Running Head: COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
Communicating the F-word
The effects on equivalence and visual frames on attitudes towards and
participation in feminist movements
by Vonach, Theresa
Student Number: 10239065
Master Thesis
Political Communication
Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication
Supervisor: Wojcieszak, Magdalena
January 29, 2015
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!1
Communicating the F-word: The effects on equivalence and visual frames on attitudes
towards and participation in feminist movements
Abstract
Drawing on message persuasion and social movement theory, this research examines to what
degree framing can affect people’s attitudes towards the feminist movement as well as their
willingness to participate in collective action. With a factorial experiment (n=249), this study
investigates the effects of exposure to a photo of a feminist as either a private person or a
public figure as well as the effects of a conflict-oriented vs. a peaceful message frame were
tested. The findings of this thesis suggest that the messages feminist organizations or political
actors who advocate gender equality disseminate, do affect people’s view on the organization
and its cause. Yet, the same frame can affect attitudes and behavioral intentions differently as
well as women and men react potentially different to the same frame.
Keywords:Feminism,Gender, Framing Effects, Equivalence Framing, Experimental Methods
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!2
Communicating the F-word
The effects on equivalence and visual frames on attitudes towards and participation
Feminism, defined as „the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and
economic equality to men“ (Feminism [Def.1,US English] Oxford Dictionaries), has achieved
notable gains in the past decades. Despite its’ efforts to mobilize people globally for the
advocation of gender equality, feminism is still a dirty word that few want to be associated
with (e.g. Beck, 1998; Budgeon, 2001). Why this is the case has been and still is a troubling
question to ponder.
The answer that feminism has lost its importance because gender equality has already
been achieved (at least in western democracies), is hardly convincing, considering that across
the EU one in three women has suffered from gender based violence, women still earn 16%
less than then men per hour of work and only 11% of major political parties are led by a
woman (European commission, 2013, 2014). Other explanations focus on discords within the
movement, such as the struggle to unify its different viewpoints (e.g. Lugones & Spelman,
1983; Devereux & Devereux, 2005).
Yet, the strong argument has emerged that the lack of wider social recognition of
feminism is also based on how the movement has been communicated. In particular, scholars
have traced how feminism and its actors have been framed in the media (e.g. Beck, 1998,
Bronstein, 2005; Dean, 2010; Lindt & Salo, 2002;) and, to a much lesser degree, how
women’s organizations have approached their own communication efforts (Barnett, 2005).
Despite this relatively large body of studies that have assessed reoccurring frames
surrounding feminism and women’s movement, lacking is systematic evidence on how these
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!3
frames affect people’s perception of women’s movement and, perhaps more importantly, their
willingness to participate in it. Given that positive attitudes towards feminism are central for a
wider societal acceptance of feminism and that feminist movements need public support when
it comes to gathering donations or organizing successful demonstrations, for instance, insight
into how communication can influence public opinion and spark participation can be
extremely valuable for feminist organizations and political actors who focus on gender
equality.
Therefore, this thesis makes a first attempt to fill this research gap by examining how
framing of the women’s movement and its’ actors affects attitudes towards feminism as well
as intended participation in the movement, while considering whether the effects differ
between men and women. More specifically, this thesis draws on two central frames, namely
a private versus a public framing as well as peaceful vs conflict framing, identified as relevant
in the literature on communicating feminism. This study systematically attends to both visual
as well as textual frames, by drawing on a 2 (image, private vs. public portrayal) by 2 (text,
peaceful vs. conflict-oriented) experimental design.
Theoretically, this thesis draws on social psychology theories to explain framing
effects. It is especially referred to concepts of source similarity and self-referencing as well as
collective identity, efficacy and injustice as the social psychological underpinnings of social
movement participation (e.g. Van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2013; Van Zomeren,
Postmes, & Spears, 2008). By doing so, we examine the research question, how private vs.
public and conflict vs. peaceful framing can affect attitudes and one’s willingness to
participate in the women’s movement and how these effects differ among female and male
participants.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!4
Theory Outline
Before reviewing the research that has been done on frames that are recurring in the
communication about feminism and the women's movement, the theoretical underpinnings of
this thesis have to be clarified. Thus, the main theories that this study draws on are briefly
reviewed. First, the conceptual framing model that is applied is outlined. Second, the relevant
elements of social psychological patterns in regard to message framing and social movement
participation are discussed. Third, an overview is given regarding studies that have assessed
how feminism has been framed and the two investigated frames of this study are discussed.
By connecting specific findings about framing feminism with the general social-physiological
underpinnings that are discussed, the guiding hypotheses are derived.
Theoretical Models of Framing Effects
Framing and its’ effects are one of the most extensively studied concepts in (political)
communication (e.g. Chong & Druckman, 2007; Entman, 1993; Scheufele, 2000). Generally
speaking, framing is based on the assumption that how an issue is characterized leads to
different understandings among the audience; and its effects thus refer to behavior or
attitudinal outcomes that are due to differences in how an issue is presented (e.g.Scheufele &
Tewskbury, 2007; Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012). Yet, framing can be defined variously and thus
the conceptual definition that this thesis is drawing on has to be clarified.
Importantly, a distinction is made between emphasis and equivalence framing, the
latter being the concept that is applied in this study. Emphasis framing focuses on the
selection of certain issues and views and thus conveys differing perspectives on an issue
(e.g.Entman, 1993), while equivalence framing refers to presenting information in logically
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!5
equal but differently phrased ways, e.g. „a 70% chance of losing“ versus „a 30% chance of
winning“i(Kahneman, 2002; Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012).
While emphasis frames may produce spurious factors such as varying strength of
arguments, equivalence framing allows to create directly comparable stimuli by altering the
manipulations along specific dimensions, and thus directly links attitudinal or behavioral
changes to the framing effect per se and not to some other content differences in the tested
message (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012).
Furthermore, equivalence framing is advantageous, as it is applicable to verbal
messages as well as visual cues (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012), both of which are used in this
study. Just like text, visuals can be framing devices as they licable to verbal messages as well
event graphically“ (Rodriguez & Dimitrova, 2011, p.51). The inclusion of visual material has
been argued to be a valuable asset when studying framing effects (Coleman, 2010; Scheufele
& Iyengar, 2012), as visuals potentially have a strong persuasive power and can thus add to
the strength of the stimuli (e.g. Rodriguez & Dimitrova, 2011). In short, equivalence framing
offers both methodological as well as operational advantages for experimental studies that are
highly beneficial when focusing on how differently framed messages as well as pictures affect
people’s attitudes and behavioral intentions.
The Social Psychology of Framing Effects
The choice to conceptualize frames as equivalence frames has further implications on
how potential effects should be interpreted. Equivalence frames have been argued to cause
schema-dependent effects, in a way that a message frame is more likely to be successful when
it resonates to an individual’s mental schema that is activated when processing information
(Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012). Social psychology as well as communication scholars, have
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!6
found that one of these schemas refers to the similarity between the source and the receiver,
meaning that individuals are more likely to accept a certain message as convincing if they
perceive the source of that message to be like themselves (e.g. Burnkrant & Unnava, 1995,
Mackie & Worth, 1990; Rogers & Bhowmik, 1970; Wang,Walther, Pingree, & Hawkins,
2008). In other words, when a message is presented by a source similar to the receiver, the
source is more likely to be perceived as an in-group member, as the receiver puts more weight
on the source’s opinions, which in turn make the message more convincing and facilitates
elaboration (e.g. Mackie & Worth, 1990; Rogers & Bhowmik, 1970; Wang,Walther, Pingree,
& Hawkins, 2008). This is closely linked to self-referencing, which refers to the process that
an individual is more likely to relate incoming information to self-structure or parts of one
own’s memory the more linkage points he/she finds with the source, which in turn enhances
elaboration and can facilitate attitudinal changes (Burnkrant & Unnava, 1995). This means
that when a person finds linkage points with the source, e.g., similar age, he or she will
elaborate the source’s message more deeply.
Yet, this thesis is not only concerned how frames can affect attitudes, but also how
willingness to participate in a social movement, in particular the women’s movement, can be
sparked. Social movement theory suggests that there are three main social psychological
factors that are needed to be addressed in order to trigger collective action (Van Stekelenburg
& Klandermans, 2013; Van Zomeren, Postmes and Spears, 2008).
First, frames should be more successful when collective identity is stressed. Collective
identity refers to the feeling of belonging to a group that is defined by a socially relevant
dimension (e.g. gender, social class, etc.), and it is strengthened when people are aware of the
similarities they have with their group members (i.e. the protesters) (Van Stekelenburg &
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!7
Klandermans, 2013) and the organizers of the movement (i.e. leaders of a social movement
organization) (e.g. Simon & Klandermans, 2001, Stürmer & Simon, 2004).
