Who Said That? Status Presentation in Media Accounts of the Animal Experimentation Debate

Corwin R. Kruse 1
University of Minnesota

In recent years, the issue of experimentation upon nonhuman animals has become the subject of media attention. One aspect of the media presentation is the status attributed to claims_makers on either side of the issue. Research suggests that perceived expertise of the source of arguments can play a role in attitudes formed by audiences. This study examines mainstream print and broadcast media presentation of the status of individuals quoted regarding the issue of animal experimentation. Those supporting continued experimentation are significantly more likely to be presented as professionals or experts. Attitude formation is discussed in light of these findings.

Although active, organized opposition to vivisection has existed for well over a century, only recently has the issue of experimentation upon nonhuman animals moved from a place on the fringes of social debate to the mainstream of public discussion. Prior to the late 1970s, scientists who performed experiments on animals could anticipate overwhelming approval from the public for providing knowledge that could ease human suffering and improve the human condition.

However, the last 15 to 20 years have witnessed explosive growth in the animal rights movement and an erosion of public support for animal research. Grass roots groups have sprung up in many urban areas, and membership in national organizations has risen dramatically. The largest animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), saw its membership skyrocket from less than 100 in 1980 (Plous, 1991) to more than 500,000 just 15 years later. As the influence of these groups has grown, the scientific community has come under increasing scrutiny.

The suspension of funding to the University of Pennsylvania Head Injury Clinic in 1984 gave notice to the scientific establishment that the animal rights movement was a force that needed to be taken seriously. "For the first time, an administration official had intervened in the allocation of a grant from NIH, the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the United States" (Sperling, 1988, p. 4). This incident and others like it have led to the formation of a number of groups that attempt to promote pro_experimentation attitudes among the general public. For example, the Foundation for Biomedical Research "has a network of 33 state affiliates distributing pro_research educational materials to every middle school in the country." In addition, groups such as Americans for Medical Progress have begun an advertising campaign aimed largely at the collegiate population (Carney, 1993, p. 1985).

Concurrently, the debate has been carried into the national media. Plous (1991) pointed to the dozens of magazines across the country that have featured articles concerning the debates on animal rights. This raises issues on how information concerning the question of animal experimentation has been presented by the media.


Status and Quotations

The sociology of news production has long been a topic of interest to researchers. As Schudson (1989) has discussed, the media do not simply report the news, the media construct the news. A constructionist perspective analyzes this in terms of claims_making. Competing claims are presented by various actors involved in a given issue. The news media then modify and selectively present particular claims on the topic. Gamson and Wolfsfeld (1993, p. 117) described the interplay between claims_makers and the media as a "negotiation over meaning."

The media often make use of quotations to humanize their stories and increase perceptions of validity. Articles and broadcasts concerning animal testing are no different. Not all quotations, however, are created equal. Those attributed to individuals ascribed professional or expert status will carry more weight than those attributed to individuals not ascribed such status.

Gitlin (1980) suggested that the media look for spokespersons for movements and movement organizations. To some extent, this is true for the animal rights movement; and certain individuals, such as Ingrid Newkirk, have achieved what Gitlin (1980) would refer to as "celebrity" status. However, the results of this study suggest that this process is far from certain. The media may also choose to approach more "obscure" individuals.

Danielian (1994) proposes that the way in which interest groups are presented in the media may be just as important as what they have to say. If these groups are presented positively, their respectability may be enhanced. On the other hand, if they are portrayed in a negative light, their legitimacy may be undermined, and identification with them on the part of the public may be discouraged.

As Petty, Cacioppo, and Goldman (1981) demonstrated, the perceived expertise of the source of an argument can play a part in the target's formation of an attitude. These results, however, apply only when the topic has a low degree of personal relevance to the subject. This caveat granted, the represented status of individuals is pertinent because, for most Americans, the issue of animal experimentation presumably does not engender a high degree of personal relevance


Method

Sample

This analysis focuses on the national media, specifically major newsmagazine and network television news accounts. The print sample consists of all articles concerning animal experimentation contained in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report from 1984 to 1993 as referenced in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. These 26 articles contain 90 quotations that suggest the speakers' positions on animal experimentation.

