Which statement best describes the difference between agenda-setting and priming in media effects theory?

• A. Agenda-setting determines which issues are salient to the public; priming influences the criteria used to judge leaders or issues.
• B. Agenda-setting shapes policy outcomes directly rather than public salience.
• C. Priming determines issue salience; agenda-setting shapes how leaders perform.
• D. Both concepts only affect opinion polls and not public behavior.

Answer: (A)

Media influence in these theories separates two effects: what issues people see as important, and what standards they use to evaluate those issues or leaders. Agenda-setting focuses on salience—the issues the public thinks about and views as important because of how much coverage they receive. Priming, on the other hand, affects the criteria people apply when judging leaders or policies, by bringing particular attributes or standards to mind through the way the media frames those issues.

So, the statement that agenda-setting determines which issues are salient to the public and priming influences the criteria used to judge leaders or issues captures this distinction: coverage makes certain topics stand out, while it also shapes what evaluations people rely on when forming opinions about those topics or leaders. For example, if the news emphasizes the economy, the issue becomes salient, and priming might lead people to evaluate a president primarily on economic performance and competence, not on other factors. The other options mix up these roles or imply direct, uniform effects on policy or behavior, which doesn’t align with how agenda-setting and priming operate.