Media Priming of Presidential and Group Evaluations

Abstract

Abstract Research on media priming largely has been limited to examining the impact of policy issue concerns on evaluations of presidents and other prominent politicians. The goal of this study was to explore the possibility of priming effects in evaluations of political groups, specifically feminists. We conducted an experiment to compare the conditions under which priming of presidential (Clinton) and group (feminists) evaluations was more or less likely to occur. A number of robust and theoretically meaningful priming effects occurred when the president was the target of judgment, these results clarifying and expanding our understanding of principles suggested in earlier scholarship (e.g., involving issue responsibility, issue novelty, political knowledge, and media trust). In contrast, priming of the group evaluations did not occur under any conditions. We conclude with a discussion of when and why priming of group evaluations and priming of presidential evaluations are likely to diverge.