Media priming

Most studies and socio-psychological experiments devoted to the study of this phenomenon consider it in the context of a general model of aggression, designed to integrate the theory of priming into the theory of social learning . The general model of aggression postulates the thesis that behavior previously acquired as a result of learning can be artificially stimulated with the help of certain thoughts, emotions, or physiological states provoked by media reports. ^[1] However, in recent years, the general model of aggression has become the subject of serious criticism in relation to its (allegedly false) basic principles and insufficient evidence base. ^[3]

According to one definition, political media priming is “a process in which the media draw public attention to some issues and problems and hush up others, thereby changing the criteria by which the electorate evaluates candidates running for election.” ^[4] A number of studies have demonstrated the existence of a separate media influence plane, fundamentally different from the banal definition of the “agenda”, that is, controlling the range of issues in the focus of public attention by putting certain topics for public discussion. The first to describe this plane in 1982 was the researchers Iengar, Peters and Kinder, who created the neologism “prime effect”. ^[5] The theory of political priming is based on the assumption that people do not have sufficient knowledge about the political processes taking place in society and do not take into account all the information they have when making political decisions. Instead, people tend to take into account only the information that lies on the surface of the information field. By drawing attention to some aspects of public life at the expense of other aspects, the media can ultimately help decide to vote for a particular candidate. ^[6]

It should be noted that the theory of priming goes hand in hand with the theory of establishing an “agenda” . There are several reasons for this alliance. Firstly, according to researchers Hesty and Park, both theories are closely related to the concept of priority recollection of “noticeable” information that postulates the idea that people, when making decisions, tend to resort primarily to the information that lies on the surface. The second reason, according to Iengar and Kinder, is the thesis that priming is the second part (the first is the establishment of an “agenda”) of a long process aimed at manipulating public consciousness. First, an “agenda” is formed, then comes the priming line, through which the media can “determine the criteria by which people are guided in making political decisions.” ^[7]

While for the most part priming is an unintentional process, often the effect is used consciously to manipulate the public’s consciousness. As an example of one of the earliest cases of this practice, Jacobs and Shapiro cite the John F. Kennedy campaign during the US presidential election in 1960 . This campaign is noteworthy in that it used polls for the first time, which were subsequently integrated into Kennedy’s campaign strategy, which allowed him to change his image to meet the needs of voters. Researchers found a correlation between Kennedy's views on particular issues and the results obtained from his private polls. His campaign combined building the image of the candidate and making changes to Kennedy’s position on a number of socially significant issues that most worried voters. Despite the fact that the study does not answer the questions about how and why politicians use the results of polls to influence the decisions of voters, Jacobs and Shapiro were able to demonstrate that the effect of priming is strong enough for politicians to use it intentionally to manipulate public consciousness. ^[eight]

In 1982, Iengar, Peters, and Kinder began a study to determine the effect that deliberate media priming can have on the general public’s views on the political figure of President Jimmy Carter . According to the hypothesis put forward, the protrusion of a number of socially significant issues, such as, for example, defense and government spending, should have led to an overestimation of Carter’s electorate precisely in relation to the issues raised. This study ultimately led to the definition of concepts such as “agenda” and priming. First, Iengar and his colleagues found traces of the formation of the “agenda”. Then, the relationship between sticking out a specific political topic and the subsequent change in assessing Carter's position was revealed. Thus, the experiment indicated the potential of the media to direct public attention and influence the perception of political figures. At the same time, the Iengar team found that people with a fairly deep understanding of the ongoing political processes are less prone to the effects of priming. This led researchers to the conclusion that priming has different effects on people depending on their knowledge until they are affected. ^[five]

• Media exposure
• Fixing installation
• Frame (social sciences)

• Bruce, V., Carson, D., Burton, AM, & Kelly, S. Prime time advertisements: repetition priming from faces seen on recruitment posters. Memory and Cognition, 26, 502-515.
• Bushman, BJ (1998). Priming effects of media violence on the accessibility of aggressive constructs in memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 537-546.
• Domke, D., Shah, DV, & Wackman, DB (1998). Media priming effects: Accessibility, association, and activation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10, 51-75.
• Goidel, RK, Shields, TG, & Peffley, M. (1997). Priming theory and RAS models: toward an integrated perspective of media influence. American Politics Quarterly, 25, 287-318.
• Hetherington, MJ (1996). The media's role in forming voters' national economic evaluations in 1992. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 372-395.