his or her views about the candidate’s political party from personal experience and knowledge. That is, if individuals do not complete their information pictures from vertical sources, they must get information from other sources, namely personal interactions with others, to paint a complete personal picture. The information from all three sources accounts for 100 percent of what individuals know, or 1.00 in the ACA formula. To estimate the relative power of vertical media, horizontal media, and personal experiences and perspectives, the vertical media correlation is subtracted from the value of 1.00 (which, by definition, accounts for everything individuals know) to get the horizontal media and personal portion of agendas. This figure is then squared to account for variance. The act of squaring allows formula users to weigh them proportionally. The square is then added to the vertical media correlation squared and the results subtracted from 1.00. The resulting number is the ACA. Three examples follow that illustrate how the formula works. In the first example (see figure 4), if a public opinion poll indicated a high correlational agreement between the vertical media and general public at .80, that would mean up to .20 of media influence came from elsewhere, probably from horizontal media, other people, or personal experience. These are assumptions of the formula that attempt to account for all informational and experiential knowledge. Thus, the ACA formula for the group represented by the .80 correlational poll would look like this equation: ACA = 1 - [(.80)2 + (1 - .80, or .20)2] ACA = 1 – (.64 + .04) ACA =.32 Even with this relatively high hypothetical correlation (ρ = .80), there is evidence that horizontal media and personal experience play a role. If, for example, the correlation between traditional media and audiences were a perfect 1.00, then the traditional media’s agenda would determine the issues their audiences think about. The ACA formula would result in zero. That would mean that if audiences knew what traditional media were saying, analysts could predict what audiences would regard as important. In fact, that would seldom happen. This is not North Korea. It is not 1984.14 In the second hypothetical example (see figure 4), let us imagine the agreement is .50. In this case, 1.0 ACA = 1 – [(.50)2 + (1 – .50, or .50)2] Correlations 0.8 0.6 0.4 Example 1 Example 3 Example 2 ACA = .50 Example 1 Example 3 0.2 Example 2 Example 3 Example 1 0.0 Dominant community stability Transitional community Vertical agenda Horizontal agenda ACA= 1- (.25+.25) Alternative community Finally, in the third example (see figure 4), if the traditional correlational agreement was low, at .20, then, ACA =1 – [(.20)2 + (1 .20, or .80)2] Personal preferences ACA = 1- (.04 + .64) Figure 4. Dynamics of Agendamelding and Civic Balance 22 ACA = .32 November-December 2015 MILITARY REVIEW