Newsmagazines, rather than newspapers, were selected for two primary reasons. First, they provide nationwide coverage. With a few exceptions, such as the New York Times, newspapers tend to have predominantly localized distribution. Second, newsmagazines are more likely to have higher secondary readership. They are readily available in public places__such as doctors’ offices__ to individuals other than subscribers and have a weekly rather than daily "life cycle."

Television has become the medium of choice for many individuals. In the United States, approximately 50 million people watch television news programs each day (McCombs, 1994). For the portion of this paper dedicated to broadcast media, the sample is composed of all news segments concerning animal experimentation presented on the evening news broadcasts of three major U.S. television networks from 1984 to 1993. These 31 segments contain 62 quotations for which a position on animal experimentation could be ascertained. Tapes of the broadcasts were obtained from the Vanderbilt Television News Archives. The choice of starting date was based on the Animal Liberation Front raid on the head injury laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania. As the data for this study was collected in mid to late 1994, 1993 was the last full year for which data was available.

It is not expected that all of these items will have been read and/or seen by all individuals. However, they illustrate a nationwide presentation of issues that is easily accessible to the public.

Procedure

Each time someone was quoted by the media, the quote was coded by position on continued animal research (supporter, opponent, or unknown) and status or knowledge of the individual as portrayed by the media (professional/expert, nonprofessional/nonexpert, or unknown).

In this study, a professional/expert was defined as one portrayed as holding a position of high status and respect or as being more knowledgeable about the issue of animal experimentation than the average person. Examples would be scientists, professors, and doctors. In addition, individuals identified as the head of a group such as PETA or Americans for Medical Progress, were coded as professional/experts. Mere membership in a group, however, did not automatically classify speakers as professional/experts (with the exception of groups like the American Medical Association, which is made up of professionals only).

All items were jointly coded by two coders using a consensus coding model. Initially, each quote was rated separately. Differences were then reconciled, and final codes were assigned. The initial agreement between the two coders was 98%.


Results and Discussion

Figure 1 presents the status of individuals quoted in the print media by position on continued animal experimentation. Figure 2 presents the same information for the broadcast segments. The charts do not include quotations for which a position on the issue could not be determined.

______________________
Figure 1 about here
______________________

______________________
Figure 2 about here
______________________

In newsmagazines, quotations supporting continued animal experimentation occurred 2.9 times as frequently as those opposing experimentation. The majority of quotations on both sides of the issue came from individuals portrayed as either professionals or experts, but the proportion of professionals portrayed among the supporters of experimentation is much higher (p < .001). Quotations supporting animal testing were 1.5 times more likely to be attributed to someone of high status as were quotations opposing it.

In the broadcast media, quotations supporting continued experimentation were 1.4 times more likely to be presented as quotations opposing it. On television, as in print, the bulk of quotations supporting experimentation come from individuals identified as professionals or experts. On the other hand, the majority of quotations opposing animal testing are attributed to individuals who are not identified as professionals or experts. Relative to opposing quotations, supporting quotations were 6.5 times more likely to be attributed to someone of high status (p < .001).

These findings should come as no great surprise. In both cases, the differences can conceivably be attributed, at least in part, to the nature of those who go on public record in support of continued experimentation. Because a large percentage of the most vehement supporters are researchers or doctors, it makes sense that quotations in favor of experimentation should be drawn disproportionately from high_status individuals.

Of course, the potential effect of this disparity is likely to vary widely. For partisans on either side of the debate, the influence of source status on attitude formation is unlikely to be of consequence. The high level of personal involvement by these individuals with the issue precludes such effects. Since these audience members, analogous to Kenmore’s (1994) attentive publics, are motivated to keep informed about the issue, they should engage in systematic processing of the arguments on both sides and rely little on heuristic cues (Eagle & Chain, 1993; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). A detailed discussion of the use of heuristic cues in attitude formation can be found in an article by Chaiken (1980) written for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and in a chapter written by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) for the book, Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Media portrayals, in this case, should simply enhance the dominant response of the consumer.

