Jessica R. DreistadtSR 411: Advanced Research MethodsResearch ProposalDecember 7, 2004

Background

Historically, Native Americans have been portrayed as ‘different’ as a means of political

propaganda. Props were used in photographs to accentuate the differences between native

peoples and white settlers. Early films showed Native American people acting in stereotypical

ways. These images reflected and reinforced the fear and skepticism of politicians and their

constituents who were making decisions that affected the livelihood of indigenous people. Based

on this foundation, the American media have continued to, perhaps inadvertently, portray Native

Americans as distinct from the general population.

The national broadcast news media and the motion picture industry tend to depict Native

American people as living in cultural and geographic isolation from the general population.

Although 66% of Native American people live in metropolitan areas (U.S. Census Bureau), most

Native American portrayals on film and television depict those who live among other Native

American people on reservations or other rural areas. Images used are chosen to portray

‘traditional’ Native American culture, which distinguish the subjects from the diverse general

population, through display of indigenous dress, language, folkways, and rituals. This fulfills the

pubic expectation that native peoples lives are disconnected from those of most Americans.

Literature Review

There is no published research that examines the representation of Native American

people in the mass media. However, several studies have been done to examine the portrayal of

other minority groups and the impact this has on public support for political issues.

Dreistadt 1

Vincent Price investigated the affect of the media on people’s association with social

groups in conflict. This study sought to understand the extent of influence the media has on

public opinion when group conflict is or is not present in the reporting mechanism. Jeffrey C.

Hubbard, Melvin DeFleur, and Lois B. DeFleur investigated if public opinion of specific social

problems is closer in number to mass media portrayals of those social problems or actual

statistics. Specifically, they sought to determine if the media unduly influences public opinion

about the incidence of social problems in their community. Martin Gilens examined the content

of print and broadcast newsmedia and compares the race, age, and occupational status of people

in stories about poor people with census data. He then used secondary data to determine if the

media influences perception about low-income people and whether or not this leads to opposition

to welfare. Rosalee Clawson and Rakuya build on Gilens research by examining photographs in

newsmagazine stories about poor people and comparing the race, age, work status, gender,

family size, and residence to government data. They also counted the number of times people in

these photographs are engaging in stereotypical behavior. Like Gilens, the problem under

examination was “whether the media perpetuate inaccurate and stereotypical images of the poor”

(53). Thomas E. Ford studied the detrimental effect of stereotypical portrayals of African

Americans in television sitcoms on white opinion about individual African American people.

Specifically, he examined whether priming subjects affects their judgment as to the guilt of a

crime suspect.

Price devised two fictitious student newspaper articles about changing Stanford’s core

requirements - a nonexistent issue of limited concern to students. One article stated a difference

in opinion between ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ majors (205). The other article noted that there were mixed

opinions about the change, but did not attribute those opinions to any particular social group.

Dreistadt 2

Participants were asked to rate a set of student’s comments about the issue; each student was

identified by their major and class year. Half of the conflict group and half of the no conflict

group questionnaires stated that this issue was actually being considered for implementation and

the other half stated that it was not currently being considered (this article was five years old).

The questionnaire also contained a fictitious list of students’ comments about the issue, with

each student’s major and class year identified. To further complicate matters, some (a number or

percentage is not specified by the author) were given questionnaires that did not identify the

major and class of the students who offered comments. The independent variables were the

presence/absence of group conflict, the level of consequence of the issue to the respondent, and

the identification of major and class in statements about the issue. The dependent variables were

the subjects’ opinion about the social groups’ position and their personal opinion about the issue.

Hubbard et. al. compared content analysis of local television and newspapers, along with

agency records, to survey results. Gillens also used content analysis, along with secondary data;

thus, there were not independent and dependent variables. Similarly, Clawson and Trice

conducted content analysis rather than an experiment.

