COME A LITTLE CLOSER: EXAMINING SPILLOVER PRIMING EFFECTS FROM A NETWORK PERSPECTIVE David Thomas Morin A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2013 Committee: Gi Woong Yun, Ph.D., Advisor Mary M. Murray, Ed.D. Graduate Faculty Representative Sung-Yeon Park, Ph.D. Srinivas Melkote, Ph.D. ii © 2013 David Thomas Morin All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Gi Woong Yun, Advisor Priming theory has been well researched within the field of media studies. Since the late 1980s, priming theory has been used to explain a host of media effects related phenomena. Although priming is one of the most robust theories in media studies, scant research has been paid to spillover/indirect priming effects. Traditional media priming studies examine how primes affect individual evaluations of presidents, but none to date have attempted to examine how individuals perceive little-known political officials via strong or weak ties to a president. To address this glaring gap in the literature, a 3X2 online experiment, manipulating prime valence and tie strength, was conducted. More specifically, a news transcript was manipulated to portray the educational issue, Race to the Top, in either a positive, negative, or neutral tone, with President Obama being portrayed as responsible for the issue. A newspaper article was manipulated to portray a fictional congressional candidate named Steve Easterly as either strongly or weakly tied to President Obama. After exposure to the primes, participants were asked to answer a series of items measuring attitude evaluations and voting intent towards both President Obama and Steve Easterly in a post-test questionnaire. A total of 205 (n = 205) politically engaged individuals were recruited across six Midwestern states. Significant differences were found for tie strength along the majority of evaluative measures. In addition, both tie strength and political ideology were found to be significant factors when predicting evaluations and voting intent towards Steve Easterly. When analyzed along party affiliation/membership, significant differences were found between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats rating Steve Easterly significantly higher along the dependent evaluative criteria. Results are discussed in terms of network theory and motivated iv reasoning among political partisans. More specifically, the results contribute to network theory as they provide a new definition of hub status. The results support previous political psychology research finding conservatives are more likely to have a higher need for closure than their liberal counterparts. Limitations and future research are addressed as well. v Dedicated to the teachers who never stopped encouraging me to ask questions. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank several individuals who have provided assistance before and during the dissertation process. First, I want to extend my deepest thanks to my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Gi Woong Yun. Without his valuable insight, humor, and support, I would not have been able to finish this project. I will always be grateful for what he has done for me academically, professionally, and personally. I would also like to thank the rest of my dissertation committee, including Dr. Sung-Yeon Park, Dr. Srinivas Melkote, and Dr. Mary Murray. Your feedback and aid was vital during this phase of my graduate studies. In addition to thanking my academic mentors, I would also like to extend my most sincere gratitude towards two people in my life who were always there to provide guidance whenever I needed it. To Brooke James and Michelle Glass, I will always be thankful for your willingness to listen and offer sound counsel, even when I went off on my tangents. I will always be grateful and appreciative of what both of you have done. Several members of my family have been central figures during this whole process. To my father, thank you for encouraging me to think for myself and to continue my education. Your passion for politics has left an indelible mark on my scholarship and research interests. To my Aunt Deed and Cousin Katherine, thank you for listening and reminding me to stay humble. I will always appreciate your love and support. To my Grandma and Pop, thank you for continuing to stay interested in my topic and inquiring about my progress. I would like to acknowledge the support and guidance offered by my colleagues and friends in the graduate program. To Mark Flynn and Alex Stana, your advice, understanding, and encouragement have helped me to fine-tune my scholarly ability and improve upon my teaching skills. Both of you are not only my colleagues, but my good friends as well. vii Finally, I would like to extend my thanks to two teachers who helped cultivate my love for learning. To Mr. James McCabe and Mr. C.J. Kersey, your own enthusiasm for teaching and asking the pertinent questions influenced my research interests and ultimately my career path. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 Academic and Theoretical Significance ................................................................................ 6 Implications of Synthesizing Two Theories and Further Theoretical Needs ............ 11 Additional Dimension: Network Theory .................................................................. 13 Research Method ....................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 22 Agenda Setting .......................................................................................................... 22 Priming ........................................................................................................... 34 Network Theory ........................................................................................................ 44 CHAPTER III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................... 61 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 61 Direct Priming Questions .......................................................................................... 66 Spillover/Indirect Priming Questions ........................................................................ 74 Political Party Affiliation/Membership and Priming Questions ............................... 81 CHAPTER IV. METHOD .................................................................................................... 84 Overview and Procedure ........................................................................................... 84 Participants ........................................................................................................... 87 Manipulated Priming Stimuli .................................................................................... 88 Measures ........................................................................................................... 90 CHAPTER V. RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 96 Descriptive Results .................................................................................................... 96 ix Results ........................................................................................................... 106 Political Party Afflation/Membership and Priming Results ...................................... 129 Democrats and Priming Effects ................................................................................ 140 Republicans and Priming Effects .............................................................................. 145 CHAPTER VI. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 151 Direct Priming Results .............................................................................................. 151 Spillover/Indirect Priming Results ............................................................................ 156 Political Affiliation/Membership and Priming Effects ............................................. 164 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 170 Future Research ......................................................................................................... 173 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 180 APPENDIX A. INFORMED CONSENT COPY ................................................................. 209 APPENDIX B. FIRST INVITATION EMAIL COPY ......................................................... 210 APPENDIX C. SECOND INVITATION EMAIL COPY .................................................... 211 APPENDIX D. NEWS TRANSCRIPT PRIME ................................................................... 212 APPENDIX E. NEWSPAPER PRIME ................................................................................. 218 APPENDIX F. DUMMY NEWS TRANSCRIPT AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ............ 220 APPENDIX G. QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................... 223 APPENDIX H. FINAL WEBPAGE COPY ........................................................................