Editing Agenda-setting theory (section)

==== Third-level agenda-setting: network agenda setting model ====
The most recent agenda-setting studies explore "the extent to which the news media can transfer the salience of relationships among a set of elements to the public".<ref name="McCombs-2014">{{Cite journal|title = New Directions in Agenda-Setting Theory and Research |last1 = McCombs |first1 = Maxwell E. |last2 = Shaw |first2 = Donald L. |last3 = Weaver |first3 = David H. |date = November 2014 |journal = Mass Communication & Society | pages = 781–802 |doi=10.1080/15205436.2014.964871 |volume=17|issue = 6 |s2cid = 144332317 }}</ref> That is, researchers assume that the media can not only influence the salience of certain topics in public agenda, but they can also influence how the public relate these topics to one another. Based on that, Guo, Vu and McCombs (2012)<ref name="Guo-2012">{{Cite journal|title = An Expanded Perspective on Agenda-Setting Effects. Exploring the Third Level of Agenda Setting |last1 = Guo |first1 = Lei |last2 = Vu |first2 = Hong Tien |last3 = McCombs |first3 = Maxwell |date = December 2012 |journal = Una Extensión de la Perspectiva de los Efectos de la Agenda Setting. Explorando el Tercer Nivel de la Agenda Setting | pages = 51–68}}</ref> bring up a new theoretical model called Network Agenda Setting Model, which they refer to as the third-level agenda-setting. This model shows that "the news media can bundle sets of objects or attributes and make these bundles of elements salient in the public's mind simultaneously".<ref name="Guo-2012" /> In other words, elements in people's mind are not linear as traditional approaches indicate.<ref name="Guo-2012" /> Instead, they are interconnected with each other to make a network-like structure in one's mind, and if the news media always mention two elements together, the audience will "perceive these two elements as interconnected".<ref name="Guo-2012" />

===== The dimension of emotion =====
According to the theory of affective intelligence, "emotions enhance citizen rationality". It argues that emotions, particularly negative ones, are crucial in having people pay attention to politics and help shape their political views.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Marcus |first1=George E. |title=Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment |last2=Neuman |first2=W. Russel |last3=MacKuen |first3=Michael |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-226-50469-8 |location=Chicago}}</ref> Based on that, Renita Coleman and H. Denis Wu (2010)<ref name="Coleman-2010">{{Cite journal |last1=Coleman |first1=Renita |last2=Wu |first2=H. Denis |date=Summer 2010 |title=Proposing Emotion as a Dimension of Affective Agenda Setting: Separating Affect into Two Components and Comparing Their Second-Level Effects |journal=Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly |volume=87 |issue=2 |pages=315–327 |doi=10.1177/107769901008700206 |s2cid=144596947}}</ref> study whether the TV portrayals of candidates impacts people's political judgment during the [[2004 United States presidential election|2004 U.S. presidential Election]]. They find that apart from the cognitive assessment, which is commonly studied before, emotion is another critical dimension of the second-level affects in agenda-setting.<ref name="Coleman-2010" /> Three conclusions are presented: the media's emotional-affective agenda corresponds with the public's emotional impressions of candidates; negative emotions are more powerful than positive emotions; and agenda-setting effects are greater on the audiences' emotions than on their cognitive assessments of character traits.<ref name="Coleman-2010" />