Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis

Gabriel Lenz

American Journal of Political Science · 2009 · 410 citations · 51 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Campaign and news media messages have long been thought to prime voters by shifting issue importance, but alternative explanations have been underexplored. This study reexamines four alleged priming cases using panel data to compare priming with alternative explanations. The authors show that media exposure informs voters about party positions, which then leads them to adopt those positions, creating a false appearance of priming. The analysis finds little evidence of true priming effects across the four cases.

Abstract

According to numerous studies, campaign and news media messages can alter the importance individuals place on an issue when evaluating politicians, an effect called priming. Research on priming revived scholarly interest in campaign and media effects and implied, according to some, that campaigns and the media can manipulate voters. There are, however, alternative explanations for these priming findings, alternatives that previous studies have not fully considered. In this article, I reanalyze four cases of alleged priming, using panel data to test priming effects against these alternatives. Across these four cases, I find little evidence of priming effects. Instead, campaign and media attention to an issue creates the appearance of priming through a two‐part process: Exposing individuals to campaign and media messages on an issue (1) informs some of them about the parties’ or candidates’ positions on that issue. Once informed, (2) these individuals often adopt their preferred party's or candidate's position as their own.

References

51