Miller and Krosnick: News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations
Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I even say who wrote them. If you have more recent summaries to add to this collection, send them my way I guess. Sorry for the ads; they cover the costs of keeping this online.
Miller and Krosnick. 2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations. AJPS.
The Lit's Problem
The lit has (correctly) found priming effects: If the media covers an issue, then people evaluate politicians largely in terms of that issue. But the lit has incorrectly attributed this to "accessibility" effects. The real cause is "agenda setting," moderated by trust and political knowledge.
- Mediators: The causal mechanism by which priming occurs ("accesibility" vs "agenda setting").
- Moderators: Factors upon which mediators depend/interact in order to have their effect (trust and political knowledge).
- Accessibility: Priming works by bringing certain considerations to the top of your mind.
- Agenda setting: Priming works b/c prominent news coverage serves as a cue to viewers that informed people (news editors) consider the issue imporant--and therefore, voters infer that the issue must be important, and act accordingly.
- Trust: If you trust the media, you are more likely to follow its agenda-setting cues.
- Political knowledge: Those with more knowledge are more easily able to understand the story and its significance and to recall the story later. Knowledge only matters if you already trust the media.
- News coverage --> Trust in media --> Knowledge --> Agenda-setting inference, thus priming
- The agenda-setting variable interacts with both trust and knowledge. All three interact together to determine how strong the priming effect of news coverage is. The degree of priming depends on your knowledge, which only matters if you trust the media.
Experimental. Subjects view various news broadcasts, some of which have prominent stories about particular subjects included. (i.e. all viewers watched the same base set of stories, but some had stories about drugs, immigration, or crime inserted into their video.) Then they evaluate Clinton (both generally and in terms of the policy at hand).
- If accessibility was the mechanism, then people who saw the additional topics should make evaluations about those topics more quickly. They don't.
Research by the same authors
Research on similar subjects
- Baum: Talking the vote (3 shared tags)
- Freedman, Franz, and Goldstein: Campaign advertising and democratic citizenship (3 shared tags)
- Hillygus and Jackman: Voter decision making in election 2000 (3 shared tags)
- Holbrook, Krosnick, Visser, and Gardner: Attitudes toward presidential candidates (3 shared tags)
- Johnston, Hagen, and Jamieson: Dynamics of the 2000 presidential campaign (3 shared tags)
- Lau, Sigelman, Heldman, and Babbitt: The effects of negative political advertisements (3 shared tags)
- Stapel and Schwarz: The Republican who did not want to become president (3 shared tags)
- Theilmann and Wilhite: Campaign tactics and the decision to attack (3 shared tags)
Miller, Joanne (author) • Krosnick, Jon (author) • American Politics • Public Opinion • Media Effects
Wikisum home: Index of all summaries by title, by author, or by subject.