In Ford’s study, participants were categorized into four groups. Half watched a TV skit

that portrayed stereotypical African American behavior and the other half watched a skit that

portrayed an African American person engaging in neutral behavior. All of the participants were

then given a vignette to read; half received one with a white suspect and the rest received one

with an African American suspect. The independent variables were the comedy skits shown to

participants and the race of the suspect in their vignette. The dependent variable was the

subjects’ assessment of the guilt of the suspect in the vignette.

Dreistadt 3

Price developed a theory about the process by which the media influences public opinion

in three parts. In the first step, message recipients react to cues in the media by determining their

relationship to the people in the news story. Their level of salience to the group is determined by

the presence or absence of group conflict in the message, the pre-existence of group

identification in the message recipient, and the recipient’s stake in the issue. In the second part

of this process, recipients process the information presented about other people’s opinions using

stereotypes about the groups in conflict. In the third step, recipients conform to their expectation

of the norms of the group to which they have determined they belong (203-4).

Hubbard and colleagues based their research on a theory that organizes the process of

social problem development into three stages: emergent, legitimization, and institutionalized.

During the first stage, groups work to raise public awareness of an issue. In the legitimization

stage, a social problem is accepted and recognized by the general public. In the institutionalized

stage, “official social machinery is established to alleviate the problem on a continuing basis”

(23). They also presented theory related to the media’s indirect effects on defining social

problems and public opinion about those problems.

Gilens based his study on the assumption that the majority of Americans better relate to

poor people who are white, employed, and/or elderly (522). He also noted that, “media

distortions of social conditions are…likely to result in public misperceptions that reinforce

existing biases and stereotypes” (516). He further stated that this, “increases white Americans’

opposition to welfare” (517). Finally, Gilens stated that, “negative stereotypes of African

Americans as lazy and misperceptions of the poor as predominately black reinforce each other”

(518).

Dreistadt 4

Clawson and Trice presented several theoretical bases for their research. The authors

stated that, “in our society, citizens believe poor people have many undesirable qualities that

violate mainstream American ideals” (54). They also noted that “the visual representation of a

political issue is an integral part of the definition of that issue” (54). They continued, “the

pictures provide texture, drama, and detail, and they illustrate the implicit, the latent, the ‘taken

for granted” (55).

Ford presented theory about the learning process related to television viewing and

opinion formation. He summarized this theory by stating that, “in the case of priming an abstract

representation of a social group in general, the target person must belong to the primed category.

He or she must fit the activated stereotypical representation if priming is to influence social

judgment” (268).

Price hypothesized that “news reports emphasizing group conflict, by providing members

of the public with a depiction of the “sides” they may adopt in thinking about a responding to an

issue, may plan an important role in organizing public opinion” (200). Hubbard, DeFleur, and

DeFleur hypothesized that most survey respondents would heavily rely on mass media for

information about social problems, due to limited personal experience, and therefore their

opinion would be different from actual agency records (25-6). They also hypothesized that

media reports would not reflect public opinion and that the significance of the media’s influence

would be demonstrated by a high correlation between public opinion of the incidence of social

problems and media reports about those problems (26). Gilens did not explicitly state a

hypothesis. Based on the information presented, he appears to be hypothesizing that the content

of national print and broadcast news media inaccurately reflects the race, age, and employment

status of poor people. Although not a part of his original research, Gilens also offered evidence

Dreistadt 5

that public opinion is tied to these inaccuracies (528) and this leads to lack of support for

government aid programs (517). Clawson and Trice clearly do not take a solid position on the

issue under investigation. The authors state that they are studying, “whether or not common

stereotypical traits or behaviors associated with the poor are portrayed in the media” (54) and

“whether the media perpetuate inaccurate and stereotypical images of the poor” (53). The

background research and theory that they present would lead the reader to ascertain that their

position on these questions is that yes, the media does these things. Ford refined his theory by

predicting that white people who are exposed to stereotypical images of African Americans on

television will judge an African American suspect to be guilty. This same group, he speculated,

would not make the same judgment about a white suspect (268).

All components of Price’s methodology were relevant. This experiment examined the

process of group identification and level of salience to that group. By having respondents’ freely

write their reactions to the articles, he was able to better understand the thought process that

affects choice of group and position on an issue. Given the hypothesis, Hubbard and colleagues

selected an appropriate methodology. The hypothesis relied on simple analysis of media and

agency records’ content compared to a public opinion survey. If Gilens purpose was to merely

compare the content of newsmedia to actual statistics, his methodology was adequate. If,

however, he also sought to show causality between the newsmedia and public opinion, the

secondary data he presents was not sufficient. Original research would need to be conducted in

order to adequately control the sampling process and research instruments. The method employed

in Clawson and Trice’s research adequately examined if a specific component of the media

misrepresent the poor. They performed content analysis on pictures featured in stories about

poor people in five national news magazines. Ford’s methodology was adequate to examine his

Dreistadt 6

hypothesis. By exposing participants to different television skits and measuring their judgment

of a crime suspect afterwards, they can reasonably determine the effect of priming on opinion.

The tests used in Price’s research design thoroughly investigated all three steps of the

theory he seeks to affirm. The operationalization of the hypothesis into these specific measures

was appropriate and comprehensive. The measurements presented in Hubbard and colleagues’

research were appropriate to evaluate agency records and media content. Additional analysis

would be needed to determine the content of national news, sitcoms, and other TV programs in

order to analyze their impact. The hypothesis should clearly state that only local news is under

investigation. They did not divulge sufficient information about the content of the survey used to

make a determination about its appropriateness. Gilens used appropriate measures to catalogue

print and broadcast newsmedia. He composed an exhaustive list of topics related to poor people

and looked up news stories using a reliable reference guide. He broke race down into white,

black, and undetermined – ignoring Hispanic, Asian American, and Native American

populations. Clawson and Trice improved on this shortcoming by adding Hispanic and Asian

American to their race categories. They also built on Gilens’ research by analyzing additional

characteristics of the people in the photographs: gender, family size, urban/rural residence, and

stereotypical activity. Ford’s measures were also appropriate for his purposes. After viewing the

television skits, participants read a vignette, responded with their verdict, and then evaluated the

skits they saw in terms of comedy and stereotypical behavior.

Price conducted sufficient pretesting. He tested students’ opinions about the choice of

subject for the article by surveying a “convenience sample of 42 Stanford undergraduates” (204).

Because he did not divulge his exact process for deriving this sample, its validity cannot be

ascertained. Before reading the articles, students were asked about their position on the issue.

Dreistadt 7

This may have influenced their response by sensitizing them to the subject. Participants were

randomly assigned to the control and noncontrol groups. Because the study investigated

students’ affiliation with specific college majors, participants were selected from a variety of

departments. In debriefing, students noted that they did not suspect that the articles, and the

issue itself, were fabricated. Students’ narrative comments were categorized by two coders who

exhibited a high degree of intercoder reliability (80%); their differences were averaged. When

further divided into ‘positive’ and ‘negative comments, intercoder reliability diminished to 66-

75%. Again, the differences were averaged. Ratings for the student statements about the issue

are divided into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ majors, as well as high and low salience, and then correlated;

this further affirms the reliability of the measure.

Because Hubbard et. al. used content analysis and a survey, their results would

presumably be reliable. However, reliability may be limited because the authors do not detail the

nature of, or selection process for, the survey questions that were used. In addition, because their

sample was drawn from a city that is significantly not representative of the US population, the

results cannot be generalized to other people and places – a threat to external validity. The

authors state that they selected respondents from specific census tracts but did not explain why

these census tracts were chosen. They did not indicate whether the content analysis was double-

checked by a second coder. They also did not consider the possibility that many manifestations

of the social problems under investigation may not be reported to authorities.

