Transcript Powerpoint
ComMANder in Chief: A Content
Analysis of Candidates’ Images in
the Media
By: Sarah Colleen Rompola
Research Question
How have presidential candidates’ performances
of masculinity in photographs changed over time?
Thesis
Through time,
newsmagazine images
show changes in
presidential
candidates’
performances of
masculinity that reflect
hegemonic ideologies
of gender portrayal.
Review of Past Literature
Masculinity
Connell
(2005)
Definitions
Coe
of Masculinity
et al. (2007)
Social
and historical construct
Judged as masculine or not in comparison to others
Study focused on language and rhetoric
Kimmel
(2006)
Focused
on masculinity of past presidents in detail
Review of Past Literature
Media and Presidential Elections
Gollin
(1980), Ramsden (1996)
Role
of media constantly changing
Depiction in media often how candidate is understood by
voters
Graber
People
(1972) (1976)
are more likely to determine if they like a president
based on personal image
Most information audiences receive is about human qualities
of candidates
Review of Past Literature
Media and Presidential Election
Miller
and Krosnick (2000)
Media
primes recall
Mendelsohn
Voters
(1996)
form political opinions based on what first comes to
mind
Media stresses personal qualities, understate party
identification
Review of Past Literature
Person Perception and Performance Fragments
Moriarty
and Popovich (1991)
Candidates
try toshape how their performances and
personal character are perceived
Erickson (2000)
President
performs the role of president rather than “living”
the presidency
Moriarty
Political
and Garramone (1986)
candidates are actors playing political roles
Candidates’ image established by how candidate portrays
himself and then how the media represents candidates
portrayal
Social Construction Theory
Berger and Luckmann (1967)
Reality
is socially constructed
Habitualized actions retain meaning, narrow choices
Institutionalization of actions and ideas
Legitimation reinforces norms that go unquestioned
Best (2005), Loseke (2007) expand theory to social
problem frameworks
Media
as claims-maker
Media shapes what people think about; media helps
builds institutions
Methodology
Content Analysis
Began with election of 1960
Started analysis after respective candidate’s party
convention
Newsweek
Large worldwide circulation
Convenience sample
Methodology Continued
Each photograph was coded for 12 characteristics
8 of these characteristics operationalize masculinity
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Torso
Interaction
Dress
Setting
Face
Family Present
Hands
Arms
Methodology Continued
Operationalizing “more” masculine and “less”
masculine performances
“More” masculine: standing tall, shaking hands,
dignified dress, confident facial expression,
interacting with a crowd
“Less” masculine: slumped over or shrugged
shoulders, alone, hands at sides, worried facial
expression
Sample
232 weekly issues of Newsweek
13 election seasons, 26 presidential candidates
1,359 total images
49.2% images represented Republican candidates
50.8% images represented Democratic candidates
Findings
Table 1. Changes in Presidential Candidates’ Torso Performance from 1960 to 2008.
Decade
Bow
Sit
Tall
1960s
2 (1.5%)
34 (25.2%)
135 (73.3%)
1970s
5 (2.3%)
74 (34.7%)
134 (62.9%)
1980s
7 (1.9%)
106 (28.1%)
213 (70.0%)
1990s
16 (7.2%)
64 (29.0%)
141 (63.8%)
2000s
14 (3.4%)
136 (32.9%)
263 (63.7%)
Total
44 (3.2%)
414 (30.5%)
886 (65.2%)
Findings
Table 2. Changes in Presidential Candidates’ Interaction in Images from 1960 to 2008.
Decade
Alone
Unseen Crowd
Cheering Crowd
1960s
20 (14.8%)
93 (68.9%)
22 (16.3%)
1970s
45 (21.1%)
130 (61.0%)
38 (17.8%)
1980s
77 (20.4%)
259 (68.7%)
41 (10.9%)
1990s
39 (17.6%)
140 (63.3%)
42 (19.0%)
2000s
79 (19.1%)
244 (59.1%)
90 (21.8%)
Total
260 (19.1%)
866 (63.7%)
233 (17.1%)
Findings
Figure 1. Changes in Presidential Candidates’ Dress from 1960 to 2008.
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
Percentage within Decade
71.9%
70.0%
64.5%
59.6%
60.0%
62.4%
58.4%
Casual Dress
50.0%
Dignified Dress
40.0%
Unclear Dress
30.0%
10.0%
21.8%
19.3%
20.0%
16.0%
25.9%
24.9%
24.4%
13.8%
15.7%
12.7%
8.9%
0.0%
1960s
1970s
1980s
Decade
1990s
2000s
Findings
Figure 2. Changes in Presidential Candidates’ Setting in Images from 1960 to 2008.
50.0%
45.0%
43.7%
37.4%
40.0%
36.3%
37.1%
37.1%
40.4%
38.5%
35.7%
Percentage within Decade
35.0%
31.0%
30.0%
36.2%
25.5%
25.0%
20.0%
25.8%
28.6%
26.8%
Indoor
20.0%
Unclear
Outdoor
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1960s
1970s
1980s
Decade
1990s
2000s
Findings
Figure 3. Changes in Presidential Candidates’ Facial Expressions from 1960 to 2008.
60.0%
52.6%
51.2%
Percentage within Decade
50.0%
40.0%
50.2%
45.9%
37.8%
46.2%
48.2%
45.0%
40.3%
38.5%
Confident Expression
30.0%
Serious Expression
Unhappy Expression
20.0%
13.5%
10.0%
9.6%
9.9%
6.8%
3.2%
0.0%
1960s
1970s
1980s
Decade
1990s
2000s
Discussion
Importance of significant findings
Lack of significant findings for some variables
Further Research and Improvements
Research Bias
Questions?