Determinants of Key Paradigms in Media Effects Research

Download paper
Ivan Yu. Podolian

PhD student at the Chair of Media Theory and Economics, Faculty of Journalism, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia


Section: Discussion

The article is devoted to the conceptual differences in explanatory models applied to the mechanisms of media influence on the audience (media effects) by the researchers working within three key paradigms of social sciences: constructivist, cognitivist and critical one. The author has developed a generalizing classification of the key conceptual determinants (distinguishing features) of the constructivist, cognitive and critical approaches (sub-directions) within the study of media effects. This classification can be used by researchers as a tool that simplifies navigation in an ever-increasing volume and diversity of scientific publications in this area, which, in turn, can contribute to the integration of scientific discussion about media effects and help to overcome the crisis state of this area of research.

Keywords: media effects, agenda setting, framing, paradigm
DOI: 10.30547/vestnik.journ.2.2021.181199


Arceneaux K., Nickerson D. W. (2009) Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re Analysis of 11 Field Experiments. American Journal of Political Science 53 (1): 1–16. DOI:

Blumer H. (1971) Social Problems as Collective Behavior. Social problems 18 (3): 298–306.

Cacciatore M. A., Scheufele D. A., Iyengar S. (2016) The End of Framing as We Know it... and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Communication and Society 19 (1): 7–23. DOI:

Cohen B. C. (2015) Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton University Press.

D’angelo P. (2002) News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A Response to Entman. Journal of Communication 52 (4): 870–888. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02578.x

Entman R. M. (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. DOI:

Gamson W. A. (1985) Goffman’s Legacy to Political Sociology. Theory and Society 14 (5): 605–622.

Giles D., Shaw R. L. (2009) The Psychology of News Influence and the Development of Media Framing Analysis. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 3 (4): 375–393. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00180.x

Gitlin T. (1980) The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left. Univ. of California Press.

Goffman E. (1974) Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press.

Jeffres L. W. (2015) Mass Communication Theories in a Time of Changing Technologies. Mass Communication and Society 18 (5): 523–530. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1065652

Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect Theory: an Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47 (2): 263–291.

Katz E., Lazarsfeld P. F. (1966) Personal Influence. The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Transaction Publishers. DOI:

Klapper J. T. (1960) The Effects of Mass Communication. Free Press.

Kosicki G. M. (1993) Problems and Opportunities in Agenda Setting Research. Journal of Communication 43 (2): 100–127.

Lakatos I. (1976) Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In S. G. Harding (eds.) Can Theories be Refuted? Netherlands: Springer. Pp. 205–259.

Lang K., Lang G. E. (1968) Politics and Television. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.

Lang A. (2013) Discipline in Crisis? The Shifting Paradigm of Mass Communication Research. Communication Theory 23 (1): 10–24. DOI:

Lazarsfeld P., Merton R. K. (1948) Mass Communication, Popular Taste and Organized Social Action. In P. Marris, S. Thornham (eds.) Media Studies: A Reader. 2nd ed. Pp. 18–30.

Lazarsfeld P. F. (1958) Academic Mind. Free Press.

Lazarsfeld P. F., Berelson B., Gaudet H. (1968) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign. Columbia University Press.

Lippman W. (1922) Public Opinion. Harcout, Brace.

Lippmann W. (1927) The Phantom Public. Transaction Publishers. Livingstone S. (1996) On the Continuing Problems of Media Effects Research. In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch (eds.) Mass Media and Society. 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold. Pp. 305–324.

Lowery S., DeFleur M. L. (1995) Milestones in Mass Communication Research: Media Effects. New York: Longman.

McCombs M. (2005) A Look at Agenda Setting: Past, Present and Future. Journalism studies 6 (4): 543–557. DOI:

McCombs M. E., Shaw D. L. (1972) The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public opinion quarterly 36 (2): 176–187. DOI: 10.1086/267990

McCombs M. (1997) New Frontiers in Agenda Setting: Agendas of Attributes and Frames. Mass Communication Review 24 (1–2): 32–52.

Megwa E. R., Brenner D. J. (1988) Toward a paradigm of media agenda setting effect: Agenda setting as a process. Howard Journal of Communications 1 (1): 22–43. DOI:

Price V., Cappella J. N. (2002) Online Deliberation and Its Influence: the Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. IT & Society 1 (1): 303–329. DOI:

Price V., Tewksbury D., Powers E. (1997) Switching Trains of Thought: the Impact of News Frames on Readers’ Cognitive Responses. Communication Research 24 (5): 481–506. DOI: 10.1177/009365097024005002

Reeves B., Thorson E. (1986) Watching Television: Experiments on the Viewing Process. Communication Research 13 (3): 343–361. DOI:

Rosengren K. E. (1993) From Field to Frog Ponds. Journal of Communication 43 (3): 6–17. DOI:

Semetko H. A., Valkenburg P. M. (2000) Framing European Politics: a Content Analysis of Press and Television News. Journal of Communication 50 (2): 93–109. DOI:

Shaw D. L., McCombs M. E. (1977) The Emergence of American Political Issues: the Agenda-Setting Function of the Press. West Group.

Trumbo C. (1995) Longitudinal Modeling of Public Issues: an Application of the Agenda-Setting Process to the Issue of Global Warming. Journalism and Communication Monographs 152.