NAS: Networks, connections, and associations - deep stuff to get your message across

NAS: Networks, connections, and associations – deep stuff to get your message across

Karmen Kert

16.09.2016

So, what is NAS? 

NAS is a network agenda setting model, which says that media create network agendas by associating multiple messages, issues, concepts, people and ideas with each other, which in turn guide people to make similar connections. This model gives a more realistic picture of how our social reality is actually constructed and how elements in this reality are more inter-connected than it was hitherto recognised. These elements, or “nodes”, can be words, objects, people, schemas, frames etc. Basically, the logic behind this concept is that by persistently co-mentioning different nodes, public will start to associate these co-mentioned nodes as interrelated.

A bit about research

Guo and Vargo (2015) tested this model using 2012 US elections as a case study. Nodes used for this research were issues (e.g. economy, taxes etc.). To prove this theory they compared how media (tweets from traditional media), both campaigns (tweets from both camps) and citizens (tweets from liberal and conservative Twitter users) connected cluster of issues to Obama and Romney. By constructing issue ownership networks (candidate + issues) of all three groups they were able to compare which network agenda – either from campaigns or media – had stronger effect on public opinion.

Traditional media still rules 

Although not surprising, it is still worth mentioning that traditional media (probably because of the symbolic power it still holds) took superiority over campaign agenda, by having more substantial effect on citizens’ association of issues with candidates.

Networks – what was found?

They discovered that media and campaigns do have an effect on the creation of networks that shape citizens perception of social reality. Also, as expected, various issues were not only connected to both candidates but were also linked to each other. However with each candidate the way issues were interconnected differed: e.g. both Obama and Romney were connected to a one issue via different issues or, as authors put it, using issue “bridges”. An example might clear this up:

When Romney was connected to jobs and unemployment through issues like taxes and foreign affairs, Obama was associated with those topics via energy and healthcare.

Another example from another research by Sheet and Rowling (2015) makes a further case for the possible effects of co-mentioning certain issues and words. They showed that during 2008 campaign Obama refrained from using certain words together to avoid being connected to issues that spoke to the minority of the electorate only: e.g. he eschewed creating links between race and controversial terms like slavery and discrimination, and instead concentrated on connecting race to a broader term “nation”.

La-di-da...but why is it important?

I believe this knowledge gives PR practitioners freedom to be more creative when constructing messages. According to NAS model you can create entire network of ideas to surround your product, politician etc. However, that information should also make practitioners beware that by mere co-mentioning can create not only positive associations but also negative ones.

Ergo be creative yet cautious when composing a message.

Karmen Kert, Master student in Political Communication at University of Amsterdam, and avid fanatic of US politics.