Cranmer (a graduate student) and Bowman are with the Dept. of Communication Studies, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. Brann is now with Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN. Address author correspondence to Gregory Cranmer at [email protected]
Male Athletes, Female Aesthetics: The Continued Ambivalence Toward Female
Athletes in ESPN’s The Body Issue
Gregory A. Cranmer, Maria Brann, and Nicholas D. BowmanWest Virginia University, USA
Previous studies have suggested that media reify frames that subtly enforce sex differences in a manner that detracts from women athletes’ athleticism. This phenomenon is referred to as ambivalence. To analyze ambivalence, this study introduces a theoretically and empirically supported coding scheme that was used to conduct a quantitative frame analysis of 157 images featured in ESPN’s The Body Issue. These images were coded for frames that de-emphasize athleti-cism, sexualize athletes, or deny a sporting context. Results suggest that athlete sex is associated with de-emphasized athleticism and sexualized frames, and sport gender is associated with context frames. Results also support longitudinal trends in The Body Issue series, which suggest that the series has become more sexualized and removed from a sports context but has decreased the use of frames that de-emphasize athleticism. In general, The Body Issue continues to reinforce established media trends that trivialize female athletes, despite claiming to do the opposite.
Keywords: frame analysis, framing theory, sport communication
Sport is largely considered a pervasive, powerful, and communicative phe-nomenon that has numerous social implications (Kassing et al., 2004; Pedersen, 2013; Washington & Karen, 2001). In particular, sports media are suggested to shape societal conceptions of social issues, including sex differences and gender, as their messages are reified in audience members’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in both sport and society (Bernstein & Kian, 2013; Duncan, 2006; Kane & Greendorfer, 1994). Given this influence, Hall (1986) asserted that “it matters profoundly what and who gets represented, what and who routinely gets left out, and how things, people, events, and relationships, are represented” in sports media (p. 9).
To date, scholarly discourse on this topic has suggested that media often trivialize female athletes and their accomplishments through patterns of coverage
that emphasize sex differences (Bernstein & Kian, 2013; Bruce, 2012). Tradition-ally, themes that de-emphasize female athleticism, increase sexualization, and/or deny sporting context have been identified across media, but recent research has suggested that media messages regarding female athletes have become more equitable when compared with those regarding male athletes (e.g., Hardin, Chance, Dodd, & Hardin, 2002; Pedersen, 2002; Pedersen, Miloch, Fielding, & Clavio, 2007; Spencer, 2010; Wensing & Bruce, 2003). These observed shifts have led some to refer to the previously established patterns of cover-age as “the old rules” of sports media (Wensing & Bruce, 2003) and fostered a feminist narrative that suggests that society is moving closer to equality in sport and sport coverage (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003). The purpose of this study was to continue the investigation of media portrayals of athletes for sex differences in an effort to further the understanding of shifting trends in the messages in sports media. In particular, the specific purpose of this study was twofold: to examine visual frames in the images in The Body Issue as a function of athlete sex, sport, and image characteristics and to develop a coding scheme that synthesizes previous research on the visual framing of athletes.
This examination is warranted for several reasons. First, Benoit and Holbert (2008) advocated that “it is extremely important to conduct and formally assess replications in content analytical work in order to be able to assess whether a specific set of messages are offered consistently across time” (p. 617). The timing of this study increases the desirability of replication, as the majority of content analyses that have examined visual frames that de-emphasize women’s athleti-cism, sexualize female athletes, and/or deny sporting context of female athletes in magazines are dated (e.g., Daddario, 1992; Duncan, 1990; Duncan & Sayaovong, 1990; Hardin, Lynn, Walsdorf, & Hardin, 2002). Furthermore, society’s perceptions of female athletes have been suggested to be changing for the better since the turn of the century (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003). Thus, with suggested shifting trends and an empirical foundation that is more than a decade old, continued assessment is needed to determine if these frames are still persistent and to provide insight regarding under what conditions they might exist.
Second, the current sample is unique and deserves exploration. To date, the majority of studies that have suggested increased equity in the portrayals of athletes have examined newspapers (e.g., Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Pedersen, 2002; Pedersen et al., 2007; Spencer, 2010; Wensing & Bruce, 2003). This is an impor-tant distinction, as magazines are suggested to be a unique and powerful form of mediated content (Abrahamson, 2007) that is distinguished as a “lowbrow” form of media, arguably serving a different purpose than newspapers (Kennedy & Hills, 2009). Furthermore, audiences are more likely to casually flip through magazines without necessarily reading them in depth (i.e., making pictures the primary means of communication), whereas newspapers are designed to be informative and are based on content rather than images (Kennedy & Hills, 2009). In addition, ESPN self-proclaims portraying male and female athletes in an equitable manner in their annual The Body Issue. In fact, the yearly issue was marketed as a “celebration of athletic form” (ESPN Media Kit, 2011), which suggests an emphasis on the athleticism of its featured athletes regardless of sex, making it an ideal medium to explore the presence or absence of sex differences in portrayals of athleticism in mediated content.
The Body Issue 147
Third, previous studies that have examined visual frames in sports media have often examined a single aspect of an image (e.g., a pose) and used it to represent a theme or frame that is ideologically larger (e.g., trivialization, passivity, submis-siveness). Across several of these studies, different aspects of images are used to describe or represent similar themes or frames. For example, in one study, de-emphasis of athleticism might be assessed via a pose, and in another study, it might be assessed via camera angle, which indicates that larger frames can manifest in multiple aspects of an image. In addition, another common approach is to code broad frames with a binary code of present or absent. The current scheme seeks to synthesize these aspects into composite measures to provide more insight and depth into framing patterns. It is our contention that a scheme that provides the flexibility to account for multiple aspects of an image and provides more detail on the severity of frames, rather than focusing on presence or absence of frames, could be useful.
Framing Theory
We chose framing theory (Goffman, 1974) as the theoretical framework of the current study because it is suggested to be particularly useful for understanding media portrayals that resonate with cultural ideologies, like those regarding sex (Entman, 1993). This theoretical perspective provides a framework for exam-ining patterns in mediated content and is widely used in the examination of sport media (Bernstein & Kian, 2013). A frame is defined as the selection of “some aspects of a perceived reality [that] make them more salient in a com-municating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). Frames are uniquely communicative in nature, as they manifest in the selection, placement, emphasis, repetition, and exclusion of words or images (Entman, 1993; Gitlin, 1980).
In the current study, we examined images because visual frames are under-studied and are suggested to influence audience members’ perceptions, possibly even more than verbal frames (Gibson & Zillmann, 2000; Rowe, 1999). A visual frame can be established through nonverbal manifestations like body postures, movement, facial expressions, gestures, graphics, and numerous image charac-teristics (Coleman, 2010). Several of these theoretically grounded manifestations of visual frames found in previous research appear in this study’s coding scheme (i.e., poses, gestures, facial expressions, movement, and image characteristics [e.g., camera angle and distance]). The specific frames examined in this study can best be classified within the larger concept of ambivalence.
