IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v53y2009i4p821-837.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel S. Lenz

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 821-837, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:53:y:2009:i:4:p:821-837
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00403.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00403.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00403.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brody, Richard A. & Page, Benjamin I., 1972. "Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 450-458, June.
    2. Evans, Geoffrey, 1998. "Euroscepticism and Conservative Electoral Support: How an Asset Became a Liability," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 573-590, October.
    3. Bartels, Larry M., 1991. "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 457-474, June.
    4. Thomas M. Carsey & Geoffrey C. Layman, 2006. "Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 464-477, April.
    5. Heath, Anthony & Taylor, Bridget & Brook, Lindsay & Park, Alison, 1999. "British National Sentiment," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 155-175, January.
    6. Druckman, James N., 2004. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 671-686, November.
    7. Heath, Anthony & Evans, Geoffrey & Martin, Jean, 1994. "The Measurement of Core Beliefs and Values: The Development of Balanced Socialist/Laissez Faire and Libertarian/Authoritarian Scales," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 115-132, January.
    8. Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-438, July.
    9. Valentino, Nicholas A. & Hutchings, Vincent L. & White, Ismail K., 2002. "Cues that Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(1), pages 75-90, March.
    10. Matthew Gabel & Kenneth Scheve, 2007. "Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 1013-1028, October.
    11. Grynaviski, Jeffrey D. & Corrigan, Bryce E., 2006. "Specification Issues in Proximity Models of Candidate Evaluation (with Issue Importance)," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 393-420, October.
    12. Miller, Warren E. & Shanks, J. Merrill, 1982. "Policy Directions and Presidential Leadership: Alternative Interpretations of the 1980 Presidential Election," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 299-356, July.
    13. Gelman, Andrew & King, Gary, 1993. "Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 409-451, October.
    14. Nelson, Thomas E. & Clawson, Rosalee A. & Oxley, Zoe M., 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 567-583, September.
    15. Krosnick, Jon A. & Kinder, Donald R., 1990. "Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 497-512, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Logan Dancey & Paul Goren, 2010. "Party Identification, Issue Attitudes, and the Dynamics of Political Debate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 686-699, July.
    2. Michael MacKuen & Jennifer Wolak & Luke Keele & George E. Marcus, 2010. "Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 440-458, April.
    3. David A. M. Peterson, 2009. "Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 445-460, April.
    4. Khan, Urmee & Lieli, Robert P., 2018. "Information flow between prediction markets, polls and media: Evidence from the 2008 presidential primaries," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-710.
    5. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    6. Paul A. Djupe & Andrew R. Lewis & Ted G. Jelen & Charles D. Dahan, 2014. "Rights Talk: The Opinion Dynamics of Rights Framing," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(3), pages 652-668, September.
    7. Jürgen Maier & Berthold Rittberger & Thorsten Faas, 2016. "Debating Europe: Effects of the “Eurovision Debate” on EU Attitudes of Young German Voters and the Moderating Role Played by Political Involvement," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 55-68.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:373-380 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Jennifer Jerit, 2009. "How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 411-426, April.
    10. B. Dan Wood, 2009. "Presidential Saber Rattling and the Economy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 695-709, July.
    11. Kehrberg Jason, 2020. "Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Support for Welfare Chauvinism in the United States," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 195-212, December.
    12. Matthew Gabel & Kenneth Scheve, 2005. "Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables," Working Papers 2005-02, University of Kentucky, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.
    13. Stephen Wu, 2018. "The Effects of Cueing and Framing on Youth Attitudes towards Gun Control and Gun Rights," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Jonathan McDonald Ladd & Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift to Document the Persuasive Power of the News Media," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 394-410, April.
    15. Enrique García-Viñuela & Ignacio Jurado & Pedro Riera, 2018. "The effect of valence and ideology in campaign conversion: panel evidence from three Spanish general elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 155-179, April.
    16. Jonathan D. Caverley & Yanna Krupnikov, 2017. "Aiming at Doves," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(7), pages 1482-1509, August.
    17. James R. Tilley, 2005. "Research Note: Libertarian‐authoritarian Value Change in Britain, 1974–2001," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(2), pages 442-453, June.
    18. Emeka Nkoro & Aham Kelvin Uko, 2016. "Exchange Rate and Inflation Volatility and Stock Prices Volatility: Evidence from Nigeria, 1986-2012," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 6(6), pages 1-4.
    19. Czujack, Corinna & Flôres Junior, Renato Galvão & Ginsburgh, Victor, 1995. "On long-run price comovements between paintings and prints," FGV EPGE Economics Working Papers (Ensaios Economicos da EPGE) 269, EPGE Brazilian School of Economics and Finance - FGV EPGE (Brazil).
    20. Loperfido, Nicola, 2010. "A note on marginal and conditional independence," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(23-24), pages 1695-1699, December.
    21. KAMKOUM, Arnaud Cedric, 2023. "The Federal Reserve’s Response to the Global Financial Crisis and its Effects: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of the Impact of its Quantitative Easing Programs," Thesis Commons d7pvg, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:53:y:2009:i:4:p:821-837. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.