Agenda Setting Theory & Groupthink

Agenda Setting Theory

The idea that the media establishes an "agenda" that shapes and filters reality for the public eye

The media doesn't tell us what to think, but what to think about

3 Assumptions

1. The media establish an "agenda" that shapes and filters reality for the public

2. Media agenda—>public agenda—>policy agenda

3. The public and policy makers can also affect the media agenda

Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill voters told u what was important—->law makers put out new legislation—>public talks more about it

Watergate

Went from something no one knew about, to a small group of people knowing, to thousands of people in 1974 knowing as interviews about the situation increased drastically

Ex of Agenda Setting Theory as the press kept publicizing it

First Order Agenda Setting

The media tells us which topics we should think about.

Second Order Agenda Setting

The media then dictates which aspects of the topic are most important.

- What attributes reporters choose to focus on of the larger story

Transfer of Salience

Prominence or importance that issues/ topics/objects receive in the public's mind

is influenced by how often and with what emphasis they are presented in the media

- Transferring what they think onto the public

- If an issue is frequently and prominently covered in the media, it is likely to be perceived as important by the public

Ex: If the news repeatedly covers stories about climate change (wildfires, floods, rising temperatures), people begin to see climate change as a top issue even if it wasn't on their minds before

Object Salience

The media makes certain topics/issues/people

seem more important

- First Order Effect

Ex: During an election, if the media focuses mostly on the economy, viewers will believe the economy is the most important issue—more than, say, education or healthcare

Attribute Salience

The media emphasizes specific features/attributes/aspects of an issue

- Second Order Effect

Ex: Instead of just talking about the economy, the media might focus on the widening wage gap or job losses in the tech industry, shaping how people view economic issues

Difference between Object & Attribute Salience

OS: Which issues or topics are seen as important

- Makes people focus on what to think about

Ex: Climate change as top issue

AS: How issues or topics are presented—what features are emphasized

- Shapes how people think about the issue

Ex: Economic cost of climate change

Need For Orientation

Emerges when your uncertainty about an issue is high, and your relevance about the issue is high

Ex: A person who cares about politics (high relevance) but doesn't know much about the candidates (high uncertainty) will have a high need for orientation, and will be more influenced by media coverage

- Agenda-setting effects will be strongest when you have a high need for orientation

Gatekeepers

- How editors "make salient" certain attributes and how they can "frame" public perception

- But the internet/social media reshapes this idea

Ex: A news editor chooses to highlight crime stories over education, shaping what the public sees as important

Framing

How new stories are presented/told

- Focused on specific aspects or interpretations

- Similar to second-order agenda setting

4 Key Concepts of Framing

1. Selection

2. Emphasis

3. Elaboration

4. Exclusion

Groupthink

A way of deliberating that group members use when their desire for consensus overrides their motivation to assess all available plans of action

- Fueled by pressure to conform

- We seek to avoid conflict because that would interfere with a goal

3 Theoretical Assumptions

1. Cohesiveness

2. Unified Problem-Solving

3. Complexity

Task-Oriented Groups

Groups focused on completing a specific task or project

Ex: An event planning team organizing a school fundraiser to raise money

5 conditions producing groupthink

1. Highly-cohesive groups

2. Insulation from outside influence

3. Lack of impartiality

4. Lack of decision-making procedures

5. Homogeneity of members' backgrounds

1. Highly-Cohesive Groups

Groups with strong bonds that prioritize harmony over critical thinking

Ex: friends in a project group agree on ideas to avoid conflict, even if some ideas are flawed

5. Homogeneity

The similarity in background, values, and perspectives among group members

Ex: A team composed entirely of engineers from the same university may lack diverse viewpoints

2. Insulation from outside influence

The group ignores or avoids input from outsiders or experts

Ex: A company team makes decisions without consulting outside experts or customers, missing valuable perspectives

Problem-solving Groups

Groups formed to find solutions to specific issues or challenges

Ex: A school committee trying to reduce student tardiness

3. Lack of Impartiality

When leaders or group members favor one option and discourage fair consideration of alternatives.

Ex: The CEO wants to launch a product quickly, and no one questions it—even with missing research—because they want to avoid conflict and agree with the boss. Alternative viewpoints are dismissed or not even brought up

4. Lack of decision-making procedures

The group fails to use clear methods to evaluate options or consider alternatives

Ex: The team rushes into a plan without outlining steps, gathering feedback, or exploring other solutions

Affiliative Constraints

Social pressures that make individuals hesitant to speak out against the group to avoid damaging relationships

Ex: A junior employee stays silent during a flawed proposal meeting to avoid conflict with senior colleagues

8 Symptoms of Groupthink

1. Illusion of invulnerability

2. belief in groups morality

3. outgroup stereotypes

4. collective

rationalization

5. self-censorship

6. Illusion of unanimity

7. self-appointed mind guards

8. pressure of dissenters