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