Who let priming out? Analysis of first- and second-level agenda setting effects on priming

Abstract

This study examines the first- and second-level agenda setting process and priming effects in the same experimental setting. Specifically, it explores the association between the two levels of agenda setting effects and priming effects. The main purpose of the study is to determine which of the two agenda setting effects better explains priming effects by using the global warming issue as the target object. By exposing three groups of subjects, respectively, to three kinds of pseudo online newspaper (High, Medium and No Exposure) stimuli, the experiment found that even if there were two levels of agenda setting and priming effects detected, second-level agenda setting effects were more closely connected to priming effects. With regard to the relationship between agenda setting and priming effects, it is recommended that various issues beyond the environment issue, which this study took, and their attributes should be tested in order to further understand media effects.

What influences media effects on public perception? A cross-national study of comparative agenda setting

“…Besides the aggregate effects of the news media's agenda setting, researchers have also examined its psychological underpinnings, attempting to uncover the information processing paths that affect how agenda setting occurs (Lee, 2010; McCombs and Stroud, 2014). Weaver (1980)introduced the concept of need for orientation, which combines how uncertain audience members feel about issues in the news and how relevant they find the issues to be.…”

Priming as a Process and as a Function in Agenda Setting

“…For example, Lee (2010) connected Kinder (1987) to McCombs' (2004) typology of agenda setting and placed priming in the evaluative dimension. According to McCombs, one of the levels of agenda setting affects the direction of opinions people form, and based on Iyengar and Kinder's work assign the role of "opinions organizer" to priming.…”

“…This concept also has become an indispensable part of the agenda setting approach. Over the years, priming was shown to lead to undeniable effects and certain efforts were made to clarify this concept, and to show how it works (Carpentier, 2014;Kim, Han, Choi, & Kim, 2012;Lee, 2010;McCombs, 2013, to name a few). Despite this progress, priming was mostly analyzed as an extension of agenda setting, not as an independent model.…”

“…The definitional and conceptual confusion in the way priming is addressed in the media effects literature hampers further progress as manifested by the inconclusive debate between agenda setting and framing scholars (Ghanem, 1997;Scheufele, & Tewksbury, 2007;Ghanem, McCombs, & Chernov, 2009;Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Iyengar, 2016). While previous studies found additional manifestations of priming effects as the result of media use ( Carpentier, 2014;Kim, Han, Choi, & Kim, 2012;Lee, 2010), they consider priming as a result of accessibility or perceived importance, but do not theorize about it as a self-contained theoretical concept having clear procedural borders between triggering media primes and subsequent evaluations. Psychology and media priming studies have evolved beyond accessibility and included judged usability (Higgins, 2014) and mental representations ).…”

Kandidaten-Priming in Wahlkämpfen: Ein Mehrebenenmodell zum Einfluss des politischkommunikativen Kontexts und der moderierenden Wirkung von Individualmerkmalen

“…B. Iyengar et al 1982;Iyengar et al 1984;Valentino 1999;Miller u. Krosnick 2000;Valentino et al 2002;Holbert et al 2003;McGraw u. Ling 2003;Holbrook u. Hill 2005;Lee 2010) und Feldstudien (z. B. de Vreese 2004;Togeby 2007;van der Brug et al 2007;Valenzuela 2009;Kim et al 2010;Smith u. Tolbert 2010) als auch in Zeitreihenanalysen auf der Aggregatebene (z.…”