Second, when targeting groups that are not directly linked to the disadvantaged group
(i.e. men in the women’s movement), mobilization through collective identity is challenging
(Ellemers, 1993). Here, social movement scholars suggest an instrumental pathway, in a way
that low-identifiers can become active participants in a movement if they perceive it as more
efficacious (Simon, Loewy, Stürmer, Weber, Freytag, Habig, & Spahlinger, 1998;Van
Zomeren, Postmes and Spears, 2008). Here, efficacy does not refer to group efficacy, which
means the sense that people feel themselves and one’s group members capable of
transforming the status quo and empowered to trigger social change (Drury & Reicher, 2005).
Rather, it is referred to as political efficacy meaning that political actions are perceived to
have an impact (Van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2013).
Third, the feeling of injustice is discussed in literature as one of the main components
of social movement communication (e.g. Gamson, 1995, Gamson & Wolfsfeld,1993).
Injustice frames, which focus on conflict with political opponents, emphasize an unjust
authority and are emotionally laden and anger–focused (Gamson, 1995). Social movements
apply this strategy to make the movement’s issue seem more important and encourage
participation in protest and rebellion as it „focusses on the kind of righteous anger that puts
fire in the belly and iron in the soul“ (Gamson, 1995, p.91) – which arguably sparks
participation. Again, the feeling of injustice is not perceived equally among all groups, but the
emotions that arise from the injustice frame are triggered especially, when it is one’s own
group that is disadvantaged. When such group-based emotions arise, individuals’ willingness
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!8
to participate in collective action is enhanced (e.g. Frijda, 1986; Van Zomeren, Postmes, &
Spears, 2008).
The Framing of Feminism
Communication scholars have extensively studied how the women’s movement and
feminists have been framed in the media and have overall come to similar conclusions (e.g.
Lind & Salo, 2002; Dean, 2010; Beck, 1998, Schreiber,2010; Mendes, 2011): Although
feminism has gained more recognition, it remains a marginalized issue that is often
confronted with opposition (e.g. Beck,1998, Bronstein, 2005, Mendes, 2011) and feminists
are often described as different from the average citizen and associated with reoccurring
stereotypes (Lind & Salo, 2002; Mendes, 2011).
However, frames are not only created in news media, but also by political actors, who
strategically form frames in order to influence public opinion (e.g. Chong & Druckman, 2007;
Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997). Yet, with regard to feminism, communication research has
not closely attended to the feminist movement’s own attempts to strategically shape its
messages. In a notable exception, Barnett (2005) analyzed a feminist organizations' press
releases and discovered that the organization portrayed itself as a protector of women’s rights.
In addition, the press releases suggested that the given organization was committed to uniting
and working with other organizations to promote human rights. On the flip side, however, the
organization was especially harsh on its opponents and their actions (Barnett, 2005).
This present study draws on both, studies about the framing of feminism in the media
and by feminist organizations themselves. It closely attends to two dominant frames identified
in extant literature, namely private vs. public and conflict vs. peaceful framing.
Private vs. Public Framing. The first frame pertains to whether a feminist is portrayed as a
public or a private figure. Previous research has shown that feminists are less likely to be
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!9
personalized and connected to the private sphere, but are more likely to be portrayed as public
figures who fulfill political obligations (Lind & Salo, Barnett, 2005). First, Lind and Salo
(2002) found that in the news media, feminists are rarely associated with topics regular
women are often connected to, including appearance, family and motherhood, personal
qualities, leisure activities, or day-to-day work. To the contrary, feminists are almost
exclusively connected to politics, government and the media (Lind & Salo, 2002). Second,
similar tendencies were found in the communication strategy of women’s organizations.
Barnett’s (2005) investigation of press releases of the feminist organization NOW suggests
that the organization frames its feminine role as the „maternal protector“ in a sense that they
stay watchful upon government institutions and will fight for equality for their daughters.
Thus, the issue of motherhood was detached from privacy and was associated with actions
within the public sphere, while personal issues and private sights remained unmentioned.
In this thesis the private versus public framing of feminists is operationalized as a
visual cue – one picture shows a female feminist in a private setting and the other depicting
her as a public figure. It is argued that attitudes towards the feminist movement and its actors
as well as intended participation in the movement are affected by these differences in visual
presentation, yet the frames are expected to affect men and women in different ways.
First, an overall difference between female and male participants is predicted. Former
research has shown that women, on average, are more interested in ideas of feminism than
men (e.g. Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004; Davis & Robison, 1991). Thus, women are more likely
to be issue publics, that is a part of the general public who is more concerned about a specific
topic and is therefore more attentive when exposed to information about issues related to that
topic (e.g. Kim, 2009; Price & Zaller, 1993). In line with theories of self-referencing (e.g.
Burnkrant & Unnava, 1995) research suggests that messages are more persuasive and exert
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!10
stronger effect when the source and the recipient are of the same sex (Bochner, 1994; Peck &
Loken, 2004; White & Andsager, 1991). Since this study focuses on female (and not male)
sources, female participants should be more likely to self-reference than men. This leads to
the following expectation:
H1a: Women will have more positive attitudes towards the women’s movement,
feminists and the feminist organization than men(regardless of the visual frame).
Second, this difference between women and men is expected to interact with potential
effects of private vs. public framing. Specifically, the private frame that presents a feminist
more like an average women (rather than a public figure) should enhance self-referencing and
enable effects of source similarity among women: Portraying feminists in a way that regular
women are often portrayed and also emphasizing their ties to the private sphere (via such
visual cues as a living room, a children’s drawing and casual, feminine clothing) may resonate
with women’s own lives and thus makes feminists seem more similar to an average female
and feminism seem more directly applicable to daily life (Lind & Salo, 2002; Roy, Weibust, &
Miller, 2007). For these reasons, the private picture rather than the public picture should lead
to a more positive attitude towards feminism and feminist actors among female participants.
In contrast, the public and governmental character of the source in the public condition
is expected to contain processes of source-similarity, as the cues given in the public picture
(e.g. government setting, official, „masculine“ clothing) are typically associated with
feminists as being not „like me“, which was found to be a dominant negative stereotype
people have about feminists (Twenge & Zucker, 1999, p.603). Also, portraying feminists as
different to regular women (with the presumption that not many females hold public functions
or are often involved in governmental affairs) may „reinforce the perception that feminism is
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!11
neither relevant nor particularly applicable to the bulk of daily life of the majority of
citizens“ (Lind & Salo, 2002, p.224). This review leads to the following hypothesis:
H1b: The difference in attitude between men and women will increase in the private
condition, as women will have more positive attitudes towards the women’s
movement, feminists and the feminist organization especially when exposed to a
feminist in a private rather than public setting.
Looking beyond attitudinal outcomes, this thesis is also interested in behavioral
intensions. In social movements, like feminism, it is not only important to obtain support for
the movement’s views, but also to mobilize collective action, as an actively participating
public is vital for any social movement’s survival (e.g. Klandermans,1984).
Again, it can be assumed that women show a higher willingness to participate in the
women’s movement when compared to men, due to a higher likeliness of self-referencing and
the women-focused topic. As discussed above, women are more likely to be issue publics (e.g.
Kim, 2009; Price & Zaller, 1993), because feminism in general and the stimuli of this study in
particular focus on the suppression of women (rather than men), which in turn should lead to
a higher willingness to participate among women in general.
H 2a. Women will be more willing to participate in the women’s movement than men
(regardless of the visual frame).
Moreover, women and men are expected to respond differently to the private and the
public frame. First it is expected that women respond positively to the private picture, as the
picture potentially stresses collective identity between the movement’s organizers and
potential participants (e.g. Simon & Klandermans, 2001, Stürmer & Simon, 2004). Women
are expected to identify more with the president of the feminist organization when she is
depicted in a private setting, since it portrays those who actively contribute to the movement
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!12
as women „like me“, rather than abstract politicians (Lind & Salo, 2002). To the contrary, the
public portrayal of a feminist may convey the message that feminists „are involved in types of
things (…) that most of us will never become active in“ (Lind & Salo, 2002, p. 224) and
underlines the discrepancy between female participants and feminist activists.
However, generally speaking, it is challenging to motivate men to participate in the
women’s movement via collective identity, as men are not directly associated with the
women’s right movement, do not constitute an issue public for this cause, and do not form
part in the largely disadvantaged group that feminism represents. As a result, it may be harder
for men to adopt collective identity (Ellemers, 1993) and – by choosing a female (not male)
president of a feminist organization – this study does not counteract these challenges.
It is possible that men, as low identifiers and thus with a low collective identity, can be
mobilized for feminism via political efficacy (Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). In
particular, by portraying a president of a feminist organization as a public figure who is
connected to the political sphere, the picture may convey higher levels of the movement’s
political success, as it depicts the feminist as someone who is more likely to be perceived as
competent to successfully influence those in power. This review leads to the following
expectation:
H 2b: The difference in participation between men and women will be canceled out in
the public condition. Women will be especially likely to participate in the women’s
movement after exposure to the private picture, while males will be more willing to
participate after exposure to the public picture.
