This study investigates how media frames shape public perceptions of individuals featured in news coverage, focusing on transgender representation. In a between-subjects experimental design, researchers randomly assigned participants to read one of three versions of a mock news article that differed only in framing—positive, negative or neutral. Afterward, participants completed a questionnaire assessing perceptions of the article, evaluations of the featured athlete and agreement with stereotype-based statements. Data analysis examined whether framing significantly influenced credibility judgments, perceived likability and stereotype endorsement. By showing how subtle editorial choices shape audience perceptions and affective responses, this study advances research on media effects and framing theory and highlights journalists’ ethical responsibilities when covering marginalized groups.
AdamsD. (2020). The power and impact of framing transgender athletes in sports [Master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State University]. Electronic Theses and Dissertations for Graduate School.
2.
AppelmanA.SundarS. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79.
3.
ArendtF. (2023). Media stereotypes, prejudice, and preference-based reinforcement: Toward the dynamic of self-reinforcing effects by integrating audience selectivity. Journal of Communication, 73(5), 463–475.
4.
ArendtF.NorthupT. (2015). Effects of long-term exposure to news stereotypes on implicit and explicit attitudes. International Journal of Communication, 9, 21.
5.
BaileyA.JonesL. (2024). ‘Fairness versus inclusion’: Representations of transgender athletes in British newspaper reports. In FileK.SchnurrS. (Eds.), The language of inclusion and exclusion in sports (pp. 193–214). De Gruyter.
6.
BillardT. J. (2019). Setting the transgender agenda: Intermedia agenda-setting in the digital news environment. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(1), 165–176.
7.
BillingsA. C.Van GynJ.MoscowitzL. (2025). Intersectional trans athlete media narratives: The role of digital media in (re) defining the stories of trans athletes. In HarpD.BachmannI.LokeJ. (Eds.), Handbook on gender and digital media (pp. 360–372). Edward Elgar Publishing.
8.
BodenhausenG. V.PeeryD. (2009). Social categorization and stereotyping in vivo: The VUCA challenge. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(2), 133–151.
9.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126.
10.
DruckmanJ. N.McGrathM. C. (2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 111–119.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
13.
FinkJ. S. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Concluding comments. Sex Roles, 58(1), 146–147.
14.
FinkJ. S. (2015). Female athletes, women’s sport, and the sport media commercial complex: Have we really “come a long way, baby”?Sport Management Review, 18(3), 331–342.
15.
FiskeS. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 155–194.
16.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
17.
FulmineK. (2025). Tracking neutral: An argument for fairness in sport for transgender athletes (Doctoral dissertation, Queen Mary University of London).
18.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
19.
GrossK. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.
20.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
21.
HillD. B.WilloughbyB. L. (2005). The development and validation of the genderism and transphobia scale. Sex Roles, 53(7), 531–544.
22.
HoggM. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In FergusonN.HajiR.McKeownS. (Eds.), Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Contemporary global perspectives (pp. 3–17). Springer.
KavouraA.JenzenO. (2024). “Having an unfair advantage” vs “playing by the Rules”: Media discourses of trans Women’s participation in the Olympics. Feminist Media Studies, 25, 1804–1819.
27.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Pscyhological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
28.
LechelerS.de VreeseC. H. (2012). News framing and public opinion: A mediation analysis of framing effects on political attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 185–204.
29.
LechelerS.de VreeseC. H. (2018). News framing effects (p. 138). Taylor & Francis.
30.
LechelerS.KeerM.SchuckA. R.HänggliR. (2015). The effects of repetitive news framing on political opinions over time. Communication Monographs, 82(3), 339–358.
31.
LoveA. (2018). Media framing of transgender athletes: Contradictions and paradoxes in coverage of MMA Fighter Fallon Fox. In MagrathR. (Ed.), LGBT athletes in the sports media (pp. 207–225). Springer.
32.
LucasC. B.NewhallK. E. (2018). Out of the frame: How sports media shapes trans narratives. In MagrathR. (Ed.), LGBT Athletes in the Sports Media (pp. 99–124). Springer.
33.
MartinK.RahillyE. (2023). Value frames in discourse supporting transgender athlete bans. Discourse & Society, 34(6), 732–751.
34.
MartinK.RahillyE. (2025). Moral reframing and transgender athlete bans: In-groups, out-groups, and a future research agenda. PS: Political Science & Politics, 58, 461–465.
35.
MessnerM. A. (2002). Taking the field: Women, men, and sports (Vol. 4). University of Minnesota Press.
36.
RidgewayC. L.Kricheli-KatzT. (2013). Intersecting cultural beliefs in social relations: Gender, race, and class binds and freedoms. Gender & Society, 27(3), 294–318.
37.
ScheufeleD. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 103–122.
38.
ScovelS.NelsonM.ThorpeH. (2023). Media framings of the transgender athlete as “legitimate controversy”: The case of Laurel Hubbard at the Tokyo Olympics. Communication & Sport, 11(5), 838–853.
39.
SemerjianT. Z. (2018). Making space: Transgender athletes. In KraneV. (Ed.), Sex, gender, and sexuality in sport (pp. 145–162). Routledge.
40.
ShenF. (2004). Effects of news frames and schemas on individuals’ issue interpretations and attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 400–416.
41.
TaberC.S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
42.
TadlockB. (2014). Issue framing and transgender politics: An examination of interest group websites and media coverage. In TaylorJ. K.Haider-MarkelD. P. (Eds.), Transgender rights and politics: Groups, issue framing, and policy adoption (pp. 25–48). University of Michigan Press.
43.
TajfelH. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(2), 183–190.
44.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In JostJ. T.SidaniusJ. (Eds.), Political Psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.
45.
ThorpeH.NelsonM.ScovelS.VealeJ. (2023). Journalists on a journey: Towards responsible media on transgender participation in sport. Journalism Studies, 24(9), 1237–1255.
46.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.
47.
WestC.ZimmermanD. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.