Ambivalence
Sports are competitive, aggressive, and active—adjectives that are synonymous with conceptions of traditional masculinity and seemingly incompatible with femininity (Messner, 1988). To resolve this incompatibility, sports media resort to a framing technique referred to as ambivalence when covering female athletes and their accomplishments. Ambivalence entails contradicting messages that both
148 Cranmer, Bowman, and Brann
celebrate and subtly undermine or trivialize female athleticism (Bernstein & Kian, 2013; Duncan & Hasbrook, 1988). One manner in which ambivalence is accomplished is through the accentuation of sex differences in media messages (Duncan, 1990), including images (Weidman, 2010). Continued examinations of ambivalence are desirable, as its very nature rests on subtle differences that may be overlooked in some evaluations of media coverage or societal perceptions of female athletes (e.g., Heywood & Dworkin, 2003). Furthermore, Reese (2001) suggested that frames are culturally ingrained and persistent over time; thus, the achievement of equity for female athletes in the quality of media coverage after a long history of ambivalence seems almost too good to be true and is in direct contradiction to framing theory.
Ambivalence is a complex construct that often encompasses themes of feminin-ity, vulnerability, dependence, and sexuality, all of which are suggested to trivialize women’s sport (Weidman, 2010). In this study, we examined the trivialization of athletes through frames that de-emphasize athleticism, sexualize athletes, and deny sports contexts.
De-Emphasis of Athleticism
One of the central aspects of ambivalence is the de-emphasis of women’s athleticism (Bernstein & Kian, 2013). In this study, the frame of de-emphasis of athleticism is associated with depictions of passivity and the denial of power. Sports are inher-ently active and competitive, and require athletes to be aggressive (Messner, 1988). Thus, to emphasize the passivity or weakness of athletes trivializes their endeavors. Messages that emphasize the passivity of female athletes (i.e., either directly or in comparison with messages about male athletes) have been identified in the cover-age of basketball (Billings, Halone, & Denham, 2002), tennis (Billings, 2003; Hilliard, 1984), surfing (Duncan & Hasbrook, 1988), and the Olympics (Billings, 2008; Eastman & Billings, 1999). Furthermore, the frame of de-emphasis of athleti-cism is pervasive and has been identified in Sports Illustrated (Duncan, 1990; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Salwen & Wood, 1994), Sports Illustrated for Women (Fink & Kensicki, 2002), Sports Illustrated for Kids (Duncan & Sayaovong, 1990; Hardin, Lynn, et al., 2002), and women’s fitness magazines (Duncan, 1990).
The most extensively studied aspect of images that de-emphasize female ath-letes’ athleticism is the use of stationary, poised, and aesthetic poses in comparison with male athletes, who are often featured in active poses (Duncan & Sayaovong, 1990; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Hardin et al., 2005; Hardin, Lynn, et al., 2002; Jones, 2006; Salwen & Wood, 1994). The studies that comparatively examined this topic have found that females are often depicted as more passive than males (e.g., Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Hardin, Lynn et al., 2002; Lynn, Hardin, & Walsdorf, 2004), but overall there are inconsistent findings regarding whether women are portrayed as more active or passive in general (c.f., Hardin et al., 2005; Lynn et al., 2004). The de-emphasis of ath-leticism is also suggested to be accomplished through the perceived distance between athletes and the audience, as close-ups shift attention from athletic per-formance to an aesthetic individual, which denies the power and activity of athletic form (Duncan, 1990; Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Hardin et al., 2005; Jones, 2006; Wanta & Leggett, 1989).
The Body Issue 149
Another way that female athleticism is suggested to be undermined is through portrayals of power (Bernstein & Kian, 2013). Power has previously been explored primarily through the use of camera angle, as high-angle pictures (i.e., looking down on the subject) make athletes appear smaller, subordinate, and passive, whereas low angles (i.e., looking up at the subject) make athletes appear larger, elevated, and superior (Duncan, 1990). It is further argued that the use of low angles grants power, while high angles deny it (Duncan, 1990; Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002 Hardin, Lynn, et al., 2002). Previous research has yielded inconsistent results on the use of camera angles in the trivialization of women athletes, as some have observed no difference in angles between men and women (Duncan & Sayaovong, 1990; Hardin, Lynn, et al., 2002; Lynn et al., 2004), but others have suggested that men are made to look more powerful with angles (Duncan, 1990). It is possible that Duncan’s (1990) assertion, which is based on a qualitative analysis, is not generalizable beyond her sample, as to date few empirical sex differences have been observed for use of angles. Other studies have produced results that suggest equity in portrayals. For example, several have observed no differences in active/passive poses across sex (Pedersen, 2002; Pedersen et al., 2007; Spencer, 2010) or camera angle (Greer, Hardin, & Homan, 2009), and Hardin, Chance, et al. even found that men were framed with high angles more than women, which denies male power. Given the recent shifts in research and inconsistencies within the established literature, we propose the following research question:
RQ1: Are female athletes framed as less athletic in comparison with male athletes in images in The Body Issue?
Sexualization
The sexualization of female athletes is commonplace in American media (Bern-stein & Kian, 2013). Sexualized images are suggested to provide “erotic pleasure [to the audience] that comes from gazing on sexually charged images” (Duncan, 1990, p. 28) or highlight an athlete’s heterosexuality (Kane & Lenskyj, 1998). This focus shifts attention away from athletic performance and toward athletes’ bodies and sexuality—trivializing their performance (Daniels & Wartena, 2011; Knight & Giuliano, 2001). Manifestations of sexualized frames have been identified in coverage of tennis (Billings, 2003), Olympic sports (Billings, 2008; Eastman & Billings, 1999), basketball (Billings et al., 2002), and soccer (Christopherson, Janning, & McConnell, 2002; Shugart, 2003). These frames highlight athletes’ appearances (e.g., facial beauty, curvy figures, self-presentation). For example, phrases such as “She has a golden face. . . . She has hazel eyes, blond hair and a smile that make her look more like a runway model than a runaway Olympic gold Candidate” (Spencer, 2010, p. 190) are found in the coverage of women athletes.
In visual coverage, sexualization can be accomplished in several ways (Kane & Maxwell, 2011). For example, self- and mutual touching between teammates (e.g., adjustments to one’s swimsuit, celebratory hugs, pats on the rear; Bissell & Duke, 2007), sexualized poses (Daddario, 1992; Daniels, 2009; Duncan, 1990), a lack of clothing (Billings, 2008; Christopherson et al., 2002; Daniels, 2009; Daniels & Wartena, 2011; Kane & Parks, 1992), and using sexual body parts as focal points (Bissell & Duke, 2007; Fink & Kensicki, 2002) are all suggested to increase sexualization of female athletes. Research has generally demonstrated
150 Cranmer, Bowman, and Brann
that female athletes are sexualized more than their male counterparts, especially in images (Duncan, 1990; Duncan & Hasbrook, 1988). Duncan (1990) even sug-gested that these portrayals “bear a striking resemblance to those of women in soft-core pornography” (p. 29). Overall, trends in sports media and images suggest that sexualizing female athletes is a pervasive pattern (Kane & Maxwell, 2011). However, others suggest that the trend of sexualizing male athletes has been on the rise in recent years (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003), making the comparative cover-age of athletes more equitable. Given that the current study is comparative (i.e., examining differences in framing between sexes instead of percentage of frames within a group), we propose the following research question:
RQ2: Are female athletes framed as more sexualized in comparison with male athletes in images in The Body Issue?