Conflict vs. Peaceful Frame. The second frame (conflict vs. peaceful) refers to the tone in
which opponents of feminism are addressed and is operationalized as a textual message. The
strategy to harshly attack opponents, mostly labeled as injustice frame, has been found to be a
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!13
reoccurring theme in social movement framing (e.g. Benford & Snow, 2000; Gamson, 1982)
and was also found to be present in communication strategies of feminist organizations
(Barnett, 2005). Here, opponents, which can be anyone who contradicts the paradigms of
gender equality, have been casted as „contemptuous, irrational, dishonest and
radical“ (Barnett, 2009, p.353).
However, it seems that this frame evokes a negative perception amongst journalists
and arguably the public. Various scholars (e.g. Beck, 1998; Bradley, 2004; Bronstein, 2005;
Lind & Salo, 2002) found that feminists themselves are often assigned with negative
attributes, when being portrayed as radical, outraged man-haters in the media and
aggressiveness and radicalism are the negative stereotypes associated with feminist
movements and its actors (Berryman-Fink & Verderber, 1985). Previous research furthermore
suggests that a focus on conflict can have negative effects on people’s attitudes ( Arpan,
Baker, Lee, Jung, Lorusso, & Smith, 2006) and thus ,potentially evokes negative stereotypes
as it could be perceived as aggressive and stubborn (Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007), rather
than protective, democratic and just (Barnett, 2009).
To the contrary, exposure to the peaceful frame, one that emphasizes collaboration and
willingness to compromise, should challenge negative stereotypes, and thus have a positive
effect on participants’ attitudes towards feminism and feminist actors. In fact it has been
shown that exposure to positive stereotypes – rather than negative stereotypes that tap
radicalism, obstinacy and conflict-orientation – leads to a higher self-identification as a
feminist (Roy, Weibust & Miller, 2007). On the basis of this review, the following is
predicted:
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!14
H3a: Exposure to the peaceful framing will result in more positive attitudes towards
the women’s movement, feminist activists and feminist organizations, than exposure to
conflict framing regardless of the gender of the recipient.
Exposure to the peaceful frame, that challenges feminist stereotypes, is expected to be
especially effective among women. Studies that have investigated the effects of positive vs.
negative stereotypes regarding feminists have shown that alongside a higher selfidentification with feminism, positive stereotypes also enhance lead to a higher perceived
ability to meet individual challenges among women (Roy, Weibust & Miller, 2007). Being
confronted with non-stereotypical information, as presented in the peaceful condition, could
thus enhance positive self-referred feelings among women (more than among men), which in
turn should strengthen the positive effects on attitudes towards feminism and feminist actors
among women. Thus, this review leads to the following prediction:
H3b: The positive effect of the peaceful condition on attitudes towards the women’s
movement and its actors will be more evident among female participants than
among male participants.
As mentioned before, this thesis is also concerned about how different frames affect
people’s willingness to participate in the movement. Despite its’ potential negative effect on
attitudes towards feminism and its actors, the emotional character of the conflict frame may
trigger what is needed to spark collective action (Gamson, 1982). As previously outlined, the
focus on conflict with an unjust authority addresses emotions of anger and compassion which
scholars have found to be essential to mobilize individuals to take part in collective actions
(Gamson, 1982; Klandermans, 1984). Therefore, we predict the following:
H4a: Exposure to conflict framing will result in a higher willingness to participate in
the women’s movement than peaceful framing for both men and women.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!15
Furthermore, it is expected that the effect of conflict vs. peaceful framing interacts
with gender, in a way that it is especially pronounced among women. As discussed, social
movement theory suggests that the emotions that arise from the injustice frame are triggered
especially, when it is one’s own group that is disadvantaged, and that when such group-based
emotions arise, individuals are more likely to participate in collective actions (e.g. Frijda,
1986; Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). Despite the fact that gender inequality also
has negative consequences for males, feminism in general, and the stimulus material of this
study in particular, focus inequality as primarily related to women, which is why it can be
assumed that group-based anger is more likely to occur and spark collective action especially
among female participants. On the basis of this review the following is expected:
H4b: The framing effect will interact with gender, in a way that the more positive
effect of the conflict frame, i.e. intended participation, will be especially pronounced
among female participants.
Interaction between the two frames. Lastly, it can also be expected that the two factors,
private vs. public and peaceful vs. conflict framing, should interact. Since the private picture
as well as the peaceful text are expected to have a more positive influence on attitudes
towards the women’s movement and its’ actors than the public picture and the peaceful text,
respectively, an overall effect of all the four conditions can be expected. Furthermore, both
effects were hypothesized to be emphasized among women, which leads to the following
prediction.
H5: Participants in the private-peaceful condition will have a more positive attitude
towards the women’s movement, the feminist organization and feminists than
participants in the public-conflict condition and this effect will be especially
pronounced among female participants.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!16
As discussed earlier, the effects of conflict and peaceful framing may be distinct when it
comes to mobilizing action. Yet, the private picture was hypothesized to have a positive effect
on women’s wiliness to participate, while public framing should increase men’s readiness for
collective action. Thus, the following is presumed:
H6: Women in the private-conflict condition will be more willing to participate
in the women’s movement than women in the public-peaceful condition, while men
will be more willing to participate when exposed to the public-conflict condition.
Methodology
Context
The study was carried out in Austria, which represents and interesting context for the
purpose of this study: Austrian women experience among the highest rates of inequality in the
EU, which become especially evident in the professional field. The gender pay gap is the
highest in the European Union and Austrian women earn 25.5% less than men, the workforce
is highly segregated and Austrian women are extremely underrepresented in decision-making
positions (European Commission, 2012). Yet, women are participating in Austrian labor force
almost as much as men – 45% of the female population compared to 57% of the male
population are part of labour-force– (Statistik Austria, 2007). Careers and professionalism
have become predominant in Austrian women’s gender-role definition, while the traditional
family role of women is widely rejected (Pongrácz, 2006). Thus, women seem to strive for a
role in society that is equal to men, and yet, are facing above-average levels of inequality in
their day-to-day lives. One of the reasons for this could be that feminist organizations do not
find enough support to actually impact governmental decisions and policies. Therefore,
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!17
findings of this study could be especially meaningful to Austrian feminist organizations as it
could help to attract more public support.
Design and Procedure
To investigate how different textual and visual frames can affect people’s attitudes
towards the women’s movement and its actors as well as their willingness to engage in
collective action, an online experiment with a 2 (private vs. public) by 2 (conflict vs.
peaceful) between-subjects factorial design was conducted. There were four different
experimental conditions, to which participants were randomly assigned.
Between November 25 and December 08, 2014, respondents were contacted via email
or private messages on Facebook. Despite methods of convenience sampling were applied, we
aimed at recruiting a diverse sample in regard to age and education by contacting different
organizations from different occupational fields, new high school alumni, students,
pensioners, etc. The message contained the information that the online study was part of a
Master Thesis project at University of Amsterdam and briefly described the procedure.
Participants were asked to consider participating and were informed about the approximate
duration of the study. The email contained a link to the online study. When clicking on the
link, respondents were redirected to a page that contained information about the anonymity of
the participants, the general procedure of the study as well as contact details for any inquiries
or complaints. To continue with the study, respondents were asked to declare that they
voluntarily agreed to participate, are 18 years or older and to acknowledge to have read and
understood the information stated beforehand.
Once respondents had agreed to participate, they were randomly assigned to four
different experimental conditions. Due to unknown reasons, 28.4% (N=71) of the participants
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!18
who completed the survey were in the publice influence on attitudes towards the w in the
pubic-conflict condition, 21.6% (N=54) were in the private-peaceful condition and 23.6%
(N=59) saw the private picture and read the conflict frame. A comparison between these
groups revealed no differences in age, F(3,243) = .14, p = .936, gender, 𝛘2 = 1.05, p = .790,
education, 𝛘2 = 3.25, p = .354. Therefore, randomization was successful despite slightly
unbalanced cell sizes.
The website that was shown in the stimuli contained a short mission statement and a
picture of the female president of the organization. Text and picture varied depending on the
condition, whereas the setup of the screenshot was the same in each condition. After exposure
to the mock website, respondents were asked to complete a post-hoc test.
Respondents
Overall, 249 adults competed the study. The respondents did not receive any
compensation. Participants were between 18 and 78 with an average age of M=30.59,
SD=12.40. Sixty percent of the participants were female and most participants had completed
rather high education: Twenty-six percent had finished their Bachelor’s degree, 25.6% had
completed a Master’s degree and 24% graduated from high school (AHS). When compared to
the actual Austrian population it becomes apparent that the young, the well-educated and
women are over represented in this sample (For a more detailed description of the participants
please see APPENDIX A).