Gilens’ process for content analysis was highly reliable. A straightforward system of

recording the race, age, and employment status of people featured in photographs was used. A

random sample of 25% of photographs were double-checked by a second coder - intercoder

realiability was high – from .94 to .98. Gilens devoted significant space in his discussion to

Dreistadt 8

public opinion about the actual composition of poor people. Original research would have to be

conducted to exert more control over all components of that key factor in order to for the

research to be valid.

Clawson and Trice did not provide sufficient information about their categorization and

coding process. They did not name the topics referenced in the Reader’s Guide to Periodical

Literature. The process for determining various characteristics of the people in the photographs

is unknown. Therefore, it is difficult to judge the level of reliability. The study has validity

because they are indeed measuring the content of newsmagazine photographs. However,

external validity may be limited if conducting this research with television, the Internet,

alternative media, or local/regional media.

There was an insufficient sample size in Ford’s study. There were a total of forty

subjects, divided into four distinct groups. A larger sample size would improve the validity. In

addition, participants were paid $4.00 and given extra credit for participating. This might have

influenced results. Reliability was threatened because the instrument gauging subjects’ opinion

of the suspect’s guilt consists of only two questions. The instrument that measured their

impression of the skit also consisted of just two questions. Participants were told they were

participating in two studies – comedy and judicial review. They watched the skits, read and

responded to the vignette, and then rated the skit in terms of comedy and stereotypes. Further

analysis could determine if this ordering is most appropriate. During debriefing, one (in 40)

participants revealed that s/he suspected that the two studies were related. Pretesting could have

identified if preexisting prejudices were evident in the sample. The race of the suspect in the

vignettes was implied by his name: Todd or Tyrone. A test was performed to assess the way this

sample would categorize those names.

Dreistadt 9

Perhaps Price’s research design is overadequate. Although he did thoroughly investigate

the interrelationship of the variables at hand, the design is cumbersome and difficult to

understand. It would be helpful to reduce the complexity of the research design, if this could be

done without jeopardizing the integrity of the experiment. The research conducted by Hubbard

and colleagues was fairly straightforward and the research design is adequate for their purposes.

Research design could be improved to increase validity and reliability. Again, Gilens’ research

design is adequate if he only sought to demonstrate the difference between national newsmedia

content and the actual race, age, and employment status of poor people. If he was additionally

seeking to demonstrate causality between this and public opinion about poor people, additional

research in a controlled environment is needed. Clawson and Trice were able to adequately

assess their problem with their research design. It would be interesting to compare the content of

the five national newsmagazines they analyzed to other media, such as newspapers or television.

Ford’s research design was adequate. It measured and analyzed the variables stated in the

hypothesis.

Because of the complexity of the research design, extraneous variables were minimized

in Price’s study. Additional means of controlling such variables are unknown. In contrast, the

research of Hubbard et. al. was fairly simple. They did not adequately control for the influence

of media other than those analyzed or for potential confounding factors. There was only one

relevant reference in Gilens paper. When using the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature to

develop a list of news stories about poor people, he did not include African American or Black in

his subject list (519). He notes that therefore “the body of stories…will underestimate the true

degree to which poverty is presented as a black problem” (519). However, he does not consider

that many stories about poor people would like be cross referenced under the other topics he

Dreistadt 10

searched. Clawson and Trice did not have any extraneous variables to control. Ford’s paper did

not identify extraneous variables or discuss how they are controlled.

The results in Price’s paper were clearly presented. This was aided by charts that

presented the data in a format that was easy to read and interpret. He consistently related the

results back to his original hypothesis. Hubbard and colleagues reiterated the hypothesis and

related the results accordingly. Because the results were simple numbers, they were clearly

communicated via a chart. Gilens clearly presented his findings, using narrative comments and

tables that captured the information. He broke the results down into the three areas of interest –

race, age, and occupational status. Clawson and Trice presented their data clearly. There were a

lot of numbers discussed and more charts would be helpful. Ford presented his results in a clear

manner. He computed Cronbach’s alpha for the comedy and stereotype ratings of the skits and

the guilt ratings, noting the presence or absence of main effects and interaction effects.

