The DOI matches its Crossref record.
INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AND AGENDA MELDING: A THEORY OF SOCIAL DISSONANCE
Abstract
Many studies have established that there is a degree of audience learning from the mass media, especially of new issues entering the news. But recent studies show an agenda-setting effect at deeper levels beyond broad news categories. Audiences also absorb the attributes of news—the frames and slants in the way news is presented—and this suggests that while the mass media do not tell us what to think, the mass media do have considerable power to tell us how to think about topics, with implications for social policy. Beyond these two levels of agenda setting, however, is something more significant—agenda melding. Agenda melding argues that individuals join groups, in a sense, by joining agendas. There is a powerful impulse to affiliate with others in groups as one leaves the original family setting, and one joins these groups via media of connections, mostly other people but also other media. This paper suggests a model of agenda melding that accounts for the role of media (mass or interpersonal) in helping individuals move toward or away from groups. This attempts to build toward general social theory by suggesting the role of media in how individuals function with others in a coherent social system.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Social dissonance is proposed as an informative correlate in which individuals avoid interacting with users who do not share their values and preferences.
“De modo similar, la disonancia social es propuesta por Shaw y otros autores (1999) como un correlato informativo en el cual los individuos evitan interactuar con usuarios que no comparten sus valores y preferencias.”
From #Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales (2018) · cites this paper as Shaw et al., 1999
Agenda melding assumes that individuals are motivated to join communities with shared interests and values to avoid intellectual isolation; people meld their agendas with peers and allow social and cognitive congruence to facilitate agenda setting.
“La fusión de agenda ( agenda melding ) asume que los individuos se ven motivados a unirse a comunidades con las cuales comparten intereses y valores. Se afilian a organizaciones o pertenecen a colectivos sociales para evitar el dilema de vivir en el aislamiento intelectual. Así, las personas funden sus agendas con las de sus pares y permiten que la congruencia social y cognitiva facilite el”
From #Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales (2018) · cites this paper as Shaw, McCombs, Weaver & Hamm, 1999
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
#Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales
Calvo, E., & Aruguete, N. (2018) · InMediaciones de la Comunicación · doi:10.18861/ic.2018.13.1.2831 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaw, D. L., McCombs, M., Weaver, D. H., & Hamm, B. J.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Venue
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-03-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-24
- ISSN
- 0954-2892 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6909
- OpenAlex
- W2052262203
- Cited by
- 131
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- agenda setting, group membership, news framing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review