Stimulus Material
The stimulus was especially constructed for this experiment and designed in a way
that it looked like a screenshot from a website of a mock women’s right organization
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!19
„Österreichische Organisation for Feminismus und Frauenrecht – ÖOF“ [Austrian
Organization of Feminism and Women’s Right – abr. ÖOF]. The screenshot was designed
with the exact same layout in all conditions in order to guarantee stimulus equivalence and a
logo, the same across conditions, was added to enhance credibility and ecological validity.
Choosing this treatment over presenting information as e.g. a newspaper article, also added to
the ecological validity of this study: Feminism is an issue that is highly marginalized in the
Austrian mainstream news which makes it difficult for feminist organizations to reach their
audiences via that channel (Geiger, 2002). To the contrary, online communication initiated by
feminist organizations has been found to be a more successful way to reach a broader
audience to advocate gender equality (e.g. Drüeke & Winker, 2005), which makes exposure to
such content in the real world more likely.
Private vs. public framing. The first factor was operationalized by applying image framing.
Depending on the condition a participant was assigned to a different picture of the same
woman. The pictures, which were specifically taken for the purposes of this study, differ in
terms of background and clothing, categories important in terms of framing feminists as either
private or public figures (Lind and Salo, 2002). In the private condition, the president of the
feminist organization is wearing causal clothes, sitting in a living room, and there is a framed
children’s drawing hanging on the wall in the background. These attributes portray the woman
in a personalized way, by emphasizing her connection to the private sphere.
In the public condition, the woman is standing in front of the Austrian parliament,
wearing office clothes, and there is an Austrian flag in the background. These attributes point
to public sphere activities, such as politics and government (Barnett, 2005; Lind & Salo,
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!20
2002). In both conditions, a label was added to the picture that said „Anna Schubert, president
of ÖOF“ (See APPENDIX B for photos).
A pilot test was conducted to test whether the woman is perceived equally likable,
pleasant, trustworthy and attractive in order to exclude different perceptions of the woman as
a confounding factor. It was furthermore tested whether participants were able to identify the
setting. Results showed that the two pictures are comparable in terms of the various
characteristics, and that a majority of respondents was able to identify the setting as private or
public, respectively (See APPENDIX C for more detailed results)
Conflict vs. Peaceful Framing. The second factor was constructed on the basis of textual
equivalence framing: Two versions of brief mission statements were written with the exact
same arguments and the same number of words (word count: 148). This statement was
presented under the heading “About us. Mission and Goals“ and at the very end of the text an
appeal was made that asked readers to participate in the women’s movement. The arguments
which were presented in the text were all based on facts and the texts were written in the style
of a mission statement similar to real women’s organizations. All sentences in the text varied
in at least one expression and in sum 19 expressions were altered to construct the conflict
versus soft condition.
The conflict frame picked up an aggressive tone towards the opponent and expressions
were altered that described the opponents, their actions and the consequences of such actions,
as well as strategies to counteract, e.g. To win this battle and to revolt against irrational
decisions, which result in contemptuous actions (…)“. The peaceful frame used softer and
more neutral expressions to do so, e.g. „To attain our goal and to be able to do something
against unreasonable decisions, which result in unfair actions (…)“ (see APPENDIX B for
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!21
full text). An independent sample t-test found that participants who read the harsh text
perceived the text to be more aggressive, conflict-orientated and radical (M= 6.02, SD= 2.16)
than those who read the soft text (M= 4.41, SD= 1.75), Mdifferernce = -1.61, CI 95% [-2.1,-1.11],
t (246) = -6.43, p < .001. Thus, the manipulation was successful.
Dependent Measures1
Attitudes towards Women’s Movements. Participants were asked to indicate their
agreement or disagreement with a number of statements from Fassinger’s (1997) attitudes
toward feminism and women’s movement scale (FWM), reaching from 1(=strongly agree) to
7 (=strongly disagree). Six items were retrieved from this scale (e.g. „The women’s movement
made important gains in equal rights for women“). After recoding the negatively phrased
items, a principle component analysis showed that the six items form a single uni-dimensional
scale (Eigenvalue = 3.22, 53.62% of the variance explained). All items correlated positively
with the first component and the higher the score on the scale the more positive the attitude
towards the women’s movement (M= 5.02, SD= 1.03). The reliability of the scale was good,
Cronbach’s α= .82.
Attitudes towards the feminist organization. The same six items from the FWM scale were
adapted and connected to the specific organization that was presented in the stimulus. Three
statements were added that comprised the organization’s trustworthiness, solution orientation
and credibility. Again, negatively phrased items were recoded. The nine items form a single
uni-dimensional scale ( Eigenvalue= 4.37, 48.56% variance explained). All items correlated
positively with this component and a higher score on the scale reflects a more positive attitude
1
See APPENDIX D for question wording and M and SD for separate items
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!22
towards the feminist organization (M= 4.59, SD= .97). The reliability of the scale was found
to be good, Cronbach’s α= .87. Additionally, participants indicated their feelings towards the
organization on a feeling thermometer ranking from 0 (=very negative feelings) to 100 (=very
positive feelings) (M= 57.78, SD= 23.57).
Evaluation of Feminists. Respondent were asked to evaluate „the average feminist“ using a
10-point bipolar scale. Six items tapped attractiveness (not concerned with appearance–very
concerned with appearance), gender (masculine–feminine), political attitude (radical–
moderate; conflict oriented–consensus oriented) and attitudes towards men (hate men–like
men) (e.g. Reid& Purcell’s, 2004). The six items formed a single uni-dimensional scale
(Eigenvalue= 3.36, 56.08% of the variance explained). All six items correlated positively with
this component. The higher participants scored on the scale, the less stereotypical they
evaluated the average feminist, i.e. a higher score points to a description of average feminists
as consensus oriented, moderate, feminine, etc. rather than conflict oriented, radical and
masculine (M= 5.01, SD= 1.52). For this scale the reliability was good, Cronbach’s α= .84.
Furthermore, participants were asked to describe their feelings about feminist activists, by
indicating a number between 0 (=very negative feelings) and 100 (=very positive feelings),
(M= 52.68, SD= 26.18).
Willingness to Participate in the Women’s Movement. Online as well as direct participation
was measured. Respondents were asked how likely they were to participate in each of the nine
activities related to the women’s movement within six month on a seven-point scale from very
unlikely (=1) to very likely (=7). The items that concerned online participation were adapted
from ANES and the Youth & Participatory Politics Survey Project (Cohen & Kahne, 2012),
e.g. „Use the information on ÖOF’s website to convince other people of your standpoint in a
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!23
chat or a conversation“. Furthermore direct participatory actions such as „attending events
organized by a women’s center“, or „sign an email or paper petition for a women’s rights
issue“ were included (Liss, Crawford, & Popp, 2004). The principle component analysis
confirmed that the nine items formed two uni-dimensional scales: There were two
components with an eigenvalue above 1. The first component had an eigenvalue of 4.98 and
explained 39% of the variance, the second with an eigenvalue of 1.10 explained 12.24% of
the variance. The six items that dealt with direct participation in the women’s movement
correlated positively with the first component (M=3.41, SD=1.39). This scale’s reliability was
good, Cronbach’s α= .88. The three items which referred to online participation correlated
positively with the second factor. The reliability of the scale that measured online
participation (M=2.52, SD=1.41) was also good, Cronbach’s α= .83. For both scales a higher
score means a higher willingness to participate.
Gender. We asked participants to indicate whether they were male or female.
Control Measures. Participants also indicated to what degree they have experienced
discrimination based on their gender (Liss, Crawford, & Popp, 2004) on a seven-point
frequency scale, reaching from 1(=never) to 7(=all the time), (M=2.70, SD=1.29).
Additionally, participants’ feminist network was assessed by asking „how many of the people
you are in regular contact with would consider themselves as feminist?“, reaching from
1(=none) to 6 (=all) (M=3.15, SD=1.13). In addition, political knowledge was measured with
three true or false questions about Austrian politics (M=2.06, SD=1.0) and political ideology
was measured on a 0 (=left) to 10 (=right) scale (M=4.49, SD= 1.87)(Van Egmond, Sapir, van
der Brug, Hobolt, & Franklin, 2010).
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!24
Results
Analytical Procedure
To test the proposed hypotheses, multivariate analysis of covariance was used. The
analyses were spilt in three main parts. To test the particular effects of the manipulated texts
and the manipulated pictures, respectively, two dichotomous variables were computed: One
variable which differentiated between the two visual frames (public vs. private) and one
which differentiated between the two textual frames (conflict vs. peaceful).