Denial of Sport ContextDuncan (1990) noted that the “context of sports photographs can connote sexual-difference” (p. 39) in a manner that trivializes women’s athleticism by portraying them outside of a sporting context. This assumption has empirical support, as sports media do frame women out of a sporting context. For example, sports coverage often features women athletes’ background and personality (Billings et al., 2002) or their personal relationships with coaches, agents, children, or significant others (Daddario, 1992; Hilliard, 1984; Kane & Parks, 1992). These portrayals focus audience attention away from their athleticism and toward other areas of their lives.
Visually, in print media, context frames manifest through the context of an image. For example, the background or setting of an image (Fink & Kensicki, 2002), pose (Salwen & Wood, 1994), and use of props (Roedl, 2007) have been suggested to be manifestations of an image’s context. Those studies found that male athletes are more likely to be portrayed in context than female athletes. In addition, several studies have demonstrated that female athletes are featured in settings or in poses that are not related to their sports at rates greater than their male counterparts (e.g., Cuneen & Sidwell, 1998; Daddario, 1992; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Hardin, Lynn, & Walsdorf, 2005; Salwen & Wood, 1994). For example, female athletes are sug-gested to be depicted out of context in 20% (Daddario, 1992) to 55% of images in print media (Fink & Kensicki, 2002)—percentages that are consistently higher than their male counterparts. However, social ideologies have become more accepting of females as athletes over time (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003), and Spencer (2010) countered this argument with findings that suggest that men and women are simi-larly portrayed in a sports context in newspaper coverage of the 2004 Olympics. Given the recent shifts in research and incongruity with established literature, we propose the following research question:
RQ3: Are female athletes more often framed out of context in comparison with male athletes in images in The Body Issue?
Sport Gender and Image CharacteristicsIn addition, the gender associated with a sport and image characteristics were considered as potentially influencing framing patterns in The Body Issue. To date,
The Body Issue 151
multiple attempts have been made to classify sports. One of the most common means of classification is the examination of the appropriateness of a sport for different sexes, the gender/sex roles associated with a sport, or the defining characteristics of a sport. In this study, the attempt to classify sport in this manner is referred to as sport gender. There are several classifications of sport based on the sex roles or the gender associated with them. One of the first classifications was Metheny’s (1965) typology of sex-appropriate sports for women. An additional typology was forwarded by Matteo (1986). However, given the recent shifts in social perceptions of the sex roles and appropriate sports for women (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003; Messner, 2002), more recent classifications were developed (Hardin & Greer, 2009; Riemer & Visio, 2003). Traditionally, research on the gender associated with sport has suggested that females are more likely to be portrayed in non-masculine sports (Bernstein & Kian, 2013; Hardin, Lynn, et al., 2002; Lynn et al., 2004), but Hardin, Chance, et al. (2002) found that sex appropriateness of sport had no influence on coverage received by men and women athletes. Because the typologies of sport gender are evolving, society is becoming more progressive in regard to what is appropriate for women in terms of sport (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003), and there are inconsistencies in previous research, the following research question was forwarded:
RQ4: How do frames in the images in The Body Issue change across sport gender?
Furthermore, we considered image characteristics (i.e., prominence and year) in an effort to gain a better understanding of which frames were provided with increased salience. Given that framing theory serves as the theoretical framework for this study, prominence is especially important, as larger images and images on the covers of magazines are likely to increase the salience of those images for the audience (Kennedy & Hills, 2009; Salwen & Wood, 1994). Entman (1993) defined salience as “making a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences” (p. 53). Thus, the salience of a frame is suggested to be directly related to its ability to leave a lasting impression or influence on an audience (Entman, 1993). In previous ambivalence research, prominence of images has mainly been explored across sex differences (e.g., Daddario, 1992; Pedersen, 2002; Pedersen et al., 2007; Rintala & Birrell, 1984). However, few studies have examined how image prominence and frames of coverage intersect. Salwen and Wood suggested that males were more likely to be depicted in a sports pose than females on the covers of Sports Illustrated.
Furthermore, the examination of frames across time will provide insight into whether the magazine is shifting or changing its coverage, providing insight into which frames are receiving increased salience over time. Such patterns, if occur-ring linearly, could suggest potential future trends in The Body Issue’s coverage. Given that little research has examined the prominence of an image as a function of frames within the content and there is no historical research on frame trends in The Body Issue, we proposed the following research question:
RQ5: How do frames of the images in The Body Issue change across image characteristics?
152 Cranmer, Bowman, and Brann
Method
Sample and Procedure
The Body Issue and unit of analysis (i.e., images) were chosen for numerous rea-sons. First, printed sports media are noted for their popularity and influence (Wanta, 2006). Second, visual frames are suggested to be the “most potent of all media sports texts” (Rowe, 1999, p. 120). Third, analysis of The Body Issue is justified by ESPN’s claims of equal representation and equivalent circumstances that are ideal for comparison (ESPN Media Kit, 2011). Fourth, this study introduces an understudied magazine and issue, which is important because patterns of coverage of female athletes vary by magazine (Hardin et al., 2005) and the majority of extant research has focused on Sports Illustrated (e.g., Bishop, 2003; Cuneen & Sidwell, 1998; Daddario, 1992; Kane, 1988).
We conducted a quantitative content analysis on images from The Body Issue series dating from 2009 to 2012. Content analysis is deemed reliable and valid for providing replicable and unobtrusive inferences regarding characteristics of nonlinguistic depictions (Krippendorff, 1980). Images and covers were digitally downloaded to control for the physical condition of the magazine (e.g., wrinkles, damage). Each image that was designated as part of the official photograph series of The Body Issue was cropped separately, kept proportional without distortion, and randomized using a random sequence generator before analysis. Three coders were trained using 10 images that were not part of the official The Body Issue images collection. A preestablished intercoder reliability of .66 using Krippendorff’s alpha was established and achieved in all coding categories (i.e., current alphas ranged from .77–.92), as this level of agreement is recognized as tentatively acceptable (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). All coder disagreements were resolved by majority rule. In all cases, at least two coders agreed. After train-ing, these coders analyzed the full collection of images (N = 157; 107 printed, 26 online, and 24 covers).
Coding SchemeThe current study used categories proposed by previous studies to create com-posite measures that represent the broader frames addressed in the literature review. These composite measures were used in an effort to advance research on ambivalence frames. To date, several studies have examined single elements of an image individually as representative of larger ideological frames (e.g., pose as representative of trivialization or de-emphasis of athleticism; Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002). This is limited because frames can be accomplished through more than a single aspect of an image (Coleman, 2010). For example, if examin-ing activity/passivity frames (i.e., included in the de-emphasis of athleticism frame in this study), would pose by itself be able to completely represent whether an athlete was depicted as passive? Could passivity not also be accomplished with the distance of the image, as well, as several scholars have operationalized image distance as a manifestation of passivity (e.g., Duncan, 1990; Hardin et al., 2005; Jones, 2006; Pedersen et al., 2007)?