Because the independent variables were presented in questionnaire format, they were

effectively controlled in Price’s study. This is not applicable to Hubbard’s, Gillens’, or Clawson

and Trice’s research as they are not experiments. Ford controlled the independent variables.

Because they were prerecorded or preprinted, this is easily done.

Price’s experimental procedures revealed information to support his hypothesis.

Participants identified with social groups much more strongly when the article contained group

conflict. Significant main effects were found for presence of conflict and level of personal

consequence. Interaction effects were found between personal consequences and salience, as

well as presence of conflict, personal consequences, and salience. This demonstrated that the

presence of conflict did in fact cause people to choose a position in addition to affecting the

magnitude of that position. Subjects’ reaction to the student statements about the issue further

Dreistadt 11

supported the hypothesis. Price used regression to analyze conformity to group norms; in this

instance, part of his hypothesis was rejected. Ford’s experimental procedures examined the

underlying constructs presented in the hypothesis.

Price’s interpretation further explained the results – both expected and unexpected. He

also offered areas that require further explanation. He reiterated that the influence of media on

public opinion formation is a systematic process, and that this research investigates a portion of

that process. Because the results did not support Hubbard and colleagues’ hypothesis, the results

explain possible alternative hypotheses. They also related the results back to the theory, stating

that the “problems under study…are clearly in the institutionalized stage” (30). Gilens’ paper

had a section between the results and conclusion that presents a lot of new ideas and data. This

both adds to the findings just presented and confuses the issue he is really interested in

examining. His research was based on content analysis and comparing that to census data; this

section offers additional secondary data about public opinion related to race and poor people.

Gilens also explored several possibilities that might explain why the media misrepresent poor

people. Again, he was presenting new data. His summary neatly tied up the key data uncovered

through his research. He restated the problem in his last sentence, “by implicity identifying

poverty with race, the news media perpetuate stereotypes that work against the interests of both

poor people and African Americans” (538). In the discussion, Clawson and Trice also tied in

the connection between media and public opinion, citing Gilens and others. They provided a

summary paragraph in the results section, which may have been more useful as a beginning to

the discussion section. In the discussion, Clawson and Trice noted that other types of media

also misrepresent poor people. Ford explained the results obtained in terms of the theory about

priming. He also noted the significance of using comedic portrayals of stereotypical African

Dreistadt 12

American behavior, suggesting that, “disparagement of social groups through humor increases

our tolerance or acceptance of discrimination against outgroups” (272). This could be explored

through further research. He offered much additional theory and research support in the

discussion section.

Price admitted that students tend to view his chosen subject in a negative manner. This

may have affected participants’ responses. He also noted that subjects may have altered their

response because they viewed their group’s position as “selfish or mundane” (220). Again,

Hubbard’s failure to include national news media may distort the results. Their process for

evaluating content was adequate. As the authors suggest on page 30-31, the media may have a

stronger influence on public opinion during the first two stages of social problem formation and

this project investigated problems in the institutionalized stage. They also speculated that

“media may play a role in shaping conceptions of importance, but little role in producing beliefs

about prevalence” (31). These factors could have been incorporated into the research design by

examining a variety of issues and comparing public opinion about their prevalence and

importance. Significant methodological problems were not detected in the content analysis of

news media in Gilens’ study. His results may have been different if original research was used

to learn more about public opinion in this area. In Clawson and Trice’s paper, they did not give

sufficient information about the coding process to determine if it influenced the results. Their

selection of five newsmagazines in the universe of all media may have influenced their results.

The sampling technique used could have possibly influenced results in Ford’s study. The order

of questions presented after viewing the television skits could also have skewed the results.

