The mechanism operates at the moment of judgment: an accessible consideration becomes a standard for approval even if the citizen's underlying policy position remains unchanged.

Look for a change in weight, not merely memory or attention. If an issue judgment predicts overall approval more strongly after exposure while policy views remain stable, the evidence fits priming.

Priming is demonstrated by a change in evaluative weight. If economic performance becomes more strongly related to presidential approval after heavy economic coverage, the pattern fits priming even when no respondent changes an economic policy position. Because events may alter both coverage and evaluation, time order and alternative explanations remain essential to a causal claim.

Picture voters weighing education, public safety, and taxes when they rate a governor. After weeks of school coverage, education may become a stronger predictor of overall approval. That is priming only if the criterion now counts more heavily. Remembering school stories establishes accessibility, not the later evaluative effect; researchers still need an approval outcome and evidence that the relationship grew stronger after exposure.

The close distinctions are outcome-based. Education might become more prominent as a public problem, be interpreted through funding or parental control, or carry more weight when citizens rate the governor. Only the third change is priming. Nor does a fall in approval after negative news prove priming; the event itself may have changed both coverage and approval. The clearest evidence concerns the "basis," "criterion," or "weight" of an evaluation and shows that the issue became more influential in the judgment, not merely more visible.

Video lesson: Shaping Public Opinion: Crash Course Government and Politics #34