First, a MANCOVA tested the effects of the visual framing condition as well as its
interaction effect with gender on the dependent variables. Second, a multivariate analysis of
covariance was conducted to test the individual effects of peaceful versus conflict framing , as
well as its interaction with gender. Finally, the overall effects of two the conditions were
tested to assess potential interaction between the visual and the textual frames, also using a
MANCOVA. Whenever an interaction effect was found to be significant, a follow-up post-hoc
test was conducted that used a computed interaction variable (e.g. gender*picture condition).
Feminist network and experienced discrimination were included as covariates in all
models (main and follow-up), since these variables have been found to be strong predictors of
feminist attitudes and participation in the women’s movement (Liss, Crawford, & Popp,
2004). As framing effects of political messages have been found to be influenced by
individual differences such as political sophistication and the firmness of one’s political
orientation (e.g. Zaller, 1996; de Vreese, 2009) political ideology and political knowledge
were also included as covariates. Spurious effects that are due to differences in education and
age are not expected since it was shown that these variables were equally distributed between
the experimental conditions. Since all reported effects are based on models which used the
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!25
described covariates, the reported means and standard errors are estimated marginals that
were calculated while holding the included covariates constant.2
Hypotheses testing
Visual Frames (private vs. public). The first hypothesis (H1a) predicted that women will
have more positive attitudes towards the women’s movement, feminists and the feminist
organization (regardless of the visual frame). Table 1 shows that women had, indeed, a more
positive attitude towards the organization, reported more positive feelings towards the
feminist organization and evaluated feminists as less stereotypical than men did. However,
female and male participants did not differ in regard to their attitude towards the women’s
movement and their feelings towards feminist activists. Therefore, we can only partially
accept H1a.
Table 1
Summary Table of Estimated Means (Standard Errors) and F-values for attitudes as a function of
gender differences
Variable
Women (n=142)
Men (n=88)
F (1,229)
Attitude towards the organization
4.76 (.08)
4.42 (.10)
6.65**
Feeling towards the organization
60.97 (1.93)
53.02 (2.5)
5.80**
Attitude towards the women’s movement
5.12 (.08)
4.94(.10)
1.73
Evaluation of Feminists
5.22 (.12)
4.75 (.15)
5.21**
Feelings towards Feminist activists
54.0 (2.01)
50.44 (2.60)
1.08
*p< .1, ** p <.05,***, p<.01,**** p<.001
Note: Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes, feelings and a less stereotypical evaluation
To test H1B, an interaction effect between gender and private vs. public picture
condition was tested. This effect was not significant for attitudes towards the organization, F
(1,229)= .39, p= .535, feelings towards the organization, F (1,229)= .52, p= .471, attitudes
Covariates appearing in the models are evaluated at the following values: Experienced Discrimination
= 2,72, Political Knowledge = 2,07, Political ideology = 4,48, Feminist Network = 3,17.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!26
towards the women’s movement F (1,229)= .07, p= .788, or feelings towards feminist
activists, F (1,229)= .13, p= .718. Neither did the interaction between gender and picture
condition significantly affect how participants evaluated feminists, F (1,229)= 2.18, p= .141.
H1b cannot be supported as exposure to the private vs. the public frame did not interact with
gender and thus the difference between men and women did not increase in the private
condition.
In H2a it was predicted that women will be more willing to participate in the women’s
movement than men (regardless of the condition). Indeed, women reported higher willingness
to participate directly than men (direct participation: Mfemales=3.70, SE=.10 Mmales=3.01, SE=.
13), F(1,233)=16.96,Mdifferernce = .69, CI 95% [.36,1.02], p <.001; online participation
(Mfemales=2.75, SE=.11, Mmales=2.21, SE=.14), F(1,233)=7.91,Mdifferernce = .54, CI 95% [.
16,.91], p=005) and H2a is thus supported.
H2b predicted an interaction effect between gender and visual frame was predicted, in
a way that women’s willingness to participate will be enhanced after exposure to the private
picture and men’s willingness to participate will increase after exposure to the public portrayal
of a feminist. In line with the hypothesis, the interaction effect between gender and visual
frame on online participation ,F(1,233) = 3.35, p =.069, as well as direct participation,
F(1,233) = 3.11, p =.079, was marginally significant. This interaction effect was plotted for
the ease of interpretation.
In line with what was predicted, Figure 1 shows that women were more willing to
participate online after exposure to the private condition, while for men, the opposite was
true. This follow-up analysis showed that males in the private condition (M=2.02, SE=.19)
were less willing to participate online than women in the same condition (M=2.88, SE=.17)
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!27
and this difference was significant ,, Mdifferernce = -.86, CI 95% [-1.58,-.13], p = .011. However,
the difference between women (M=2.62, SE=.21) and men (M=2.40, SE=.19) were cancelled
out after exposure to the public picture, Mdifferernce = .22, CI 95% [-.43,.87], p = 1.
!
Figure 1
Estimated Marginal means for the interaction effect between gender and private vs. public
picture on online participation.
!
Note: A higher score indicates a higher willingness to participate online
!
A similar pattern was found for direct participation, where the follow-up ANCOVA
yielded that after exposure to the private picture, women were more willing to participate
directly (M=3.80, SE=.15) than men (M=2.84, SE=.18), Mdifferernce = .96, CI 95% [.33,1.60], p
< .001, while there was no significant difference between women (M=3.60, SE=.13) and men
(M=3.18, SE=.17) in the public condition, Mdifferernce = .42, CI 95% [-.15,.99], p =.314.
Therefore, consistent with H2b, the gender difference was cancelled out in the public
condition as men showed a higher willingness to participate after exposure to the public
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!28
picture and women were more willing to participate after exposure to the private picture.
Textual Frames (Conflict vs. Peaceful). In the third hypothesis it was predicted that peaceful
framing will result in more positive attitudes towards the women’s movement, feminist
activists and feminist organizations, than exposure to conflict framing.
Table 2
Summary Table of Estimated Means and F-values for attitudes as a function of conflict vs. peaceful
manipulation
Variable
Conflict (n=118)
Peaceful (n=112)
F (1,222)
Attitude towards the organization
4.37 (.08)
4.80 (.08)
13.30****
Feeling towards the organization
60.03 (2.05)
53.80 (2.15)
5.80*
Attitude towards the women’s
movement
5.12 (.08)
4.94(.10)
1.73
Evaluation of Feminists
5.22 (.12)
4.75 (.15)
4.41
Feelings towards Feminist activists
55.26 (2.23)
49.48 (2.14)
3.49*
*p< .1, ** p <.05,***, p<.01,**** p<.001
Note: Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes, feelings and a less stereotypical evaluation
This hypothesis was partly supported. Table 2 shows that conflict vs. peaceful framing had a
direct effect on attitudes and feeling towards the feminist organization as well as feelings
towards feminist activists, but did not affect participants’ attitudes towards the women’s
movement or their evaluation of feminists. In line with what was predicted exposure to the
peaceful frame resulted in more positive feelings and a more positive attitude towards the
feminist organization. To the contrary, participants reported more positive feelings toward
feminist activists when reading the conflict focused message.
H3b predicted an interaction between gender and textual framing in a way that the
effects should be more evident among female participants. However, the interaction between
gender and conflict vs. peaceful framing did not reach significance in regard to attitudes
towards the organization, F(1,233)=.06, p= .881, feelings towards the organization,
F(1,233)=.11, p=.735, attitudes towards the women’s movement, F(1,233)=1.51, p=.220,
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!29
evaluation of feminists, F(1,233)=.82, p=.365, or feelings towards feminist activists,
F(1,233)=.76, p=.385.Thus, H3b is rejected.
H4a predicted that exposure to conflict framing will result in a higher willingness to
participate directly and online when compared to peaceful framing, and H4b predicted that the
framing effect will interact with gender, in a way that the more positive effect of the conflict
frame is more evident among female participants. Participants who read the conflict frame did
report a higher willingness to participate directly (M=3.45, SE=.11) than those who were
exposed to the peaceful condition (M=3.26, SE=.11), yet this difference was not significant,
F(1,233) = 1.57, p =.211. Neither did the effect of conflict vs. peaceful framing on online
participation, reach significance, F(1,233) = 1.03, p =.312 and the predicted interaction effect
of gender and textual frame was not found to have a significant effect on online, F(1,233) = .
460, p =.498, or direct, F(1,233) = .003, p =.960, participation. Therefore, Hypotheses 4a and
4b are rejected.
Overall Effects. Finally, it was tested whether the two experimental factors interacted. The
analysis showed that the four conditions significantly affected people’s attitudes towards the
organization, F(3,218) = 4.44, p =.005. In line with what was predicted, participants who
were exposed to the private picture and the peaceful text had the most positive attitude
towards the feminist organization (M= 4.81, SE=.13), while participants who were exposed to
the public picture and the conflict-oriented text scored lowest (M= 4.31, SE=.12). The
difference between those two conditions was significant, Mdifferernce = .50, CI 95% [.04,.96], p
= .028. Additionally, participants in the public-peaceful condition had a more positive attitude
towards the feminist organization (M= 4.78, SE=.11) than participants who saw the same
picture but read the conflict text (M= 4.31, SE=.12) and this difference was also significant,
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!30
Mdifferernce = .47, CI 95% [.04,.90], p= .024. Yet, all other pairwise comparisons were
insignificant.