In addition, other studies have used a binary code of present or absent to encompass larger ideological frames (e.g., Daddario, 1992; Fink & Kensicki, 2002).
The Body Issue 153
Although these attempts provide the flexibility that allows multiple aspects of an image to achieve the same function independently, the binary aspect is limiting in that it does not provide insight into the severity of a frame. For example, Fink and Kensicki use the binary code for a “sexually suggestive category” that includes multiple aspects of an image (e.g., clothing, focus). In this system, a naked athlete who is not sexualized in any other way would be considered just as sexualized as a naked athlete who is posed suggestively and has a sexual body part as the focal point of the image. The current scheme attempts to address both issues by providing the flexibility to account for multiple aspects of an image and also by using a continuum rather than a binary system of scoring to provide insight into the severity of frames.
De-Emphasis of Athleticism. Each image was coded for the frame of de-empha-sis of athleticism. Based on previous research, an athlete’s pose (e.g., Duncan & Sayaovong, 1990; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Pedersen, 2007), facial expression (Duncan, 1990; Lee & Choi, 2003), distance (Duncan, 1990; Hardin et al., 2005; Jones, 2006; Pedersen et al., 2007), and camera angle (Duncan, 1990; Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Hardin et al., 2005; Hardin, Lynn, et al., 2002; Lynn et al., 2004) composed a composite score for the submissive frame. Pose referenced the positioning of an athlete’s body and was coded as active (in motion; 0) or passive (still or posed; 1). Facial expression referenced the expressiveness of an athlete’s face and was coded as active (intense or expressive; 0) or passive (aesthetic or plain; 1). Distance referred to the proximity of the camera to the athlete and was coded as full body (0), waist up (1), or close-up (2), with closer images being more passive. Camera angle referred to the camera’s position in relation to the athlete and was coded as low angle (looking up; 0), eye level (looking straight ahead; 1), or high angle (looking down; 2), with high angles being most submis-sive. These four categories composed a composite measure that ranged from 0 (enhanced athleticism) to 6 (de-emphasized athleticism).
Sexualization. Each image was coded for the sexualization frame. Based on previous research, an athlete’s clothing (Fink & Kensicki, 2002), pose (Duncan, 1990), self-touch (Bissell & Duke, 2007), and focus (Bissell & Duke, 2007; Fink & Kensicki, 2002) composed a composite score for the sexualization frame. For clothing, athletes were coded as completely covered (a clothed chest, midriff, and genitalia; 0), fully clothed (a clothed chest and genitalia with an exposed midriff; 1), partially clothed (either a clothed chest or genitalia but not both; 2), or nude (no clothing; 3). Pose referred to the positioning of an athlete’s body and was coded as not sexual (0) or sexualized (highlighting a sexual body part; 1). Focus referred to the focal point (i.e., a point of rest where the audiences’ eyes linger) in an image and was coded as not sexual (0) or sexualized (on a sexual body part; 1). Self-touch referred to the touching of one’s own genitalia and was coded as not sexual (no sexual touching; 0) or sexualized (present; 1). These four categories composed a composite measure that ranged from 0 (completely unsexualized) to 6 (completely sexualized).
Denial of Sport Context. Each image was coded for the frame of denial of con- text. Based on previous research, an image’s setting (Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Rintala & Birrell, 1984), props (Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Roedl, 2007), and pose (Daddario, 1992; Salwen & Wood, 1994) composed a composite score for the
154 Cranmer, Bowman, and Brann
context frame. Setting referred to the background of the image, and pose referred to an athlete’s positioning of his or her body, which both were coded as in context (0) or out of context (1). Props referred to equipment featured in images and were coded as in-context props (0), no props (1), and out-of-context props (2). For all categories, in context referred to agreement between the portrayal and an athlete’s actual sport (e.g., a basketball player portrayed on a basketball court [setting], with a basketball [prop], or shooting a jump shot [pose] would be in context for each unique category). These three categories composed a composite measure that ranged from 0 (completely in context) to 4 (completely out of context; see Table 1 for internal reliabilities and descriptive statistics and Table 2 for the frequency of individual categories).
Sport GenderThe first author coded each image for sport classification in two ways: gender and sport type. Sport gender was coded as masculine (1), androgynous (neutral; 2), or feminine (3). In large part, the gender schemes proposed by Hardin and Greer (2009) and Riemer and Visio (2003) were used as the basis of our own gender scheme. Both schemes were employed to help develop a more comprehensive typology, as each study offers insight into a few sports that the other did not (e.g., Riemer and Visio [2003] included baseball and hockey, and Hardin and Greer [2009] included surfing and snowboarding). When the two schemes disagreed (i.e., on the gender
Table 1 Internal Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics for Coding Scheme
Composite Category Krippendorff’s 𝛂 M SD
De-emphasis of athleticism 2.65 1.03
Passive pose .79
Passive face .77
Distance .85
Angle .87
Sexualization 4.13 1.22
Clothing .92
Sexualized pose .78
Self-touch .81
Sexualized focus .79
Denial of sport context 1.99 1.07
Setting .82
Context of pose .83
Prop .87
The Body Issue 155
associated with basketball and volleyball), we used Hardin and Greer’s classifi-cation, as it is the most recent. However, some sports that were included in The Body Issue were not addressed by those studies (e.g., mixed martial arts, track, and speed skating). For these sports, we made a decision on the gender based on the characteristics associated with each sport (e.g., high-contact, strength sports were coded as masculine and elegant, graceful sports were coded as feminine). If the sport could not be classified as either clearly masculine or feminine, the sport was coded as androgynous. A similar approach has been used by previous studies when examining images (e.g., Jones, 2006, 2010; see Table 3 for a comprehensive list of sport gender).
Image Characteristics
The first author coded the prominence and the year of each image. The size of an image has been suggested to increase its prominence, with covers being most salient (Kennedy & Hills, 2009; Rintala & Birrell, 1984; Salwen & Wood, 1994). Prominence was coded using the following scheme: online only (1), less than half a page (2), less than a full page but more than half a page (3), full page (4), centerfold (5), and cover (6). In addition, year was coded as 2009 (1), 2010 (2), 2011 (3), and 2012 (4).
Table 2 Presence of Photograph Categories Before Composite by Sex
Male Female
Category n % n %
Passive pose 37 58.7 66 71.1
Mug shot 0 0 3 3.3
High angle 0 0 6 6.5
Low angle 19 30.2 12 13.0
Passive face 49 77.8 87 94.6
Nude 57 90.5 81 88.0
Self-touch 7 11.1 32 34.8
Sexual pose 9 14.3 49 53.3
Sexual focus 32 50.8 68 73.9
Nonsport prop 29 46.0 44 47.8
Nonsport pose 35 56.6 62 67.4
Nonsport setting 50 79.4 76 82.6
Note. This table was created to provide insight into the frequency of categories within groups. It must be noted that the research questions proposed in this study were assessing difference between groups (i.e., rates of males vs. rates of females).
