This dissertation investigates the relative agenda-setting power of candidates and the news media during political campaigns. Its objective is three-fold: To determine whether one group of elites-candidates or journalists-is more successful than the other in shaping public opinion about important political problems; to examine how agenda-setting effects vary according to an election's issue context; and to determine how individual-level factors shape a person's susceptibility to candidate or media influence. A laboratory experiment, to be conducted during the early stages of the 2006 Texas gubernatorial election, will be used to test a series of hypotheses related to the project's objectives. Subjects will be exposed to varying levels of candidate and media communications on different issues, with the perception of important problems measured before and after the experiment. The results will provide insight into the real-world effects of the avalanche of political information voters face during contemporary American campaigns
The effect on voters of candidate communications and news coverage has been a source of scholarly scrutiny for decades. Little research, however, has sought to compare the influence that candidates and journalists have on citizens' perceptions of important national problems. This is an important omission for three reasons. First, campaigns can be seen as contests by candidates to frame political discourse in electorally advantageous ways. Their ability to win this battle is contingent upon their preferred issue agenda taking hold in the public mind, but they must contend with the news media's frequent reluctance to focus on those same topics. Second, the relative agenda-setting power of each is likely to vary across elections, depending on whether candidate and media agendas converge or diverge. This matters because studies show that the amount of agenda convergence fluctuates substantially from campaign to campaign. Third, the susceptibility of individuals to candidate or media agenda setting should vary, depending on partisan attachments and trust in the news media. While each has received attention in other forums, there has been a dearth of systematic investigation into how these attributes make individuals more or less receptive to candidate or media communications. This project is designed to shed light on these critical issues.
Broader impact: The study of candidate communications and media coverage of political campaigns has never been more important than it is today. Billions of dollars are spent by candidates each election cycle, and the proliferation of cable television shows and news on the Internet has presented voters with a dizzying array of political information. It is imperative that scholars understand how this new media environment shapes public opinion of important problems, which can have a massive impact on lawmaking and governance. Furthermore, this study helps bridge the gap between the fields of political science and communication. Scholars from the two disciplines often talk past one another, failing to leverage the accumulated knowledge each field has produced. Some of the most fruitful work in political communication of late has emerged when the twin perspectives have come together. This project is designed to continue in that tradition and help make the study of political communication more theoretically robust and empirically rigorous.
