Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MCCOMBS, M.
Right arrow Articles by ZHU, J.-H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

TitleCAPACITY, DIVERSITY, AND VOLATILITY OF THE PUBLIC AGENDA: TRENDS FROM 1954 TO 1994
Author(s)MAXWELL MCCOMBS, JIAN-HUA ZHU, MAXWELL MCCOMBS is the Jesse H. Jones Centennial Chair in Communication at the University of Texas at Austin, and Jian-Hua Zhu is associate professor of Communication Sciences at the University of Connecticut. The authors would like to thank Marylin Potter of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research for providing the data and the editor and three anonymous reviewers for comments on the earlier versions of the article. The study was supported by a grant to Jian-Hua Zhu from the University of Connecticut Research Foundation (no. 440632). Correspondence should be addressed to Maxwell McCombs, Department of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
IdentifiersPublic Opinion Quarterly, volume 59, page 495
Copyright© 1995, the American Association for Public Opinion Research
AvailabilityOther sites: JSTOR [No subscription required for AAPOR members] *

* For AAPOR membership information, or to login for access if already a member, please visit www.AAPOR.org.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
H. Huang
Frame-Rich, Frame-Poor: An Investigation of the Contingent Effects of Media Frame Diversity and Individual Differences on Audience Frame Diversity
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., October 22, 2009; (2009) edp024v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The Harvard International Journal of Press/PoliticsHome page
Y. Tan and D. H. Weaver
Local Media, Public Opinion, and State Legislative Policies: Agenda Setting at the State Level
International Journal of Press/Politics, October 1, 2009; 14(4): 454 - 476.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeHome page
G. W. Muschert
The Columbine Victims and the Myth of the Juvenile Superpredator
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, October 1, 2007; 5(4): 351 - 366.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
Y. Min, S. I. Ghanem, and D. Evatt
Using A Split-ballot Survey to Explore the Robustness of the 'MIP' Question in Agenda-Setting Research: A Methodological Study
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., June 1, 2007; 19(2): 221 - 236.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science polHome page
L. Marquis
Moderators of Priming Effects: A Theory and Preliminary Evidence from an Experiment on Swiss European Policy
International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science pol, March 1, 2007; 28(2): 185 - 224.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
Y. J. Son and D. H. Weaver
Another Look at What Moves Public Opinion: Media Agenda Setting and Polls in the 2000 U.S. Election
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., June 1, 2006; 18(2): 174 - 197.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The Harvard International Journal of Press/PoliticsHome page
H. Brandenburg
Who Follows Whom?: The Impact of Parties on Media Agenda Formation in the 1997 British General Election Campaign
International Journal of Press/Politics, July 1, 2002; 7(3): 34 - 54.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
S. L. Althaus and D. Tewksbury
Agenda Setting and the "New" News: Patterns of Issue Importance Among Readers of the Paper and Online Versions of the New York Times
Communication Research, April 1, 2002; 29(2): 180 - 207.
[Abstract] [PDF]