theory by proposing that news media transfer to the public not only the salience of issues (first level) and of attributes (second level), but the very web of associations among issues and attributes. Introduced by Lei Guo and Maxwell McCombs, the method represents the media agenda and the public agenda as networks and tests whether the media's bundling of elements is reproduced in the public's mind.	Agenda-Setting Analysis is an empirical method for investigating the influence of media coverage on what issues the public considers important. Developed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw (1972), the approach tests a core hypothesis about media effects: media coverage does not tell people what to think, but rather what to think about. By comparing the issues receiving media coverage with the issues the public identifies as important, researchers measure agenda-setting effects—the degree to which media attention predicts public concern. The method demonstrates media's power to structure the hierarchy of issues, even when media may not directly persuade on specific issues.