Page 19 - Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research

8 McCOMBS AND REYNOLDS

makes a valuable contribution to understanding the dynamics of agenda-
setting. From a scholarly viewpoint, evidence generated by both the nat-
ural history and cognitive portrait perspectives are absolutely necessary
for a detailed how and why explanation of agenda-setting. But the ulti-
mate goal of agenda-setting theory returns us to the competition perspec-
tive, which provides a comprehensive view of mass communication and
public opinion in communities and nations.

NEED FOR ORIENTATION

The news media are not the only source of information or orientation to
issues of public concern. Issues can be arrayed along a continuum ranging
from obtrusive (those issues that we experience personally) to unobtru-
sive (those issues that we know about only through the media).
For example, people do not need the mass media to alert them to many
aspects of the economy. Personal experience usually informs people about
pricing patterns at Christmas or about rising gas prices. These are obtru-
sive features of the economy. Other economic issues, however, are not
experienced personally. Typically, the mass media inform us about
national trade deficits or balancing the national budget. These are unob-
trusive issues, which we encounter only in the news and not in our daily
lives. Some issues can be both obtrusive and unobtrusive, depending on
individual circumstances. Unemployment is a good example. People who
have never faced unemployment as a reality would view the issue as
unobtrusive. But for workers who have been laid off or for anyone who
has filed an unemployment claim, the issue is obtrusive. Their under-
standing of unemployment is firsthand.
Broad portraits of the agenda-setting role of the media reveal strong
effects for unobtrusive issues and no effects for obtrusive issues (Weaver
et al., 1981; Winter & Eyal 1981; Zucker, 1978). More narrowly focused
studies based on precise measures of where an issue falls on the contin-
uum for each individual show similar results (Blood, 1981).
The concept of need for orientation provides an even richer theoretical
explanation for variability in the agenda-setting process than simply clas-
sifying issues along the obtrusive/unobtrusive continuum. Need for ori-
entation is based on psychologist Edward Tolman’s general theory of cog-
nitive mapping (McGuire, 1974; Tolman, 1932, 1948), which suggests that
we form maps in our minds to help us navigate our external environment.
His notion is similar to Lippmann’s concept of the pseudoenvironment.
The need for orientation concept further suggests that there are individual
differences in the need for orienting cues about an issue and in the need
for detailed background information about an issue.