The Importance of Attention Diversity and How to Measure It

Studies of political attention often focus on attention to a single issue, such as front-page coverage of the economy. However, examining attention without accounting for the agenda as a whole can lead to faulty assumptions. One solution is to consider the diversity of attention; that is, how narrowly or widely attention is distributed across items (e.g., issues on an agenda or, at a lower level, frames in an issue debate). Attention diversity is an important variable in its own right, offering insight into how agendas vary in their accessibility to policy problems. Yet despite the importance of attention diversity, we lack a standard for how best to measure it. This paper focuses on the four most commonly used measures: the inverse Herfindahl Index, Shannon’s H, and their normalized versions. We discuss the purposes of these measures and compare them through simulations and using three real-world datasets. We conclude that both Shannon’s H and its normalized form are better measures, minimizing the danger of spurious findings that could result from the less sensitive Herfindahl measures. The choice between the Shannon’s H measures should be made based on whether variance in the total number of possible items (e.g., issues) is meaningful.

[1]  James N. Druckman,et al.  The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence , 2008 .

[2]  Preferences Scientific Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. , 1982 .

[3]  George J. Stigler,et al.  Economic competition and political competition , 1972 .

[4]  Martin Guha,et al.  The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements , 2004 .

[5]  Jeffery C. Talbert,et al.  Southern Political Science Association Setting the Legislative Agenda : The Dimensional Structure of Bill Cosponsoring and Floor Voting , 2007 .

[6]  Amber E. Boydstun,et al.  The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence: Contents , 2008 .

[7]  How Many Parties ? A More Sensitive Approach to Measuring the Effective Number of Parties , 2013 .

[8]  Adam Sheingate Structure and Opportunity: Committee Jurisdiction and Issue Attention in Congress , 2006 .

[9]  Sarah Binder Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock , 2003 .

[10]  E. López-Escobar,et al.  Candidate Images in Spanish Elections: Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effects , 1997 .

[11]  S. Iyengar Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[12]  L. Jost Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. , 2007, Ecology.

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[14]  Gregory R. Thorson Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock , 2005, The Journal of Politics.

[15]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[17]  Arieh Ben-Naim,et al.  Entropy Demystified: The Second Law Reduced To Plain Common Sense , 2007 .

[18]  E. E. Schattschneider The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America , 1960 .

[19]  Rein Taagepera,et al.  “Effective” Number of Parties , 1979 .

[20]  Sandy Lovie Shannon, Claude E , 2005 .

[21]  Virginia Gray,et al.  The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States , 1996 .

[22]  R. Taagepera Supplementing the effective number of parties , 1999 .

[23]  William A. Gamson,et al.  Movements and Media as Interacting Systems , 1993 .

[24]  W. Heath The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , 2008 .

[25]  Joost Berkhout,et al.  The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems , 2008 .

[26]  B. Jones,et al.  Agendas and instability in American politics , 1993 .

[27]  J. Peter,et al.  Agenda rich, agenda poor: A cross-national comparative investigation of nominal and thematic public agenda diversity , 2003 .

[28]  W. Riker The art of political manipulation , 1987 .

[29]  M. McCombs,et al.  CAPACITY, DIVERSITY, AND VOLATILITY OF THE PUBLIC AGENDA TRENDS FROM 1954 TO 1994 , 1995 .

[30]  B. Jones,et al.  The Evolution of Legislative Jurisdictions , 2000, The Journal of Politics.

[31]  Jian-Hua Zhu,et al.  Issue Competition and Attention Distraction: A Zero-Sum Theory of Agenda-Setting , 1992 .

[32]  Bryan D. Jones,et al.  Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance , 2001 .

[33]  Michael Vitale,et al.  The Wisdom of Crowds , 2015, Cell.

[34]  C. Annesley,et al.  Investigating the Economic Determinants of the UK Gender Equality Policy Agenda , 2013 .

[35]  Amber E. Boydstun Making the News: Politics, the Media, and Agenda Setting , 2013 .

[36]  Herschel F. Thomas,et al.  EVALUATING THE BREADTH OF POLICY ENGAGEMENT BY ORGANIZED INTERESTS , 2012 .

[37]  Will Jennings,et al.  Comparative Political Studies , 1999 .

[38]  R. Rose,et al.  Inheritance in public policy : change without choice in Britain , 1994 .