Priming Effect

Cognitive basis

The term priming comes from cognitive psychology. In an experiment by Higgins and colleagues (1977), participants who first saw positive words such as adventurous rated the ambiguous behavior of the same person more positively, while those who saw words such as reckless rated it more negatively. Recently activated concepts become easier to retrieve, and people judge using whatever comes to mind easily rather than weighing all information, a principle similar to the availability heuristic.

Media priming and presidential evaluations

Iyengar and colleagues (1982) and Iyengar and Kinder (1987) showed participants TV newscasts edited to emphasize particular issues such as defense, inflation or the environment. Participants not only came to see those issues as more important (agenda setting) but also gave more weight to the president's performance on them in overall evaluations. Krosnick and Kinder (1990) reported survey evidence that after the Iran-Contra revelations, evaluations of President Reagan depended more on Central American intervention than on the economy. Miller and Krosnick (2000) found that priming was actually stronger among politically knowledgeable people who trusted the media.

Related concepts and critiques

Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) argued that agenda setting and priming are close because both rest on issue accessibility, whereas framing works through applicability, depending on how an issue is characterized. Lenz (2009), meanwhile, argued that much of the apparent priming in earlier studies may reflect people learning candidates' positions from coverage or changing their issue opinions. Questions also remain about whether laboratory effects appear in real environments where many media compete.

FAQ

What is the priming effect in simple terms?

When the news covers a problem often, people judge politicians more by how well they handled that problem, because they use standards that come to mind easily.

How does priming differ from agenda setting?

Agenda setting changes what people think are the most important problems, while priming makes those highlighted problems the standards for evaluating politicians or policies. Priming can be seen as an extension of agenda setting.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 141–154. The cognitive basis of priming: category accessibility.
2. Iyengar, S., Peters, M. D., & Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the "not-so-minimal" consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review, 76(4), 848–858. The first experimental evidence of TV news priming.
3. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The landmark book on agenda setting and priming.
4. Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 497–512. Survey evidence from the Iran-Contra revelations.
5. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 301–315. Priming is strongest among knowledgeable citizens who trust the media.
6. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. Distinguishes priming from agenda setting and framing.
7. Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 821–837. A critique arguing apparent priming reflects learning and opinion change.