Participants’ feelings towards the organization, F(3,218) = 1.56 p =.200, their
evaluation of average feminists, F(3,218) = .25, p =.865, their feelings towards feminists,
F(3,218) = 1.01, p =.387, and their attitudes towards the women's movement, F(3,218) = .07,
p =.977, were not significantly affected by the four conditions. Neither was there a significant
interaction effect between gender and the conditions on attitudes towards the feminist
organization, F(3,218) = .07, p =.974, feelings towards the organization, F(3,218) = .53 p =.
660, evaluation of average feminists, F(3,218) = .94, p =.421, feelings towards feminist
activists, F(3,218) = .34, p =.793, and their attitudes towards the women's movement,
F(3,218) = .53, p =.661. Since the conditions only affected participants’ attitudes towards the
organization, but no other attitude measures were affected and there was no interaction
between condition and gender, we can only participially accept H5.
Additionally, H6 was tested that predicted that women in the private-conflict condition
will be more willing to participate in the women’s movement than women in the publicpeaceful condition, while men will be more willing to participate when exposed to the publicconflict condition. Yet, we did not find exposure to the different conditions to have a
significant effect on willingness to participate online, F(3,218) = .97, p =.410, or directly,
F(3,218) = 1.55, p =.203, nor did the interaction between gender and condition affect the
willingness for online, F(3,218) = 1.36, p =.256, or direct participation, F(3,218) = 1.77, p =.
153. Thus, Hypothesis 6 has to be rejected.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!31
Discussion
Advocating gender equality is a topic that has been around for almost a century and
has recently become revitalized in its’ relevancy (e.g. Redfern & Aune, 2013) Yet, in order for
the movement to gain wider social recognition and public support, it is important for feminist
and women’s right organizations to know how certain ways of communication affect how
people perceive the movement and how it affects their willingness to take action in it.
Although scholarship on which frames have been circulating in the mass media, and to a
much lesser degree in the movement’s own communication efforts, is growing, little is known
about the actual effects of these frames. Additionally, recent efforts to specifically target men
and include them in the feminist movement, (e.g. HeforShe Campiagn, 2014) indicate that
men and women might respond differently to certain messages about feminism – another
issue that is drastically understudied.
This thesis aimed to make theoretical and methodological contributions. Theoretically,
it combined different approaches rooting in social psychology to explain framing effects. In
particular, theories of source similarity and self-referencing, as suggested by message
persuasion scholars, served to explain variances in attitudes as well as gender differences.
Further, this paper built on the psychological elements of collective identity, efficacy and
injustice as a useful framework to investigate what effects frames may have on intended
participation.
Importantly, this study could demonstrate that it matters how feminist organizations
communicate. While the general attitude towards the women’s movement was not as much
affected, people’s attitudes and their feelings towards the feminist organization were found to
be more positive after reading a peaceful, rather than a conflict-oriented text, especially when
this text was presented together with a private portrayal of a feminist. To the contrary, a
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!32
conflict-oriented message together with a feminist portrayed as a public person had
counterproductive effects on how the organization was viewed. In other words, participants
perceived the feminist organization that was presented in the treatment as most trustworthy,
important and capable of actively securing and advancing equal rights when exposed to a
peaceful message and a picture of a feminist in a private setting. Interestingly and
contradictory to what we have predicted and to what has been found in previous research (e.g.
Arpan et al., 2006), the conflict oriented frame did result in more positive attitudes towards
feminist activists.
Although we were not able to show that participation was positively affected by a
conflict-oriented rather than a peaceful message, results did point in this direction, which
underlines the importance of differentiating between attitudinal and behavioral outcomes
when investigating the effects of conflict or injustice frames.
Furthermore, our findings evince that the same frame can have opposite effects on
different target groups. In regard to social movement theory, this finding provides evidence to
the proposition that those prone to adopt collective identity may be persuaded to participate in
collective action in different ways than those who are more distant to the collectiveness of the
disadvantaged group (e.g. Van Zomeren, Postmes, &, Spears; Veenstra & Haslam, 2000).
Specifically, we found that women and men responded differently to a private vs. a public
portrayal of a feminist. Despite very small differences, results suggest that women were more
likely to participate in collective actions such as demonstrations, petitions or joining a
women’s organization, when exposed to a feminist that was portrayed in a private setting
which potentially evoked the feeling that oneself is capable of changing the current status and
thus appears to be more empowering for women. On the other hand, men seem to be more
likely to be engaged through instrumental factors, such as how efficacious and thus successful
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!33
the organized movement appears to be in the political sphere. This, as well as the finding that
women were overall more positive towards the movement and more willing to participate,
suggests that in order to target men and thus make gender „everybody’s issue“, different
communication approaches may be needed. Future research could examine to what degree the
inclusion of male activists in campaigns or a clearer focus on how gender inequality affects
men (Cornwall, 1997), and motivates them to join the movement.
Methodologically, this study also has some central advantages. To the author’s
knowledge, it is the first experimental study that tested the effects of frames applied in
feminism. By using a factorial design, this study was able to isolate the casual impact of both,
textual and visual frames as well the interaction between the two. In addition, by relying on
equivalence rather than emphasis framing internal validity is further strengthened as the
measured effects can be linked directly to the manipulations (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012).
Given that this experiment assigned participants randomly to the conditions, the potential for
spurious associations and reverse causation are also redressed, which furthermore adds to the
strength of the causal inferences that were made. Furthermore, the stimulus was created as a
screenshot of website that used elements from real feminist organizations in order to make the
treatment as realistic as possible.
Yet, the findings of this study should be interpreted in regard to some central
limitations. First, problems of generalizability of the findings have to be addressed. While
generalizability is not a strong suit of experimental research in general, the results of this
study drew on a convenience sample in which highly educated, young people and women
were overrepresented, which further decreases the generalizability. Another weak point that is
connected to the sample may be the number of participants. With between 54 and 71
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!34
participants per condition, statistical significance is hard to reach when investigating rather
small, communication effects. Thus, chances of making type two errors increase.
Furthermore, attitudes and willingness to participate were measured shortly after the
exposure to the mission statement of the women’s organization. Therefore, we cannot draw
any conclusions of whether these effects last long enough to actually change attitudes or spark
participation. For further evidence future research could test whether the effects that were
found are expanded or constrained when measuring long-term effects. Despite our efforts to
create realistic stimuli that are more likely to be encountered in a real context, it is unlikely
that a majority of the participants would pay close attentions to such contents in their day-today lives, which reduces the ecological validity of this experiment.
Conclusion
Although communication and gender studies scholars have investigated the frames circulating
about feminism and have discussed their potential influence on public opinion (e.g. Barnett,
2005; Beck, 1998, Bronstein, 2005), our study was the first to systematically trace these
effects and shows that communication can have an effect on how individuals perceive
feminist organizations and their causes. Practically, the findings of this study imply that
feminist organizations may have to craft different messages to enhance reputation or find
sympathizers than when trying to mobilize people for protest or collective action. Further, the
results suggest that whether a campaign is aimed at women, men or both might be an
important determinant of how campaign messages should be framed in order to be successful.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!35
References
Arpan, L. M., Baker, K., Lee, Y., Jung, T., Lorusso, L., & Smith, J. (2006). News coverage of
social protests and the effects of photographs and prior attitudes. Mass
Communication & Society, 9(1), 1-20.
Barnett, B. (2005). Feminists shaping news: A framing analysis of news releases from the
National Organization for Women. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(4),
341-362.
Beck, D. B. (1998). The" F" word: How the media frame feminism. NWSA Journal, 10(1)
139-153.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An
overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology,26, 611-639.
Berryman-Fink, C., & Verderber, K. S. (1985). Attributions of the term “feminist”: A factor
analytic development of a measuring instrument. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 9,
51–64.
Bochner, S. (1994). The effectiveness of same-sex versus opposite-sex role models in
advertisements to reduce alcohol consumption in teenagers. Addictive behaviors,
19(1), 69-82.
Bolzendahl, C. I., & Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality:
Opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces, 83(2), 759-789.
Bradley, P. (2004). Mass media and the shaping of American feminism, 1963-1975 Univ.
Press of Mississippi.
Bronstein, C. (2005). Representing the third wave: Mainstream print media framing of a new
feminist movement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4),783-803.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!36
Budgeon, S. (2001). Emergent Feminist (?) Identities Young Women and the Practice of
Micropolitics. European Journal of Women's Studies, 8(1), 7-28.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (1995). Effects of self-referencing on persuasion. Journal
of Consumer Research, 22(1),17-26.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science,
10, 103-126.