The interpretation of Price’s research presents significant support for most of the original

hypothesis. It offers possible explanations for particular components of the three-prong

Dreistadt 13

hypothesis that did not yield expected results. Hubbard and colleagues summarized their findings

in relationship to the original hypothesis. They suggested several reasons why their hypothesis

may not be true, and offered additional areas for investigation. Gilens interpretation was

appropriate given his original hypothesis, with exception to the presentation of new data after the

results section. He restated the problem and his perspective, based on the research just

conducted. In Clawson and Trice’s paper, they did not discuss their research in the discussion

section, but the research of others. Analysis about what they saw in the magazines they reviewed

and speculation into why this happens should have been included. Ford clearly supported his

original hypothesis in the discussion. He also offered additional hypotheses that could add to

this research. He raised the question about the effect of humor at the end; perhaps this could

have been used as a control variable, or at least introduced as a possible influence, earlier in the

paper.

Hypothesis and Variables

Portrayals of Native American people that incorporate traditional dress, language,

folkways, and rituals cause public opinion to renounce support for Native American political

issues and to consider these issues as unimportant personally and politically. When Native

Americans are portrayed in traditional ways, non-natives perceive natives as ‘different’ and

isolated. As these traditional elements decrease, public support proportionately increases. The

experimental portion of this research will focus on the impact that the level of cultural

integration of Native American in moving images has on public support for, and perceived

importance of, Native American political issues. The independent variables are the presence of

indigenous dress, language, folkways, and rituals as well as the absence of nonnative people in

Dreistadt 14

moving images of Native American people and the dependent variables are the level of support

for Native American political issues and the perceived importance of those issues.

Rival Hypotheses

It could be estimated that the images of Native American people used in film and

broadcast news media portray native people in a diverse fashion that reflects real life.

Alternately, native people could be most often represented devoid of cultural elements, with

physical characteristics being the only distinguishing indication of race.

Lack of public support for Native American political issues could be caused by limited

interaction with, and intimate knowledge of, native people. The effect could be confounded by

political affiliation, age, racial identity, place of origin, or socioeconomic status.

Research Design

An experiment will be conducted to determine the effect of the content of moving images

on public opinion about Native American political issues. Six - 10 minute videos about a Native

American family will be produced. Each video will incorporate varying degrees of traditional

culture and nonnative people.

Video 1 - No traditional native culture portrayed, nonnative people present

Video 2 - Native ritual performed, nonnative people present

Video 3 - Native dress worn, native ritual performed, nonnative people present

Video 4 - Native dress worn, native ritual performed, use of native language,

nonnative people present

Video 5- Native dress worn, native ritual performed, use of native language, native

folkways demonstrated, nonnative people present

Dreistadt 15

Video 6 - Native dress worn, native ritual performed, use of native language, native

folkways demonstrated, no nonnative people present

The videos will have identical audio soundtracks with the same narrator and script, to

control for its influence on the outcome. Seven comparison groups will be randomly selected

from a pool of college seniors. Six groups will each watch one of the videos. One comparison

group will not watch a video.

After watching the video (or not watching the video), participants will be given a

prepared questionnaire about Native American political issues. The questionnaire will include a

ten brief paragraphs about ten Native American political issues: tribal sovereignty, land rights,

environmental preservation, sacred sites, religious freedom, cultural preservation, history

education, economic development, political prisoners, and the use of Native American images as

mascots in team sports. After the paragraph will be a sentence that represents the Native

American consensus on that issue, supplied by the Native American Rights Fund. Participants

will be asked three questions about the passage:

Participants will be asked three questions which have been pre-tested with a group of

college students to ensure their validity:

1. The Native American political position on this issue matches my opinion.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

2. How important is this issue to you?

Very important Somewhat important Not very important Not at all important

3. How important is this issue to the United States?

Very important Somewhat important Not very important Not at all important

Dreistadt 16

This researcher hypothesizes that participants who watch videos with fewer

distinguishing characteristics will present more positive responses to these questions.