156 Cranmer, Bowman, and Brann
Athlete Demographics
The first author coded the sex of each athlete as either male (1) or female (2).
Results
Images were evenly distributed by year, χ2(3) = 5.83, p = .12, but not by athlete sex or sport gender, as females, χ2(2) = 80.65, p < .001, and masculine and androgynous sports, χ2(2) = 66.40, p < .001, were featured most (see Table 4 for the distribution of images).
Research Question 1 asked if female athletes were framed as less athletic than male athletes in images in The Body Issue. An independent-samples t test suggested that female athletes were portrayed as less athletic (M = 2.87, SD = .90) than male athletes (M = 2.30, SD = 1.11), t(153) = –3.35, p < .001.
Research Question 2 asked if female athletes were framed as more sexualized in comparison with male athletes in images in The Body Issue. An independent-samples t test suggested that female athletes were portrayed as more sexualized (M = 4.43, SD = 1.33) than male athletes (M = 3.67, SD = 0.90), t(153) = –4.30, p < .001.
Research Question 3 asked if female athletes were framed out of context in comparison with male athletes in images in The Body Issue. An independent-samples t test suggested that there was no difference between female (M = 2.03,
Table 3 Sport-Gender Categorization
Sport Gender Sport Gender
Baseball Masculine Sailing Androgynous
Basketball Androgynous Roller derby Masculine
Bobsledding Androgynous Rock climbing Androgynous
Bowling Androgynous Skiing Androgynous
Boxing Masculine Softball Feminine
Crew Androgynous Soccer Androgynous
Fencing Masculine Snowboarding Androgynous
Field (track) Masculine Speed skating Androgynous
Figure skating Feminine Surfing Androgynous
Football Masculine Swimming Androgynous
Golf Androgynous Table tennis Androgynous
Gymnastics Feminine Track Androgynous
Hockey Masculine Triathlon Androgynous
Horse racing Masculine Tennis Androgynous
Mixed martial arts Masculine Volleyball Androgynous
NASCAR Masculine Water polo Masculine
Pool Androgynous Wrestling Masculine
The Body Issue 157
SD = 1.06) and male athletes (M = 1.90, SD = 1.08) in context of images, t(153) = –.73, p = .47.
Research Question 4 asked how frames in images in The Body Issue changed across sport classification. A series of one-way ANOVAs indicated that there was no significant difference across sport gender for de-emphasis of athleticism, F(2, 156) = .48, p = .62, and sexualized frames, F(2, 156) = 2.85, p = .06. There were significant differences in context frame across sport gender, F(2, 156) = 3.85, p < .05. Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected comparison tests revealed that feminine sports (M = 1.26, SD = 1.03) were significantly framed out of context compared with masculine (M = 2.04, SD = .97, p < .001) and androgynous sports (M = 2.08, SD = 1.15, p < .01).
Research Question 5 asked how frames in images in The Body Issue changed across image characteristics. A series of one-way ANOVAs indicated that there were significant differences in de-emphasis of athleticism, F(3, 156) = 5.31, p < .01; sexualization, F(3, 156) = 5.82, p < .01; and context frames, F(3, 156) = 8.14, p < .001, across year of publication. Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected comparison tests revealed that (a) images from 2012 (M = 2.31, SD = .97) were framed as more athletic than images from 2009 (M = 3.03, SD = 0.85, p < .05) and 2010 (M = 2.97, SD = 1.04, p < .05); (b) images from 2009 (M = 3.37, SD = 1.61) were framed as less sexualized than images from 2010 (M = 4.51, SD = 1.14, p < .01), 2011 (M = 4.24, SD = 1.09, p < .05), and 2012 (M = 4.20, SD = 0.92, p < .05); and (c) images from 2012 (M = 1.43, SD = 1.04) were framed as more out of context than images from 2009 (M = 2.13, SD = 0.97, p < .05), 2010 (M = 2.38, SD = 0.91, p
Table 4 Distribution by Athlete Sex, Issue Year, and Sport Gender
n % 𝛘2(2) p
Sex 80.65 <.001
male 63 40
female 92 59
both 2 1
Year 5.83 .12
2009 30 19
2010 39 25
2011 37 24
2012 51 32
Sport gender 41.33 <.001
masculine 77 49.0
androgynous 65 41.4
feminine 15 9.6
158 Cranmer, Bowman, and Brann
< .001), and 2011 (M = 2.22, SD = 1.06, p < .01). Thus, images in The Body Issue have become more sexualized and more out of context but have also emphasized athleticism more over time.
Second, a series one-way ANOVAs indicated that there were significant dif-ferences in the frame of de-emphasis of athleticism, F(5, 156) = 3.54, p < .01, but not sexualization, F(5, 156) = 1.51, p = .19, or context frames, F(5, 156) = .47, p = .80, across image prominence. A post hoc Bonferroni-corrected comparison test revealed that small images (i.e., half a page [M = 3.57, SD = 1.16]) were framed as more athletic than full- (M = 2.51, SD = 1.05, p < .01) and 2-page images (M = 2.20, SD = 1.00, p < .01). Thus, image prominence was not associ-ated with sexualized or context frames, but larger images were more likely to de-emphasize athleticism.
Discussion
This research had two primary purposes: to assess frames as a function of athlete, sport, and magazine characteristics and to develop a coding scheme that synthesized previous research on visual frames in sport media.
Validity of the Coding Scheme
This study demonstrates that the current coding scheme has some validity for two reasons. First, the scheme is theoretically derived, as it includes several of Cole-man’s (2010) manifestations of visual frames. Thus, the aspects of images that were examined in this study and previous studies are suggested by theorists to be facets of visual frames. Second, this scheme is empirically grounded in previous research findings on sex differences in sports media, as visual aspects included in this study were derived from several peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Daddario, 1992; Duncan, 1990; Duncan & Sayaovong, 1990; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Hardin, Lynn, et al., 2002; Hilliard, 1984).
Continued Ambivalence in The Body Issue
Results demonstrated that athlete sex was associated with frames of athleticism and sexualization; sport gender was associated with the context frames; and overall patterns in athleticism, sexualization, and context frames emerged throughout the tenure of The Body Issue. Overall, results indicate that The Body Issue continues to perpetuate frames that contribute to ambivalence toward female athletes. It must be noted that there were no sex differences in context frames in this study, meaning that The Body Issue portrayed male and female athletes in similar sporting context. This finding is positive, as it does not deny female ath-letes the recognition of their sport as a context. This finding contradicts previous, dated research that suggested that women athletes are denied the athletic context (Cuneen & Sidwell, 1998; Daddario, 1992; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Hardin et al., 2005; Salwen & Wood, 1994) but is similar to the more recent findings (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003; Spencer, 2010). The recognition of females as athletes in visual messages in The Body Issue demonstrates the progress made in media coverage since early research on this topic.