Cohen, C. J., & Kahne, J. (2012). Participatory politics: New media and youth political
action. YPP Research Network.
Coleman, R. (2010). Framing the pictures in our heads: Exploring the framing and agendasetting effects of visual images. In D’Angelo & Kyupers (Eds.),Doing news framing
analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives . New York: Routledge, 233-261.
Cornwall, A. (1997). Men, masculinity and 'gender in development'. Gender & Development,
5(2), 8-13.
Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1991). Men's and women's consciousness of gender
inequality: Austria, West Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. American
Sociological Review, 56(1),72-84.
Devereux, C. M., & Devereux, J. (2005). Feminism: What Are We Supposed to Do Now?.
ESC: English Studies in Canada, 1(2), 9-11.
Dean, J. (2010). Feminism in the papers: Contested feminisms in the British Quality
Press. Feminist Media Studies, 10(4), 391-407.
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. D. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative study
of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 35, 35–38.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!37
Drüeke, R., & Winker, G. (2005): Neue Öffentlichkeiten durch frauenpolitische InternetAuftritte in Schachtner, C. & Winker, G. (Ed.), Virtuelle Räume – neue
Öffentlichkeiten. Frauennetze im Internet. Frankfurt/Main, Germany:
Campus Verlag, p.31-49.
Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management
strategies. European review of social psychology, 4(1), 27-57.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
European commission (2012): The current situation of gender equality in Austria – Country
Profile. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/
filesepo_campaign/130911_epo_country_profile_austria.pdf
European commission (2013): Women and men in leadership positions in the European
Union, 2013. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/
gender_balance_decision_making/131011_women_men_leadership_en.pdf
European commission (2014): Report on Progress on equality between women and men in
2013. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/
141404_annual__report_en.pdf
Fassinger, R. E. (1994). Development and testing of the Attitudes Toward Feminism and the
Women's Movement (FWM) Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(3), 389-402.
Feminism [Def.1, US English] In Oxford Dictionaries Online Retrieved November 15, 2014,
from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/feminism.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!38
Gamson, W. A. (1995). Constructing social protest. Social movements and culture,
in ,Klandermans, B. & Johnston, H. (Eds.), Social Movements and Culture 4,
University of Minnesota Press: 85-106.
Gamson, W. A., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems.
Citizens, Protest and Democracy (528), 114-125.
Geiger (2002): Mediale Vermittlung Feministischer Öffentlichkeiten in Neissl, J. (Ed.),
Geschlechterperspektiven in den Medien (= Beiträge zur Medien- und
Kommunikationsgesellschaft 9). Vienna, Austria: Studien Verlag, 91-111.
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and
choice. Nobel prize lecture, 8, 351-401.
Kim, Y. M. (2009). Issue publics in the new information environment selectivity, domain
specificity, and extremity. Communication Research, 36(2), 254-284.
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of
resource mobilization theory. American sociological review, 49(5), 583-600.
Lugones, M. C., Spelman, E. V. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory,
cultural imperialism and the demand for ‘the woman's voice’. In Women's Studies
International Forum,6(6), 573-581.
Lind, R. A., & Salo, C. (2002). The framing of feminists and feminism in news and public
affairs programs in US electronic media. Journal of Communication, 52(1),
211-228.
Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex
Roles, 50(11-12), 771-779.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!39
Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group
messages. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(5), 812-822.
Mendes, K. (2011). Framing feminism: News coverage of the women's movement in
British and American newspapers, 1968–1982. Social Movement Studies, 10(1),
81-98.
Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing
effects. Political behavior, 19(3), 221-246.
Peck, J., & Loken, B. (2004). When will larger‐sized female models in advertisements be
viewed positively? The moderating effects of instructional frame, gender, and need for
cognition. Psychology & Marketing, 21(6), 425-442.
Pongrácz, M. (2006) “ Opinions on Gender Roles.” in: Ildikó Nagy, Marietta Pongrácz, István
György Tóth (eds.) Changing Roles: Report on the Situation of Women and Men in
Hungary 2005. Budapest: TÁRKI Social Research Institute, 71-84.
Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and
their implications for research. Public opinion quarterly, 57(2), 133-164.
Redfern, C., & Aune, K. (2010). Reclaiming the F word: The new feminist movement.London,
United Kingdom: Zed Books.
Reid, A., & Purcell, N. (2004). Pathways to feminist identification. Sex Roles, 50(11-12),
759-769.
Rodriguez, L., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2011). The Levels of Visual Framing. Journal of Visual
Literacy, 30(1), 48-65.
Rogers, E. M., & Bhowmik, D. K. (1970). Homophily-heterophily: Relational concepts for
communication research. Public opinion quarterly, 34(4), 523-538.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!40
Roy, R. E., Weibust, K. S., & Miller, C. T. (2007). Effects of stereotypes about feminists on
feminist self-identification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(2), 146-156
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at
cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2-3),
297-316.
Scheufele, D. A., Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The
evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20
Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2012). The state of framing research: a call for new
directions in Kenskie, K. & Hall Jamieson,K. The Oxford Handbook of Political
Communication Theories. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Schreiber, R. (2010). Who speaks for women? Print media portrayals of feminist and
conservative women's advocacy. Political Communication, 27(4), 432-452.
Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., & Spahlinger, P. (1998).
Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 74(3), 646.
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: Asocial-psychological
analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331.
Statistik Austria (2007). Frauen und Männer in Österreich. Statistische Analyse zu
geschlechtsspezifischen Unterschieden. Retrieved from: https://www.bka.gv.at/
DocView.axd?CobId=26402
Statistik Austria (2014): Bevölkerung am 1.1.2014 nach Alter und Bundesland - Insgesamt.
Retrieved from: http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/bevoelkerung/
bevoelkerungsstruktur/bevoelkerung_nach_alter_geschlecht/023470.html
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!41
Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). The role of collective identification in social movement
participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 263-277.
Twenge, J. M., & Zucker, A. N. (1999). What is a feminist?. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
23(3), 591-605.
Van Egmond, M. H., Sapir, E. V., van der Brug, W., Hobolt, S. B., & Franklin, M. N. (2010).
EES 2009 Voter Study advance release notes. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity
model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three sociopsychological perspectives. Psychological bulletin, 134(4), 504.
Van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2013). The social psychology of protest. Current
Sociology, 61(5-6), 886-905.
Veenstra, K., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). Willingness to participate in industrial protest:
Exploring social identification in context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2),
153-172.
Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., Pingree, S., & Hawkins, R. P. (2008). Health information, credibility,
homophily, and influence via the Internet: Web sites versus discussion groups. Health
Communication, 23(4), 358-368.
White, H. A., & Andsager, J. L. (1991). Newspaper column readers' gender bias: Perceived
interest and credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 68(4),
709-718.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!42
Zaller, J. (1996) The Myth of Massive Media Impact Revived: New Support for a Discredited
Idea, in Mutz, D., Sniderman, P., and Brody, R. (eds.) Political Persuasion and Attitude
Change, Michigan: Michigan University Press, 17–78.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!43
APPENDIX A: Comparison between Sample and Austrian Population
Table 1
Age groups in percent: Comparison between Sample and Austrian Population
Age
Sample
(n=249)
Population
(n=7.015.329)
18-22
20.9
7.41
23-27
37.7
7.91
28-32
15.7
8.19
33-37
4.4
7.72
38-42
1.6
8.38
43-47
7.2
9.86
48-52
7.2
10.04
53-57
2.4
8.64
58-62
0.4
7.00
63-67
0.8
6.53
68-72
0
5.74
73-77
1.2
5.11
78-82
0.8
3.34
> 83
0
4.14
Total
100
100
Note:Data for population was retrieved from Statistik Austria:Bevölkerung am 1.1.2014 nach Alter
und Bundesland - Insgesamt
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!44
Table 2
Comparison between Sample and Austrian Population:Percentage of Highest Degree Completed
Degree
Sample
(n=249)
Population
Pflichtschule (compulsory school)
0.8
19.2
Lehre (Apprenticeship)
1.6
36.0
Mittlere (Fach-)Schule (professional school)
3.2
15.5
AHS Matura (General Highschool Diploma)
24
5.2
BHS Matura (Vocational highschool diploma)
8.8
8.7
University Degree (including bachelor, master,
magister, diploma ingenieur,phd doktor, )
58.4
15.4
Other
3.2
Total
100
100
Note:Data for population was retrieved from Statistik Austria: Bildungsnieveu der Bevölkerung
Official Date do not include data for 18-24 year olds
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
APPPENDIX B: Stimuli Materials
!
!