After completing these questions for the 10 issues presented, participants will answer a

number of questions to determine if there were any confounding factors. Participants will be

asked to record their age, racial identity, political affiliation, family income, marital status,

employment, urban/suburban/rural community of origins, and state of origin.

To demonstrate the degree that Native American people are depicted in cultural and

geographic isolation in current moving images, a content analysis will be performed on all

broadcast news stories and motion pictures featuring Native Americans from 1993 – 2003. Each

scene will be analyzed to determine whether or not each variable is present. The variables that

will be coded are absence of nonnative people, use of native language, traditional clothing worn,

native folkways portrayed, native rituals performed. Each scene will be coded by two

researchers to ensure reliability.

Data Collection

Responses from the experiment will be tabulated for each of the seven comparison

groups and compared to each other to determine whether increasing presence of traditional

Native American Culture had an impact on public opinion and perception of the issues personal

and political importance. The data will be presented on this matrix:

Video 1 Video 2 Video 3 Video 4 Video 5 Video 6 No VideoQ. 1 SA-xx

A-xxD-xxSD-xx

SA-xxA-xxD-xxSD-xx

SA-xxA-xxD-xxSD-xx

SA-xxA-xxD-xxSD-xx

SA-xxA-xxD-xxSD-xx

SA-xxA-xxD-xxSD-xx

SA-xxA-xxD-xxSD-xx

Q. 2 VI-xxSI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

VI-xxSI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

VI-xxSI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

VI-xxSI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

VI-xxSI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

VI-xxSI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

VI-xxSI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

Q. 3 VI-xx VI-xx VI-xx VI-xx VI-xx VI-xx VI-xx

Dreistadt 17

SI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

SI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

SI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

SI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

SI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

SI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

SI-xxNVI-xxNI-xx

Responses to the questions regarding possible confounding factors will also be analyzed.

Statistical analysis will be performed to determine if a correlation exists between any of these

variables and the three dependent variables.

For the content analysis, each broadcast news story and film will be broken down into

scenes as the unit under investigation. Each scene will be assigned a score of 1 to 5, based on the

number of variables present. The number of scenes with each score will be tabulated, separated

by broadcast news and film. The scores will be distributed by year, to demonstrate any change

that could have occurred over the past 10 years. The data will be presented in this matrix for

each year:

Broadcast News Film1993 5 – xx

4 – xx3 – xx2 – xx1 – xx0 - xx

5 – xx4 – xx3 – xx2 – xx1 – xx0 - xx

Finally, the degree of actual presence of traditional indigenous culture in broadcast news

and motion pictures will be used to approximate actual public opinion of Native American

political issues, based on the impact detected through the experiment.

Results

The results will show that public opinion is adversely affected by traditional

representation in the moving images. Participants who watch videos that incorporate more

traditional dress, language, folkways, and rituals will not support Native American political

Dreistadt 18

issues as strongly as those who watch videos with fewer traditional elements. These participants

will consider these issues less important personally and politically.

Dreistadt 19

Works Cited

Clawson, Rosalee A. and Trice, Rakuya. 2000. “Poverty as We Know It: Media

Portrayals of the Poor.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64:53-64.

Ford, Thomas E. 1997. “Effects of Stereotypical Television Portrayals of African-

Americans on Person Perception.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60(3):266-278.

Gilens, Martin. 1996. “Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the

American News Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60:515-541.

Hubbard, Jeffrey C, DeFluer, Melvin L., and DeFleur, Lois B. 1975 “Mass Media

Influences on Public Conceptions of Social Problems.” Social Problems 23(1):22-34.

Price, Vincent. 1989. “Social Identification and Public Opinion: Effects of

Communicating Group Conflict.” Public Opinion Quarterly 53:197-224.

Dreistadt 20