The Body Issue 159
However, messages of ambivalence were revealed in the current findings, as female athletes were portrayed more in frames that de-emphasize their athleticism and sexualized them compared with their male counterparts. These latter frames fit larger pat-terns of coverage in sports media that commonly de-emphasize female athleticism and sexualize women (Bernstein & Kian, 2013; Kane & Maxwell, 2011). Overall, the blend of these frames communicates an interesting message—women and men can both play sports, but male athletes are athletic and female athletes are aesthetic. Thus, it can be asserted that The Body Issue continues to reinforce traditional ideologies of gender and sexuality in its visual coverage that marginalizes and trivializes female athletes in sport (Kane & Greendorfer, 1994; Kane & Lenskyj, 1998).
These findings are troubling, given the suggested influence of sports cover-age on audience members’ perceptions, sponsorship, advertisements, revenue, the growth of a sport, and societal norms (Kassing et al., 2004; Washington & Karen, 2001). More specifically, research indicates that these frames influence audience members’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors toward female athletes, media, and themselves. For example, sexualized portrayals of female athletes are associated with the depreciation of their athleticism in teenage boys (Daniels & Wartena, 2011), as well as male and female college students (Knight & Giuliano, 2001). Young female athletes show greater affect for images of female athletes that are in the context of sport but dislike passive- and nonsport-context images (Krane et al., 2011). In addition, teenage females are more likely to self-objectify when exposed to passive (Daniels, 2009) and sexualized (Thomsen, Bower, & Barnes, 2004) images of female athletes. Even more concerning, the consumption of sexualized images of female athletes increases the likelihood that young men (i.e., The Body Issue’s target audience; ESPN, 2011) will objectify women athletes (Daniels & Wartena, 2011). Prolonged exposure to this sexualized content is suggested to have long-lasting and powerful effects (Daniels, 2009; Daniels & Wartena, 2011).
In addition to athlete sex, sport gender was associated with identified patterns of framing in The Body Issue. Of particular note, feminine sports were framed out of context compared with masculine or androgynous sports. The association of sport classification with coverage coincides with previous literature (Billings, 2008; Bishop, 2003; Cuneen & Sidwell, 1998; Daddario, 1992; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Kane, 1988). However, this literature primarily focused on the quantity and valence of cover-age, whereas the current study focuses on the frames within coverage. This observation reveals an especially interesting pattern, as athlete sex was not associated with context frames but the genders associated with sports were. To this extent, although female athletes were portrayed in similar contexts as male athletes, feminine sports were less likely to be framed within a sport context than masculine or androgynous sports. In this manner, media are potentially revealing bias against sports that emphasize grace and finesse. However, these observations need to be cautiously heeded given that few of the examined images were of athletes from feminine sports (i.e., 15). Still, these results are intriguing, as they suggest that if a sport is deemed to be for females or is feminine, it is less likely to be framed within a sport context.
Patterns of Coverage
Two interesting patterns emerged as a function of The Body Issue’s characteristics: linear patterns of framing and the role of image prominence. First, linear patterns
160 Cranmer, Bowman, and Brann
revealed that images in The Body Issue have become more sexualized, out of context, and less likely to de-emphasize athleticism in later issues. Despite sexualization of women in media’s being identified as a major societal problem that has several negative effects on audience members (e.g., desensitization toward objectification of women; Daniels & Wartena, 2011; Kistler & Lee, 2009), it appears that sexualization has actually increased since the first issue of The Body Issue. This trend suggests that the magazine is emphasizing the sexual nature of athletes either subconsciously or possibly to sell more magazines. If editors are genuinely unaware of the common use of these frames, this provides evidence of the pervasiveness of these ideologies and indicates that correcting media portrayals of female athletes may be a difficult goal to reach. However, if these frames are knowingly used to increase sales, it only speaks to the media’s desire to profit at women’s expense and illustrates a steep hill still to climb.
Second, findings from this research suggest that prominent pictures (i.e., full- and 2-page spreads) featured more frames of de-emphasized athleticism than smaller pictures. This finding coincides with previous research suggesting that prominence of images influences coverage patterns (Rintala & Birrell, 1984). However, Rintala and Birrell focused on the quantity of coverage as a function of prominence, as they found that males were featured in full-page, centerfold, and cover images more than female athletes in Young Athlete. Framing theory indicates that the emphasis on these images increases the salience of the frames within those images (Coleman, 2010; Entman, 1993; Gitlin, 1980). Thus, this finding suggests that ESPN increases the salience of de-athleticism frames by featuring them in larger images in The Body Issue—despite claiming to celebrate athletic form. Overall, these findings suggest that The Body Issue breaks established patterns in the quantity but continues demonstrating ambivalence in coverage of women’s sports.
Explicating the Disconnect With Recent Research
As previously mentioned, trends in media messages regarding women athletes are suggested to be shifting toward equity (Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Heywood & Dworkin, 2003). These assertions create incongruities that need to be resolved when compared with the findings of the current study. It is our assertion that recent findings on visual framing that suggest more equitable messages are based on topics of coverage that may alter the manner in which female athletes are perceived. For example, several of those studies examined Olympic coverage (Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Spencer, 2010; Wensing & Bruce, 2003). It is possible that the context of the Olympics increases the salience of nationality as an identity, which may over-ride common frames based on the sex of athletes. This is supported by Spencer’s observation that images in USA Today’s 2004 coverage of women athletes differed based on whether the athlete was an Olympian, with Olympians receiving more equitable coverage. Other scholars have found equitable visual portrayals of high school athletes in regional newspapers (Pedersen, 2002; Pedersen et al., 2007). Again, these portrayals were likely influenced by the sample, as Pedersen (2002) credited the age of the athletes (i.e., 14–18 years) as the mechanism behind the break from traditional frames.
In addition, there could be a channel effect behind the differences between this study and recent research that produced encouraging results that suggest more equitable messages in sports media. As previously stated, the majority of those
The Body Issue 161
studies examined newspaper coverage (which functions as primarily an informa-tional source), and the current study examined magazines (which function as a lowbrow form of media that are intended to be as much entertainment as sources of information; Kennedy & Hills, 2009). This assertion that continuation of frames associated with the old rules (Wensing & Bruce, 2003) is more likely in lowbrow media is supported by recent research that identified visual frames of sexualized women on sports blogs (e.g., Deadspin; Clavio & Eagleman, 2011) but should continue to be explored.
Overall, this study does not attempt to diminish or devalue the findings that advocate for shifting coverage. Instead, this study could add to those studies by exploring an understudied channel and novel magazine issue. Furthermore, when comparing those studies it could tentatively be suggested that content that is not overtly nationalistic, features adult athletes, and is communicated in lowbrow chan-nels may be more likely to show ambivalence toward female athletes; however, such a statement would need continued exploration and support before serious validation.