Examples: Layout public-peaceful, private-conflict
!45
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!46
Text : Conflict English and German
Conflict
Peaceful
Bis heute hat die Politik kläglich versagt, ein
Mindestmaß an Gleichberechtigung der
Geschlechter zu gewährleisten. Auch wenn uns
fortschrittsfeindliche PolitikerInnen und Medien die
Lüge auftischen, Frauen wären mittlerweile
gleichberechtigt, ist die skrupellose Unterdrückung
der Frau nach wie vor in allen Lebenslagen
offensichtlich:
• Die geschlechtsbedingte Lohnkluft erreicht in
Österreich unzumutbare Dimensionen: Frauen in
Österreich verdienen 25,5% weniger als Männer –
das ist der höchste Wert in der gesamten EU.
• Untragbare Karenz-Gesetze und ein gravierendes
Defizit an Kinderbetreuungsplätzen verhindern
den Spagat zwischen Beruf und Familie.
• Bis heute erleidet jede dritte Frau in Europa Gewalt
durch Schinder, jede fünfte wird Opfer einer
grausamen Vergewaltig. Zahlen wie diese sind
ein Armutszeugnis für aktuelle Gegenmaßnahmen
und das Resultat der mutwilligen Missbilligung
von Frauenrechten.
Bis heute hat die Politik es nicht geschafft, gleiche
Chancen für Frauen und Männer zu gewährleisten.
Auch wenn uns konservative PolitikerInnen und
Medien glauben machen wollen Frauen wären
mittlerweile gleichberechtigt, sind Ungleichheiten
zwischen den Geschlechtern nach wie vor in vielen
Lebenslagen spürbar:
• Die geschlechtsbedingte Lohnkluft erreicht in
Österreich besorgniserregende Ausmaße: Frauen
in Österreich verdienen 25,5% weniger als Männer
– das ist der höchste Wert in der gesamten EU.
• Reformbedürftige Karenz-Gesetze und ein
spürbarer Mangel an Kinderbetreuungsplätzen
erschweren den Spagat zwischen Beruf und
Familie.
• Bis heute erfährt jede dritte Frau in Europa Gewalt
durch Männer, und eine von fünf Frauen wird
vergewaltigt. Zahlen wie diese deuten auf die
Unvollständigkeit aktueller Gegenmaßnahmen und
deuten auf unzureichenden Schutz von
Frauenrechten hin.
Deshalb ist es unsere Mission, Gleichberechtigung
zwischen Männern und Frauen sicherzustellen. Um
dieses Ziel erreichen zu können und etwas am
Status-Quo zu verändern, brauchen wir Ihre
Unterstützung.
Deshalb ist es unsere Pflicht, für Gleichberechtigung
zwischen Männern und Frauen zu kämpfen. Um
unseren Kampf gewinnen zu können und unsere
Gegner zu zerschlagen, brauchen wir Ihre
Unterstützung.
Until today, politicians have abjectly failed to ensure
a minimum of gender equality. While antiprogressive politicians and media confront us with
the lie that women have equal rights already, the
suppression of women is still obvious in all aspects
of our day-to-day lives:
• The gender pay gap has reached unacceptable
dimensions: Austrian women earn 25,5% less than
men, which is the highest difference in the
European Union.
• Unbearable maternity-leave laws and a excessive
deficit of child care places actively prevent the
balancing act between family and professional life.
• Until today, one in three European women has
suffered from gender based violence by an
oppressor, one in five has been the victim of
cruel rape. Numbers like these indicate the
pathetic display of current counteractions and the
result of mischievous reprobation of women’s
rights.
That is why it is our duty to fight for equality
between women and men. To win this battle and to
crush our opponents, we are in need of your support.
Until today, politicians have not managed to ensure
that men and women have the same chances. While
conservative politicians and media try to convince us
that women have equal rights already, gender
inequality is still noticeable in many aspects of our
day-to-day lives:
• The gender pay gap has reached worrying levels:
Austrian women earn 25,5% less than men, which
is the highest difference in the European Union.
• In need of reform (this is actually one adjective in
German)maternity-leave laws and a noticeable
shortage of child care places aggravate the
balancing act between family and professional life.
• Until today, one in three European women has
experienced gender based violence, one out of five
women has been raped by men. Numbers like these
indicate an inadequacy of current counteractions and insufficient protection of women’s
rights.
That is why it is our mission to secure equality
between women and men. To attain our goal and to
be able to change the status-quo, we are in need of
your support.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!47
APPENDIX C: Pilot Study
Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviation of rated adjectives on picture perception
Adjective
Private Picture
(n=48)
Public Picture
(n=46)
t (92)
attractive
2.90(1.01)
2.96 (.94)
-.3
likable
4.02 (.70)
3.76 (.87)
1.60
trustworthy
3.56 (.99)
4.02 (.77)
-2.51**
pleasant
3.98 (.89)
3.85 (.79)
.76
overall
3.61 (.72)
3.65
.82
*p< .1, ** p <.05,***, p<.01,**** p<.001
Note. All adjectives were measured on a scale from 1(=not at all) to 5(=very much).
Table 2.
Frequencies of Guessed Settings for Private Picture
Location
Frequency
Percent
Home, Living Room
26
54,2
Office
10
20,8
Art Gallery, Museum
6
12,5
Waiting Room
4
8,3
School
1
2,1
Governmental Building
1
2,1
48
100
Total
Note. Participants were presented with an open-ended question in which they were
asked to guess the setting where the picture was taken. Similar answers were
categorized and recoded.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!48
Table 2.
Frequencies of Guessed Settings for Private Picture
Location
Frequency
Percent
Governmental/offical building
26
58.7
Street, city
8
17.4
(in front of) Office
8
17.4
Restaurant
1
2.2
Museum
1
2.2
Car Park
1
2.2
46
100
Total
Note. Participants were presented with an open-ended question in which they were asked to
guess the setting where the picture was taken. Similar answers were categorized and
recoded.
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!49
APPENDIX D: Dependent Measures Post Test
Table 1. Means per item: Attitudes towards the feminist organization and the womem’s movement
Items
M(SD)
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about the
organization you have just read about (ÖOF)
I consider the goals of the ÖOF to be important
5.84(1.27)
ÖOF could positively influence relationships between men and women.
4.32 (1.48)
ÖOF is too radical and extreme in its views.
3.18 (1.53)
ÖOF could make important gains in equal rights for women
4.83(1.35)
ÖOF is too visionary for a practical world.
3.44(1.40)
ÖOF is solution oriented
4.43(1.45)
ÖOF is credible
4.93(1.36)
ÖOF is willing to compromise
3.74(1.33)
There are better ways to fight for equality than through an organization such
as the ÖOF
4.06(1.37)
Now please think about women’s movement in general. Please indicate how strongly you
agree or disagree with the following statements about the women’s rights movement.
I consider the goals of the women's movement to be important.
5.99 (1.41)
The women’s movement has positively influenced relationships between men
and women.
4.63 (1.54)
The women’s movement is too radical and extreme in its views.
3.37 (1.51)
The women’s movement has made important gains in equal rights for women
5.79 (1.26)
Feminist are too visionary for a practical world.
There are better ways for women to fight for quality than through the
women’s movement.
3.5 (1.5)
3.45 (1.48)
Note.Participants could indicate how strongly they agree or disagree on a scale from 1(=srtongly
disagree) to 7(=strongly agree). A higher score means more agreement with the statement
COMMUNICATING THE F-WORD
!50
Table 2. Means per item: Evaluation of the average Feminist
Items
M(SD)
Now, please think of “the average feminist" in general. Please indicate how well the adjectives,
in your opinion, describe "the average feminist" how you would think of her/him?
radical(1) - moderate (10)
4.28 (1.84)
hate men(1) -like men (10)
5.06 (2.06)
not concerned with appearance(1)-very concerned with appearance (10)
5.03 (1.79)
masculine(1)-feminine (10)
5.41 (1.83)
conflict oriented (1)- solution oriented (10)
4.65 (2.32)
not fit to be a politician (1)-fit to be a politician (10)
5.62 (2.44)
Tabelle 3. Means per item for willingness to participate
Items
M(SD)
You will read a couple of statements related to online and offline political activities. How likely
is it that in the next 6 months you will personally engage in the following activities?
Use the information on website to convince other people of your standpoint in a
chat or a conversation
2.71(1.69)
Share information related to what you have just read on the website (e.g. wall
post, personal message, email)
2.58 (1.58)
Like this organization on Facebook (or another social network)
2.27 (1.61)
Participating in a rally/demonstration for women's rights
2.66 (1.80)
Signing an email or paper petition for a women's rights issue
4.09 (2.05)
Contribute to a fund-raiser for a women's cause
3.08(1.79)
Attending events organized by a women's center/women's organization
3.19 (1.85)
Join a women's rights organization
2.09 (1.34)
Talk about feminism with my friends and/or family
5.37 (1.72)