We examine the weekly print media's coverage of the women's move ment and ascertain the presence of five unique frames from the 1950s through the 1990s: a sex roles frame, a feminism frame, political rights frame, economic rights frame, and an anti-feminism frame. After describ ing the frames we discuss an experimental test of four of the media pack ages on voters' political attitudes using a non-random sample of adults. Experimental results indicate that the economic rights and anti-feminism frames had a strong, negative impact on subject attitudes toward gender equality, support for women's rights, support for non-traditional gender roles and the frequency with which subjects mentioned "women's issues" as among the most important issues facing the U.S. In addition, the femi nism frame also exerted negative effects; while, conversely, the political rights frame had a positive influence on similar gender attitudes. Results were moderated by respondent gender with men demonstrating greater susceptibility to issue framing than women.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banner, Lois.1984. Women in Modern America: A Brief History. New York: Harcourt Brace.
2.
Berelson, Bernard R., Paul Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee .Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Bobo, Larry.1983. "Whites' Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45: 196-1210.
4.
Cancian, Francesca, and Bonnie Ross.1981. "Mass Media and the Women's Movement: 1900-1977." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science17 (1): 9-26.
5.
Cohen, Bernard.1963. The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Cook, Timothy.1987. "Show Horses in National Elections." In Jan Vermer, ed., Campaigns in the News: Mass Media and Congressional Elections. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
7.
Davis, Richard.1992. The Press and American Politics: The New MediatorNew York: Longman.
8.
Dolbeare, Kenneth M.1986. Democracy at Risk: The Politics of Economic Renewal . Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
9.
Fiske, Susan, and Shelley Taylor.1991. Social Cognition. New York: Random House.
10.
Gamson, William.1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge Press.
11.
Gamson, William, and Andre Modigliani.1987. "The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action." In Richard Braungart, ed., Research in Political Sociology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12.
Gamson, William, and Catherine Lasch.1983. "The Political Culture of Affirmative Action." In Shimon Spiro and Ephraim Yuchtman-Yaar, eds., Evaluating the Welfare State. New York: Academic Press .
13.
Hunt, Todd, and Brent Rubin.1993. Mass Communication. New York: HarperCollins.
14.
Iyengar, Shanto.1991. Is Anyone Responsible?Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
15.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald Kinder.1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky.1982. "The Psychology of Preferences" Science246: 135-42.
17.
Kinder, Donald, and Lynn Sanders.1990. "Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks." Social Cognition8 (1): 73-103.
18.
Kinder, Donald, and David Sears.1981. "Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism versus Racial Threats to the Good Life." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40: 414-31.
19.
Klapper, Joseph T.1960. The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press.
20.
Klein, Ethel.1984. Gender Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Kluegel, James R., and Eliot R. Smith.1986. Beliefs about Inequality. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
22.
Krosnick, Jon A., and Laura A. Brannon .1993. "The Media and the Foundations of Presidential Support - Bush, George and the Persian Gulf Conflict." Journal of Social Issues49: 167-82.
23.
Krosnick, Jon, and Donald Kinder.1990. "Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming." American Political Science Review84: 497-512.
24.
Lazarsfeld, Paul, F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet1948. The People's Choice, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press .
25.
Lippman, Walter.1922. Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
26.
McCombs, Maxwell E.1981. "The Agenda-Setting Approach." In Dan Nimmo and Keith Sanders , eds., Handbook of Political Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
MacKuen, Michael B.1981. "Social Communication and the Mass Policy Agenda ." In Michael B. MacKuen and Steven L. Coombs, eds., More Than News: Media Power in Public Affairs. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
28.
McClosky, Herbert, and John Zaller.1984. The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Petty, Richard, and John Cacioppo.1981. Attitudes and Persuasion. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co.
30.
Popkin, Samuel L.1991. The Reasoning Voter Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steh, and Lawrence Bobo.1985. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Terkildsen, Nayda.1993. "When White Voters Evaluate Black Candidates: The Processing Implications of Candidate Skin Color, Prejudice and Self-Monitoring ." American Journal of Political Science37: 1032-53.
33.
Terkildsen, Nayda, Frauke Schnell, and Cristina Ling.1997. "Interest Groups, the Media and Policy Debate Formation: An Analysis of Message Structure, Rhetoric and Source Cues." Forthcoming in Political Communication..
34.
Terkildsen, Nayda, and Frauke Schnell.1996. "Meta-Symbols, Social Movements and the Media: The Consequences of Condensing Complex Beliefs Into Group Labels ." Paper presented at the annual Northeastern Political Science Association meeting, Boston, MA.
35.
Unattributed. 1974. "Womanpower at the Polls." Newsweek , September 23, p. 46.
36.
Unattributed. 1975. "Women Still Number Two But Trying Harder." Time, May 25, pp. 40-41.
37.
Willings Press Guide.1993. Alphabetical and Classified Index, Vol. 2. GB: Reed Information Services Ltd.
38.
Zaller, John.1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