Limitations and Future Research The first limitation of this study is that it does not attempt to establish intentionality on ESPN’s behalf concerning these frames. Instead, ESPN’s claim of equal portrayal was taken at face value. A second limitation was that athlete demographics like athlete race or sexual orientation, which could be influential, were not examined. Third, the scope of this study is limited in that it examined American media and primarily American athletes. This makes it more difficult to compare this study with research from other cultures. Future research should continue to examine frames that trivialize women’s sport, continue to develop coding schemes that better encompass broad frames, and continue to reexamine the subtly shifting messages in society and media regarding sex and gender. Specifically, the current scheme should continue to be advanced because some of the categories that composed the composite measures (i.e., passive pose, passive face, sexual pose, and sexual focus) had only tentatively acceptable reliabilities and may need refinement (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). Although this could be considered a limitation, given that this study used a relatively small sample size for a content analysis (n = 157), multiple categories composed the composite measure, and the reliabilities that were deemed tentatively acceptable were close (i.e., α = .77–.79) to established standard of good reliability (i.e., α = .80; Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007), this limitation should not be overemphasized. Finally, future research should attempt to explain incongruities in studies on media coverage of women’s sport by identifying how ambivalence changes as a function of intersecting identities (e.g., nationality and sex) and medi-ated channel (e.g., newspaper or magazine).
Conclusion Despite subtle shifts across the academic narrative (e.g., Hardin, Chance, et al., 2002; Heywood & Dworkin, 2003; Spencer, 2010), it appears that ambivalence continues in The Body Issue. Duncan (1990) suggested that “as spectators, we are encouraged to look hard at the athletes’ bodies, whether we are watching the game on television or gazing at a picture” (p. 28). The messages in these images
162 Cranmer, Bowman, and Brann
are crucial for audience members’ enjoyment (Knight & Giuliano, 2001; Krane et al., 2011), understanding of gender (Matteo, 1986), perceptions of themselves and others (Daniels, 2009; Thomsen et al., 2004), and participation in sport (Harrison, Lee, & Belcher, 1999; Matteo, 1986). These suggested effects are alarming considering the increased use of frames that sexualize or de-emphasize the athleticism of female athletes and the use of out-of-context frames for feminine sports. Furthermore, the shifts in the magazine’s use of frames since its inception suggest that these trends are not improving but actually getting worse. Ultimately, messages such as these reinforce more traditional gender and sex ideologies, which can erase the small steps society has taken toward equity in the coverage of female athletes in the media and aid in the continuance of patterns of ambivalence for the foreseeable future.
ReferencesAbrahamson, D. (2007). Magazine exceptionalism: The concept, the criteria, the challenge.
Journalism Studies, 8, 667–670. doi:10.1080/14616700701412225Benoit, W.L., & Holbert, R.L. (2008). Empirical intersections in communication research:
Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative-quali-tative divide. The Journal of Communication, 58, 615–628. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00404.x
Bernstein, A., & Kian, E.M. (2013). Gender and sexualities in sport media. In P.M. Peder-sen (Ed.), Routledge handbook of sport communication (pp. 319–327). London, UK: Routledge.
Billings, A.C. (2003). Dueling genders: Announcer bias in the 1999 U.S. Open tennis tourna-ment. In R.S. Brown & D.J. O’Rourke, III (Eds.), Case studies in sports communication (pp. 51–62). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Billings, A.C. (2008). Olympic media: Inside the biggest show on television. New York, NY: Routledge.
Billings, A.C., Halone, K.K., & Denham, B.E. (2002). “Man” that was a “pretty” shot: An analysis of gendered broadcast commentary of the 2000 men’s and women’s NCAA Final Four basketball tournaments. Mass Communication & Society, 5, 295–315. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0503_4
Bishop, R. (2003). Missing in action: Feature coverage of women’s sports in Sports Illus-trated. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27, 184–194.
Bissell, K.L., & Duke, A.M. (2007). Bump, set, spike: An analysis of commentary and camera angles of women’s beach volleyball during the 2004 Summer Olympics. Journal of Promotion Management, 13, 35–53. doi:10.1300/J057v13n01_04
Bruce, T. (2012). Reflections on communication and sport: On women and femininities. Communication & Sport, 1, 125–137. doi:10.1177/2167479512472883
Christopherson, N., Janning, M., & McConnell, E.D. (2002). Two kicks forward, one kick back: A content analysis of media discourses on the 1999 Women’s World Cup Soccer Championship. Sociology of Sport Journal, 19(2), 170–188.
Clavio, G.E, & Eagleman, A.N. (2011). Gender and sexually suggestive images in sports blogs. Journal of Sport Management, 25(4), 295–304.
Coleman, R. (2010). Framing the pictures in our heads: Exploring the framing and agenda-setting effects of visual images. In P. D’Angelo & J.A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing (pp. 233–262). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cuneen, J., & Sidwell, M.J. (1998). Gender portrayals in Sports Illustrated for Kids adver-tisements: A content analysis of prominent and supporting models. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 39–50.
Daddario, G. (1992). Swimming against the tide: Sports Illustrated’s imagery of female athletes in a swimsuit world. Women’s Studies in Communications, 15, 49–64.
Daniels, E.A. (2009). Sex objects, athletes, and sexy athletes: How media representations of women athletes can impact adolescent girls and college women. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 399–422. doi:10.1177/0743558409336748
Daniels, E.A., & Wartena, H. (2011). Athlete or sex symbol: What boys think of media representations of female athletes. Sex Roles, 65, 566–579. doi:10.1007/s11199-011- 9959-7
Duncan, M.C. (1990). Sports photographs and sexual difference: Images of women and men in the 1984 and the 1988 Olympic games. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7(1), 22–43.
Duncan, M.C. (2006). Gender warriors in sport: Women and the media. In A.A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 231–252). New York, NY: Routledge.
Duncan, M., & Hasbrook, C. (1988). Denial of power in televised women’s sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5(1), 1–21.
Duncan, M.C., & Sayaovong, A. (1990). Photographic images and gender in Sports Illus-trated for Kids. Play & Culture, 3, 91–116.
Eastman, S.T., & Billings, A.C. (1999). Gender parity in the Olympics: Hyping women athletes, favoring men athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23, 140–170. doi:10.1177/0193723599232003
Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. The Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
ESPN Media Kit. (2011). 2011 editorial calendar. Retrieved from http://mediakit.espn.go.com/index.aspx?id=165
Fink, J.S., & Kensicki, L.J. (2002). An imperceptible difference: Visual and textual con-structions of femininity in Sports Illustrated and Sports Illustrated for Women. Mass Communication & Society, 5, 317–340. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0503_5
Gibson, R., & Zillmann, D. (2000). Reading between the photographs: The influence of incidental pictorial information on issue perception. Journalism & Mass Communica-tion Quarterly, 77, 355–366. doi:10.1177/107769900007700209
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Greer, J.D., Hardin, M., & Homan, C. (2009). “Naturally” less exciting? Visual production of men’s and women’s track and field coverage during the 2004 Olympics. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 173–189. doi.1080/08838150902907595
Hall, S. (1986). Media power and class power. In J. Curran (Ed.), Bending reality: The state of the media. London, UK: Pluto.
Hardin, M., Chance, J., Dodd, J.E., & Hardin, B. (2002). Olympic photo coverage fair to female athletes. Newspaper Research Journal, 23, 64–78.
Hardin, M., & Greer, J.D. (2009). The influence of gender-role socialization, media use and sports participation on perceptions of gender-appropriate sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32, 207–226.
Hardin, M., Lynn, S., & Walsdorf, K. (2005). Challenge and conformity on “contested terrain”: Images of women in four women’s sport/fitness magazines. Sex Roles, 53, 105–117. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4285-6
Hardin, M., Lynn, S., Walsdorf, K., & Hardin, B. (2002). The framing of sexual difference in SI for Kids editorial photos. Mass Communication & Society, 5, 341–359. doi:10.1207/ S15327825MCS0503_6
Harrison, L., Lee, A.M., & Belcher, D. (1999). Race and gender difference in sport partici-pation as a function of self-schema. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23, 287–307. doi:10.1177/0193723599233004
Hayes, A.F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89. doi:10.1080/19312450709336664
Heywood, L., & Dworkin, S.L. (2003). Built to win: The female athlete as cultural icon. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hilliard, D. (1984). Media images of male and female professional athletes: An interpretive analysis of magazine articles. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1(3), 251–262.
Jones, D. (2006). The representation of female athletes in online images of successive Olympic games. Pacific Journalism Review, 12, 108–129.
Jones, D. (2010). Women’s sports coverage: Online images of the 2008 Olympic games. Australian Journalism Review, 32, 89–102.
Kane, M.J. (1988). Media coverage of the female athlete before, during, and after Title IX: Sports Illustrated revisited. Journal of Sport Management, 2(2), 87–99.
Kane, M.J., & Greendorfer, S.L. (1994). The media’s role in accommodating and resisting stereotyped images of women in sport. In P.J. Creedon (Ed.), Women, media, and sport: Challenging gender values (pp. 28–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kane, M.J., & Lenskyj, H.J. (1998). Media treatment of female athletes: Issues of gender and sexualities. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Mediasport (pp. 186–201). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kane, M.J., & Maxwell, H.D. (2011). Expanding the boundaries of sport media research: Using critical theory to explore consumer responses to representations of women’s sports. Journal of Sport Management, 25(3), 202–216.
Kane, M.J., & Parks, J. (1992). The social construction of gender difference and hierarchy in sport journalism: Few new twists on very old themes. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 1, 48–83.
Kassing, J.W., Billings, A.C., Brown, R.S., Halone, K.K., Harrison, K., Krizek, B., . . . Turman, P.D. (2004). Communication in the community of sport: The process of enacting, (re)producing, consuming, and organizing sport. In P.J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 373–409). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kennedy, E., & Hills, L. (2009). Sport, media, and society. Oxford, UK: Berg.Kistler, M.E., & Lee, M.J. (2009). Does exposure to sexual hip-hop music videos influence
the sexual attitudes of college students? Mass Communication & Society, 13, 67–86. doi:10.1080/15205430902865336
Knight, J.L., & Giuliano, T.A. (2001). He’s a Laker; she’s a “looker”: The consequences of gender-stereotypical portrayals of male and female athletes by the print media. Sex Roles, 45, 217–229. doi:10.1023/A:1013553811620
Krane, V., Ross, S.R., Miler, M., Ganoe, K., Lucas-Carr, C., & Barak, K.S. (2011). “It’s cheesy when they smile”: What girl athletes prefer in images of female college athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 755–768. doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599812
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: Introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lee, J., & Choi, Y. (2003, May). Is there gender equality in online media? The photo analysis of the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics and the 2002 Pusan Asian Games Coverage. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Associa-tion, San Diego, CA.
Lynn, S., Hardin, M., & Walsdorf, K. (2004). Selling (out) the sporting woman: Advertis-ing images in four athletic magazines. Journal of Sport Management, 18(4), 335– 349.
Matteo, S. (1986). The effect of sex and gender-schematic processing on sport participation. Sex Roles, 15, 417–432. doi:10.1007/BF00287981
Messner, M. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideologi-cal terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5(3), 197–211.
Messner, M.A. (2002). Taking the field: Women, men, and sports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Metheny, E. (1965). Connotations of movement in sport and dance. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Pedersen, P.M. (2002). Examining equity in newspaper photographs. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 37, 303–318. doi:10.1177/1012690202037004895
Pedersen, P.M. (2007). Investigating the coverage provided to males and females in a com-parable sport: A content analysis of the written and photographic attention given to interscholastic athletics by print media. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 22, 97–125.
Pedersen, P.M. (2013). Introduction. In P.M. Pedersen (Ed.), Routledge handbook of sport communication (pp. 1–6). London, UK: Routledge.
Pedersen, P.M., Miloch, K.S., Fielding, L., & Clavio, G. (2007). Investigating the coverage provided to males and females in a comparable sport: A content analysis of the written and photographic attention given to interscholastic athletics by the print media. The Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 22, 97–125.
Reese, S.D. (2001). Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, & A.E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 7–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Riemer, B.A., & Visio, M.E. (2003). Gender typing of sports: An investigation of Metheny’s classification. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 193–204. doi:10.1080/02701367.2003.10609081
Rintala, J., & Birrell, S. (1984). Fair treatment for the active female: A content analysis of Young Athlete magazine. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1(3), 231–250.
Roedl, S. (2007, May). Framing sexual difference: Front page photographs of the 2006 Winter Olympics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Rowe, D. (1999). Sport, culture and the media. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Salwen, M., & Wood, N. (1994). Depictions of female athletes on Sports Illustrated covers,
1957–1989. Journal of Sport Behavior, 17, 98–108.Shugart, H.A. (2003). She shoots, she scores: Mediated constructions of contemporary
female athletes in coverage of the 1999 US women’s soccer team. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 1–31.
Spencer, N.E. (2010). United States of America: Content analysis of US women in the 2004 Athens Olympics in USA Today. In T. Bruce, J. Hovden, & P. Markula (Eds.), Sports-women at the Olympics: A global content analysis of newspaper coverage. Boston, MA: Sense.
Thomsen, S.R., Bower, D.W., & Barnes, M.D. (2004). Photographic images in women’s health, fitness, and sports magazines and the physical self-concept of a group of adolescent female volleyball players. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 28, 266–283. doi:10.1177/ 0193723504266991
Wanta, W. (2006). The coverage of sports in print media. In A.A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 105–115). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wanta, W., & Leggett, D. (1989). Gender stereotypes in wire service sports photos. News-paper Research Journal, 10, 105–114.
Washington, R.E., & Karen, D. (2001). Sport and society. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 187–212. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.187
Weidman, L.M. (2010). Homophobia, heterosexism, and ambivalence in the premier issue of Sports Illustrated Woman|Sport. In L.K. Fuller (Ed.), Sexual sports rhetoric: Global and universal contexts (pp. 147–158). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Wensing, E.H., & Bruce, T. (2003). Bending the rules: Media representations of gender during an international sporting event. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 38, 387–396.
Copyright of International Journal of Sport Communication is the property of Human KineticsPublishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.
![Ambivalence de la christianisation, frontières de l'Eglise, identité chrétienne [2010]](https://static.documents.page/doc/80x56/63503f3d0ca35926a7097242/ambivalence-de-la-christianisation-frontieres-de-leglise-identite-chretienne.jpg)