The situation may be different, however, with respect to the general public for whom personal involvement and knowledge of the issue is low (Kennamer, 1994). These individuals are not initially interested in the issue or motivated to seek out and analytically process information. Rather they engage in heuristic processing and rely on cues to trigger acceptance or rejection of a position without elaboration (Eagly et al., 1993; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). For these individuals, perceived source expertise may be influential in attitude formation (Petty et al., 1981). Supporters of continued animal experimentation are significantly more likely than opponents to be presented as professionals or experts in the field, which may suggest a higher level of credibility for pro_experimentation arguments. Status, therefore, may become a heuristic cue used in attitude formation by a large portion of the audience.

Billig (1991) has argued that taking a position on an issue is not something that occurs in isolation. An individual's stand is influenced by the rhetorical context within which he or she is embedded. For most members of the public, attitudes regarding animal experimentation are unlikely to be formed solely by the assertions of those on either side of the issue. Presumably, it is the interaction between pro_and anti_experimentation forces that helps shape public opinion (Kruse, 1995). As Groves (1997) suggests, the positions expressed by those on either side of the debate are best understood as well in light of this interaction.

Public attitudes regarding medical testing on nonhuman animals seem somewhat inconsistent. For example, Gallup and Beckstead (1988, p. 476) reported that "most college students are concerned about pain and suffering in animals, but at the same time the majority.. support...using animals in research." In part, this may be influenced by media coverage of the debate. Kruse (1995) demonstrated that the messages conveyed by the media regarding animal experimentation often mention the pain and suffering experienced by animals used in research. At the same time, emphasis is frequently placed upon either past medical breakthroughs ostensibly achieved through animal testing or the potential consequences for future advances should such research is be abolished.

This paper does not suggest that perceived source status is the only, or even the primary, determinant of individuals' attitudes regarding animal experimentation. Media representation, including the status of those being quoted, is only one element of the rhetorical context. To the extent that the media are a principal source of information on an issue, however, such representation is likely to play a more important role in shaping this context.

Although the debate over the experimental use of nonhumans has entered the mainstream, the subject probably doesn't hold high levels of personal relevance for most people. In addition, the media are likely to be a dominant source of information on the topic. Because of this, it is important for researchers to address the presentation of status in media accounts.

Because the data used in this paper only extend through 1993, the results may be dated. In the past 5 years the nature of coverage may have changed. On the one hand, continued growth and media recognition of the animal rights movement may have created a situation in which current spokespersons for this cause are accorded more respect On the other hand, an increasingly proactive stance by the scientific community and a media fascination with medical advances may find animal rights spokespersons today even more marginalized and trivialized. Further research is called for to address the question of the more recent status accorded to animal rights spokespersons by the media.


References

Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. London: Sage Publications.

Carney, E. N. (1993, August 7). Today's lesson: Lobbying. National Journal, 1985_1987.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752_766.

Danielian, L. (1994). Interest groups in the news. In J. David Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press, and public policy (pp. 63_79). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Gallup, G. G., Jr. & Beckstead, J. W. (1988). Attitudes toward animal research. American Psychologist, 43, 474_476.

Gamson, W. A. & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114_125.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press

Groves, J. M. (1997). Hearts and minds: The controversy over laboratory animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kennamer, J. D. (1994). Public opinion, the press, and public policy: An introduction. In J. David
Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press, and public policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kruse, C. R. (1995). Images, ideas and context: Media framing and the construction of the animal experimentation debate. Unpublished master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

McCombs, M. (1994). News influences on our pictures of the world. In J. Bryant and D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 1_16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123_205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument_based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847_855.

Plous, S. (1991). An attitude survey of animal rights activists. Psychological Science, 2, 194_196.

Schudson, M. (1989). The sociology of news production. Media, Culture and Society, 11, 263_282.

Sperling, S. (1988). Animal liberators: Research and morality. Berkeley: University of California Press.


Notes

1. All correspondence should be sent to Corwin R. Kruse, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, 909 Social Sciences Building, 267 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455. This research was supported by grants from the Pennsylvania State University Department of Sociology and the Frank Sim Memorial Fund. I am indebted to Marylee Taylor, Barry Lee, Dick Bord, Ron Aminzade, Jeff Broadbent, Cristy Gaffney Kruse, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments and insights.

 

For Abstracts of all issues, including the most current, click Article Abstracts

To order Society & Animals Journal, go to our secure online ordering page

You can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA) website,
for topics and keywords of your interest: