Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-zlj4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-25T23:27:53.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Priming effects during the financial crisis: accessibility and applicability mechanisms behind government approval

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2014

Adam Shehata*
Affiliation:
Information Technology and Media – Media and Communication, Sundsvall, Sweden
Kajsa Falasca
Affiliation:
Information Technology and Media – Media and Communication, Sundsvall, Sweden

Abstract

This study investigates priming effects during the global financial crisis that erupted in September 2008. Using two longitudinal data sources on public opinion dynamics in Sweden between 2007 and 2010, we find no evidence of a basic priming hypothesis. Drawing upon the distinction between accessibility and applicability mechanisms, however, additional analysis indicates that priming of economic considerations was moderated by citizens’ attributions of responsibility for current economic developments. These results support the notion of priming as a two-step process, whereby heavy news coverage of the financial crisis increases the accessibility of economic considerations among the audience, but whether these considerations are used in government approval assessments depends on their perceived applicability as well.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aalberg, T. and Curran, J. (2011), How Media Inform Democracy: A Comparative Approach, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Althaus, S.L. and Kim, Y.M. (2006), ‘Priming effects in complex information environments: reassessing the impact of news discourse on presidential approval’, Journal of Politics 68(4): 960976.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J. (2000), ‘Economic voting and political context: a comparative perspective’, Electoral Studies 19(2): 151170.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., Behr, R. and Iyengar, S. (1993), The Media Game: American Politics in the Television Age, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Asp, K. (2011), Mediernas prestationer och betydelse: valet 2010, Göteborg: Institutionen för journalistik, medier och kommunikation.Google Scholar
Boomgaarden, H.G., van Spanje, J., Vliegenthart, R. and de Vreese, C.H. (2011), ‘Covering the crisis: Media coverage of the economic crisis and citizens’ economic expectations’, Acta Politica 46(4): 353379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. and Golder, M. (2006), ‘Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses’, Political Analysis 14(1): 6382.Google Scholar
Carpentier, F.R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. and Roskos-Ewoldsen, B.B. (2008), ‘A test of the network models of political priming’, Media Psychology 11(2): 186206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domke, D., Shah, D.V. and Wackman, D.V. (1998), ‘Media priming effects: accessibility, association, and activation’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 10(1): 5174.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. (2005), ‘Media matter: how newspapers and television news cover campaigns and influence voters’, Political Communication 22(4): 463481.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. (2012), ‘The politics of motivation’, Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 24(2): 199216.Google Scholar
Falasca, K. (2013), Framing the financial crisis: political actors’ influence on frame building in the news media. Paper presented at the International Communication Association’s 63rd Annual Conference, June 17–21, London.Google Scholar
Färm, K.-A., Jendel, L. and Nord, L. (2012), Mediebevakningen av finanskrisen, Sundsvall: DEMICOM.Google Scholar
George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hallin, D.C. and Mancini, P. (2004), Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hellwig, T. (2007), ‘Economic openness, policy uncertainty, and the dynamics of government support’, Electoral Studies 26(4): 772786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, M.J. (1996), ‘The media’s role in forming voters’ national economic evaluations in 1992’, American Journal of Political Science 40(2): 372395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E.T. (1996), ‘Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience’, in Higgins E.T.K. and Arie W. (eds) Handbook of basic principles, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 133168.Google Scholar
Higgins, E.T. and Brendl, C.M. (1995), ‘Accessibility and applicability: some “activation rules” influencing judgment’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31(3): 218243.Google Scholar
Holbrook, R.A. and Hill, T.G. (2005), ‘Agenda-setting and priming in prime time television: crime dramas as political cues’, Political Communication 22(3): 277295.Google Scholar
Hox, J. (2002), Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Applications, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D.R. (1987), News that Matters: Television and American Opinion, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. and Simon, A. (1993), ‘News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion. A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing’, Communication Research 20(3): 365383.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-M. (2005), ‘Use and disuse of contextual primes in dynamic news environments’, Journal of Communication 55(4): 737755.Google Scholar
Krosnick, J.A. and Kinder, D.R. (1990), ‘Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming’, The American Political Science Review 84(2): 497512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, J.A. and Brannon, L.A. (1993), ‘The impact of the Gulf War on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: multidimensional effects of political involvement’, The American Political Science Review 87(4): 963975.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Stegmaier, M. (2000), ‘Economic determinants of electoral outcomes’, Annual Review of Political Science 3(1): 183219.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Stegmaier, M. (2007), ‘Economic models of voting’, in Dalton R. and Klingemann H.-D. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lybeck, J.A. (2009), Finanskrisen, Stockholm: SNS Forlag.Google Scholar
McCombs, M. (2004), Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, M. (1996), ‘The media and interpersonal communications: The priming of issues, leaders, and party identification’, The Journal of Politics 58(01): 112125.Google Scholar
Miller, J.M. and 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): 301315.Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (1992), ‘Mass media and the depoliticization of personal experience’, American Journal of Political Science 36(2): 483508.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, E. and Mathes, R. (1987), ‘The event as “event” and the event as news: the significance of “consonance” for media effects research’, European Journal of Communication 2(4): 391414.Google Scholar
Peter, J. (2004), ‘Our long “return to the concept of powerful mass media” – a cross-national comparative investigation of the effects of consonant media coverage’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 16(2): 144168.Google Scholar
Price, V. and Tewksbury, D. (1997), ‘News values and public opinion: a theoretical account of media priming and framing’, Progress in Communication Sciences, 173212.Google Scholar
Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. and Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. (2009), ‘Current research in media priming’, in Nabi R.L. and Oliver M.B. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rudolph, T.J. (2003), ‘Who is responsible for the economy? The formation and consequences of responsibility attributions’, American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 698713.Google Scholar
Rudolph, T.J. (2006), ‘Triangulating political responsibility: the motivated formation of political responsibility’, Political Psychology 27(1): 99122.Google Scholar
Rudolph, T.J. and Grant, J.T. (2002), ‘An attributional model of economic voting: evidence from the 2000 presidential election’, Political Research Quarterly 55(4): 805823.Google Scholar
Schaffner, B.F. and Sellers, P.J. (2009), Winning with Words: The Origins and Impact of Political Framing, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scheufele, D.A. (2000), ‘Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication’, Mass Communication & Society 3(2–3): 297316.Google Scholar
Scheufele, D.A. and Tewksbury, D. (2007), ‘Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models’, Journal of Communication 57(1): 920.Google Scholar
Shah, D.V., McLeod, D.M., Gotleib, M.R. and Lee, N. (2009), ‘Framing and agenda setting’, in Nabi R.L. and Oliver M.B. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sheafer, T. (2007), ‘How to evaluate it: The role of story‐evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming’, Journal of Communication 57(1): 2139.Google Scholar
Sheafer, T. (2008), ‘The media and economic voting in Israel’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20(1): 3351.Google Scholar
Shehata, A. and Strömbäck, J. (2011), ‘A matter of context: a comparative study of media environments and news consumption gaps in Europe’, Political Communication 28(1): 110134.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (1992), The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar