James Bingaman
Assistant Professor of Agricultural Education & Communication
California Polytechnic State University

Suggested Citation:
Bingaman, J. (2024). If they can kick good more power to em: The influence of media and values on attitudes toward Australian college punters. Utah Journal of Communication, 2(2), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13905078

---

Abstract
In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of Australian athletes playing Division I college football in the U.S. Drawing on the theories of framing and genre-specific cultivation, this study used a correlational survey approach with open-ended responses to determine how patterns of media behavior and value predispositions predict attitudes toward Australian college punters. Additionally, a content analysis was conducted using open-ended responses to determine how audiences themselves come to frame punters, Australians, and Australian college punters. The results highlight key insights into how media behavior is related to attitudes and how audiences frame Australian punters.
Keywords: Framing, Cultivation, International student-athletes, Punting

---

In American football, punting refers to “a play used at all levels of football in which one team strategically turns over the ball to the opposition by kicking it as far down the field as possible while attempting to keep it out of the end zone” (Woroszylo, 2014, p. 1). Despite the relative lack of attention given to punting, over the last few years, the NFL has entered what Bien (2018) refers to as the “golden age” of punting — with punters being statistically more dominant than their counterparts in years past. Part of the reason for this is the sudden influx of the “drop punt” style of punting; an effective style of kicking that relies on optimizing the impact location between ball and foot (or the “sweet spot;” Peacock & Ball, 2019). One group taking full advantage of this shift in style of kicking are Australians; who make up a significant portion of NCAA Division 1 (including multiple award winners; Bingaman, 2022).

Specific to college punters, media coverage of Australian punters emphasizes “foreignness” (Bingaman, 2022). For example, in a profile on Louis Hedley (University of Miami) Degnan (2019) described his journey from Australia to “internet sensation”, making sure to add that he has a “really cool Australian accent” (para. 4). Additionally, Rogers (2021) referred to the “sun-kissed land” of pop-star Kylie Minogue and Crocodile Dundee in their profile on Australian punters (para. 9). More specifically, Bingaman’s research concluded that despite the overreliance on “foreignness” and stereotypes, media coverage of Australian punters was generally positive. This aligns with existing research that perceptions of Australians are often propagated from media representations found in popular media that often exaggerates stereotypical portrayals (see Crofts, 1993; Ladegaard, 1998; O’Reilly, 2011; Prideaux, 2009; White, 2009). Research has demonstrated that media messages and portrayals that reinforce stereotypes often do so from a negative perspective, preserving antiquated and destructive narratives surrounding athletes and sports (Cunningham & Bopp, 2010; Dashper, 2018; Eagleman, 2011; Ferrucci et al., 2016; Romney & Johnson, 2019; Sheffer, 2020). Though research has provided a detailed account of the portrayal of Australian punters in U.S. media (Bingaman, 2022), the current study sought to address potential relationships between patterns of media use and value predispositions on attitudes toward these athletes. 

Scholars have maintained that different media programs will result in different cultivation or acculturation effects for individuals (Hawkins & Pingree, 1981; Kobach & Potter, 2013; Odağ & Hanke, 2018), with these media messages becoming salient for individuals in how they frame others (Sotirovic, 2000). Specific to sports media, audiences may be exposed to distinct messages based on the different programs and types of content they engage with (Bingaman, 2020; Brown-Devlin, 2022). Given that coverage of Australians in general (O’Reilly, 2011), and Australian athletes specifically (Bingaman, 2022; Judd, 2015), relies on the use of stereotypes, audience framing includes elements of stereotypic thinking through the use of heuristic cues (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Hilton & von Hippel, 1996; Petsko et al., 2022). Additionally, value predispositions such as nationalism, patriotism, internationalism, and smugness (Billings et al., 2013a, 2013b) can reinforce stereotypic thinking and media use. Using a correlational survey approach, this study examined (a) how audiences frame both Australians and Australian punters, (b) what role media plays in cultivating attitudes toward Australian punters, and (c) how value predispositions may influence these attitudes.

Audience Framing

Framing refers to “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events, weaving a connection among them. The frame suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, p. 143). These frames consist of metaphors, catchphrases, visual images, moral appeals, and other symbolic devices that create interpretative packages (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 2). Audiences then use these interpretative packages to construct meaning and make sense of the world. Scholars such as Scheufele (1999) and de Vreese (2005) have proposed framing as a process that includes the construction of frames (frame building), the interaction between media and audience frames (frame setting), and the individual and societal consequences of framing (framing effects). This study is interested in exploring the frame setting process: the degree to which audiences adopt media frames in processing information (Scheufele, 1999, p. 117). As argued by Sotirovic (2000), individuals do not necessarily “mimic” media frames verbatim; instead, patterns of media use influence individuals’ thinking as frames are more accessible and readily available to them (p. 287). Media consumption and viewing behaviors, therefore, becomes important when considering how individuals themselves frame topics or issues. Though research in this area remains scarce, therein lies an opportunity to further examine this important part of the framing process as it relates to sports media. 

Stereotypes

Stereotypes are important to the study of Australian athletes in a U.S. media context (Bingaman, 2022). According to Katz and Braly (1935), “a stereotype is a fixed impression, which conforms very little to the facts it tends to represent, and results from our defining first and observing second” (p. 181). More succinctly, stereotypes are “a generalization (or belief) about a group; most likely, a generalization concerning the perceived prevalence of a given trait within an ethnic group” (Brigham, 1970, p. 30). The use of stereotypic thinking by individuals serves a multitude of functions, including easing the burden of information processing (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). Thus, audience frames are likely to feature these heuristic shortcuts when making sense of ethnic groups. Generally, individuals use different representational models when forming or applying stereotypic thinking, including prototype, exemplar, or schematic models (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). 

Prototyping refers to the collection of broad characteristics, thoughts, or features of a group that are then used to build a “prototype” version of a member of that group that is used in evaluations and comparisons (Cantor & Mischel, 1979; Mastro, 2003). For example, individuals may use typical or distinguishing features of Australians (e.g., accents) to create a perceived “prototypical” Australian that would then be used for comparison’s sake (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). Exemplar models of stereotypic thinking refer to distinct examples of a group by way of individual representation. For instance, Hilton and von Hippel (1996) described Michael Jordan and Carl Lewis as exemplars of African American athletes that people use when engaged in stereotypic thinking. When it comes to media portrayals of Australians, Paul Hogan’s Mick “Crocodile” Dundee might serve as an exemplar for American audiences (Ladegaard, 1998). This type of model presumes that context plays a significant role in cognitive activation (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). Finally, schema models refer to over-generalizations and abstract beliefs about groups – and differ from prototype and exemplar models in not being as specific or granular, but rather, vague and abstract (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). For example, people would use one or two defining traits about Australians in general to evaluate individual Australians (Grant & Holmes, 1981).

Though no existing research exists on perceptions of punters, researchers have examined stereotypes often ascribed to Australians (broadly; Berry, 1969; Ladegaard, 1998; Marsh et al., 2007; Wood & Muñoz, 2007). Existing research has shown that individuals from other countries often perceive Australians as “easy-going” and “laid back” (Ladegaard, 1998) – suggesting that these might be important frames of reference. 

Sports Media Cultivation

In addition to examining frame setting (frames in mind), the current study proposes that increased exposure to media messages is associated with more positive attitudes toward Australian punters. The theory of cultivation was developed as part of the Cultural Indicators project by George Gerbner and colleagues (1969, 1970, 1972a, 1972b, 1973, 1998). As summarized by Shanahan and Morgan (1999), cultivation refers to the idea “that watching a great deal of television will be associated with a tendency to hold specific and distinct conceptions of reality, conceptions that are congruent with the most consistent and pervasive images and values of the medium” (p. 3).

Although named by scholars as a theory of interest within the domain of sports media (see Pedersen et al., 2007), the direct examination of cultivation effects within sports remains scant. Existing studies of cultivation in a sport context have identified the potential cultivation effects related to nationalism byway of announcer discourse associated with international basketball (Billings et al., 2009), the role of sports reporting in addressing cultural and political issues (Schmidt, 2018), and implicit racial stereotyping (Kaiser et al., 2016; Kobach & Potter, 2013). The lack of research on direct cultivation effects may be, in part, due to a misunderstanding about the core theoretical considerations of cultivation. Wanta (2013) argued that cultivation effects were unlikely to occur in sports media contexts because viewers could discern that sporting events were not like real life. This, however, does not consider the genre/program specific elements of media, including types of language, descriptors, or framing that occurs in both broadcasts and news articles surrounding sports events and athletes (Kaiser et al., 2016; Kobach & Potter, 2013). 

As demonstrated by Hawkins and Pingree (1981), the symbolic representations across media content can affect cultivation effects, with distinct media potentially shaping the social reality of long-time sports viewers. From this genre-specific perspective of cultivation, the theory provides a lens through which to view, predict, and explain the potential impact of various kinds of media exposure on opinions, attitudes, and beliefs in relation to sport. According to Angelini et al. (2014), “sport can serve as one image of society with mediated sport often projecting that image back to society” (p. 126). In looking at Olympic coverage, Angelini and Billings (2010) concluded that audiences view society “through the lens of a handful of key producers and sportscasters” (p. 364), suggesting that the sports product we see on television often represents the values and vested interests of these select individuals. 

In addition to sports, this topic examines the impact of media and values on attitudes directed towards individuals of other nationalities. Studies have indicated that mass media can influence these attitudes and perceptions toward foreign nations (Brewer et al. 2003). Moreover, mass media can impact the process of acculturation – the psychological process of changing one’s attitudes, opinions, and behaviors in the face of intercultural contact (Berry, 1997). Odağ and Hanke (2018) argued that mass media in a “host” country cultivate the norms and values of that country among immigrant individuals. In this study, however, the inverse would occur given the positive portrayal of Australians in a U.S. media context. Thus, Americans would be acculturated to Australians via representations in sports media. These representations are often positive while also emphasizing “foreignness” and the physical strength of Australian punters (Bingaman, 2022). Additionally, in their study of implicit racial stereotyping, Kobach and Potter (2013) concluded that there was a strong association between sports media consumption and attitudes about Black (“natural”) and White (“smart”) athletes. Following this logic, the predominantly White punters could be implicitly perceived more favorably.

Given (a) audiences use of stereotypes to frame individuals (Crofts, 1993; Ladegaard, 1998; O’Reilly, 2011), (b) the role of media in producing acculturation effects (Berry, 1997; Odağ & Hanke, 2018), and (c) possible genre-specific cultivation effects of sports media (Calzo & Ward, 2009; Hawkins & Pingree, 1981; Kobach & Potter, 2013; Lee & Niederdeppe, 2010; Potter & Chang, 1990), the following hypotheses and research question were evaluated across several types of media content:

RQ1: How will audiences frame Australians, punters, and Australian punters?

RQ2: How are audience frames of Australian punters associated with audience frames of Australians and punters?

RQ3: What types of media use are associated with attitudes toward Australian punters?

H1: Greater sports news consumption will be positively associated with favorable attitudes toward Australian punters.

H2: Greater college football consumption will be positively associated with favorable attitudes toward Australian punters.

The current study also seeks to extend the idea of stereotypic thinking and “lenses” as described by Petsko et al. (2022) by examining the role different media programs and genres play in this process (Sotirovic, 2000). In expanding upon early cultivation research, Hawkins and Pingree (1981) argued that scholars should examine diverse genres and programs as these would often offer differing perspectives, and therefore, differing effects. For example, sports media content differs in its presentation and discussion surrounding Australian athletes (especially Australian football), with podcast host and former NFL punter Pat McAfee being a vocal proponent of Australian football (Bingaman, 2020). Therefore, under the assumptions of genre-specific cultivation, audience members of the Pat McAfee Show would hold different attitudes toward Australian athletes. Likewise, public opinion research has highlighted differences in how audiences perceive credibility, accuracy, trustworthiness, and political bias of popular sports media brands such as ESPN, Fox Sports, Bleacher Report, CBS Sports, and NBC Sports (Brown-Devlin, 2022). Given the differences in sports media content across genres and programs, as well as differences in audience perceptions, the following research question was proposed:

RQ4: What types of media use are associated with audience frames for Australian punters?

Sports Media & Value Predispositions

Finally, research has shown that there is a relationship between sports media consumption – particularly for international sporting events – and value predispositions such as nationalism, patriotism, internationalism, and smugness (Billings et al., 2013a, 2013b). Using measures adapted from Kosterman and Feshbach (1989), Billings et al. (2013b) described patriotism as pride “in one’s own country without comparison”, nationalism as “presumed superiority of one’s own nation and inferiority of all other nations”, internationalism as “a sense of global citizenship”, and smugness as “arrogance” about one’s own home country (p. 915). These studies found that greater viewing of international sporting events such as the Olympics was associated with increased levels of all four dimensions (Billings et al. 2013a, 2013b). Rather than examining sports media’s impact on these four value predispositions, the current study examines them as independent variables. 

With sports media involving international athletes carrying the potential to increase feelings of patriotism, nationalism, smugness, and internationalism, this study looks at how these values might influence attitudes toward and frames of Australian punters. Individuals often engage in selective exposure of media that match their existing beliefs (see Stroud, 2007) or for utilitarian purposes that serve to reinforce existing information (see Atkin, 1985). In the context of sports media, consumers tend to “allocate greater attention to information due to personal interest” (Cummins & Hahn, 2022, p. 23). Thus, those individuals with higher levels of patriotism, nationalism, or smugness might seek out media – or be less influenced by media – that aligns with these beliefs, which could alter their feelings toward international athletes. Likewise, those with higher levels of internationalism could be more inclined to support Australian punters. With this in mind, the following hypotheses and research question were posed:

H3a: Higher levels of patriotism will be negatively associated with favorable attitudes toward Australian Punters.

H3b: Higher levels of nationalism will be negatively associated with favorable attitudes toward Australian Punters.

H3c: Higher levels of internationalism will be positively associated with favorable attitudes toward Australian Punters.

H3d: Higher levels of smugness will be negatively associated with favorable attitudes toward Australian Punters.

RQ5: How are patriotism, nationalism,internationalism, and smugness associated with audience frames for Australian punters?

Methods

The current study used data from a survey (designed by the author) administered online via Qualtrics between August 8th and October 8th, 2022 (N = 439). Prior to the recruitment of participants, the study received approval by the author’s institution. Participants for this study were recruited through two types of non-probability sampling techniques. The first was convenience sampling, where undergraduate students at a Mid-Atlantic university were recruited through the Department of Communication’s SONA research management system. The second technique was snowball sampling, where the author shared the survey on social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Participants were encouraged to take part in the survey and then refer the survey to other individuals. All responses collected through this survey were kept anonymous, with participants given a link to an external survey where they could enter their name and email into a drawing to win one of five $20 Target gift cards. Students who chose to participate also received extra credit.

The survey included several demographic measures, including age (M = 23.38, SD = 8.69; min = 18, max = 66); gender (male = 54%; female = 44%; non-binary = 1%), self-identification as White (84%), Hispanic (5%), Black (4%), Asian (2%); education level (High School (19%), some college (41%), 2-year degree (5%), 4-year degree (15%), post-graduate degree (19%); and political party identification (Democrat = 39%; Republican = 23%; Independent = 23%).

Measures

Attitudes toward Australian Punters

The dependent variables of interest for this study were attitudes toward Australian punters. Using measures adapted from Brewer et al. (2003), respondents were asked “how favorably or unfavorably do you feel toward Australian punters” (M = 2.48, SD = .82), “how much do you favor or oppose Australian punters playing college football in the US” (M = 3.12, SD = .94), and “how much do you favor or oppose Australian punters playing for your college football team” (M = 3.15, SD = .97) on a five-point scale from “strongly unfavorable/strongly oppose” (coded as 0) to “strongly favorable/strongly support” (coded as 4). These items were averaged to create an index (M = 2.91, SD = .77, a = .81).

Audience Frames

Gamson and Modigliani (1989) argued that “only by methods that elicit more of the interpretative process [of framing] will we be able to see the extent to which different media packages have become part of the public’s tool kit in making sense of the world of public affairs” (p. 36). As such, audience frames were assessed using open ended questions across three categories: nationalities, football positions, and a combination of the two. For nationalities, respondents were asked “what is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of…,” followed by “Germans,” “Canadians,” and “Australians” (randomized). Three nationalities were used to minimize the priming effect for subsequent questions. Germany and Canada were selected as the other two nationalities because of their presence in professional and college football in the U.S. For positions, respondents were asked the same question followed by “Quarterbacks,” “Linebackers,” and “Punters.” Finally, respondents were asked about the first thing that came to mind when they think of “Australian punters.”

Media Viewing

Respondents were asked a series of questions about their media viewing habits. Overall television viewing (M = 2.12, SD = .98) was measured using a five-point scale (“none” to “four hours or more”). Respondents were also asked how often they listened to podcasts (M = 1.60, SD = 1.20; less often to nearly every day). Additionally, respondents indicated whether they had listened to five popular sports podcasts in the last five years (checking all that apply). Sports news consumption was deliniated into TV news and print/online news. For TV news, respondents were asked about how often they watched national broadcast networks (e.g., ABC, NBC, and CBS; M = 1.02, SD = .96), college conference-specific networks (e.g., Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 12, and SEC; M = .92, SD = .96), ESPN (including ESPN+; M = 1.47, SD = 1.04), Fox Sports (including FS1; M = .96, SD = .98), Paramount+ (M = .26, SD = .64), and Peacock (M = .26, SD = .61), using the same scale as for social media and podcasts. These items were averaged into an index (M = .81, SD = .62, a = .80). For print/online news, respondents were asked how often they read USA Today (M = .37, SD = .72), local newspapers (M = .45, SD = .81), ESPN (M = 1.51, SD = 1.15), Fox Sports (M = .81, SD = 1.03), Barstool Sports (M = 1.10, SD = 1.15), Bleacher Report (M = .97, SD = 1.13), Sports Illustrated (M = .65, SD = .94), The Athletic (M = .53, SD = .91), and Yahoo Sports (M = .38, SD = .76). These items were also averaged to create an index (M = .75, SD = .62, a = .80).

Beyond sports news, respondents were asked how many college football games (M = 2.11, SD = 1.51) they watched during the season (“none” to “four or more games”). Finally, respondents were asked how often they used gambling apps or sportsbooks such as FanDuel, DraftKings or Caesars Sportsbook (four-point scale; “nearly everyday” to “less often”; M = .35, SD = .78) and whether they had played fantasy sorts in the past year (categorical; “yes” = 51% or “no” = 49%). 

Nationalism, Patriotism, Internationalism, and Smugness

Patriotism (three items; M = 2.81, SD = .95, a = .80), nationalism (three items; M = 2.54, SD = .74, a = .35), internationalism (three items; M = 2.21, SD = .83, a = .69), and smugness (three items; M = 2.01, SD = 1.05, a = .79) were captured through a set of indices adapted from Billings et al. (2013a, 2013b). Respondents were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements on a five-point scale (strongly disagree = 0, strongly agree = 5). For wording of the measures, see Appendix A. Since the three nationalism items failed to scale reliability, item three was dropped and a two-item measure was created (M = 2.20, SD = 1.02, r = .38).  

Demographics

In addition to media and value predisposition measures, respondents were asked a battery of demographic measures including gender, education level (measured as highest level of education achieved), ethnicity (hispanic/latino or not hispanic/latino), race, income, party identification (Democrat, Republican, Independent, Other, or “prefer not to say”), and political ideology (strong liberal = 0, strong conversative = 5).

Coding Protocol & Intercoder Reliability

Regarding the open-ended survey responses (audience frames), coding began with one coder examining each of the responses and categorizing them as “prototypical,” “exemplar,” or “schematic.” Once they were categorized, responses were qualitatively analyzed for emerging themes (sub-categories). Once categorized and sub-categorized, a codebook was developed with definitions and samples for coder-training purposes. Two coders then independently coded a 20% sample (n = 89) of each response (Australian, punters, and Australian punters) in order to achieve intercoder reliability. Intercoder reliability was determined using Krippendorff’s alpha (a; kap command on Stata 17). As demonstrated in Tables 1, 2, and 3, satisfactory reliability was established across all categories and sub-categories. Once intercoder reliability was established, all disagreements were discussed and a consensus was reached. The remaining responses were coded by an individual coder. 

Results

In addressing RQ1, the frequencies of frames (main categories and sub-categories) were calculated from open-ended responses. As demonstrated in Table 1, when it comes to framing Australians, individuals were most likely to use exemplars (68% of responses). In particular, the most popular responses within this category were animals – including kangaroos and koalas – and sports such as rugby. Other frequently used frames were associated with the Australian accent or language attributes (e.g., curse words or slang terms). When it comes to punters (Table 2), individuals were more likely to invoke prototypical frames (49% of total responses) including comments regarding the skills associated with punting (e.g., kicking a football). Individuals also used popular exemplars such as former NFL punter Pat McAfee (79% of all exemplar frames).

Finally, when it comes to framing Australian punters specifically (Table 3), individuals were particularly likely to use prototypical frames (39%), followed closely by exemplar frames (33%). Of these exemplar frames, the most common frame was associated with specific sports such as rugby, soccer, and Australian football (58% of exemplar frames). Moreover, three new frames (all prototypical frames) were found in these responses – ability (better), unique kicking motion, and old/age. “Ability” frames emphasized that Australian punters had superior ability (e.g., kicking length or talent) compared to American punters. “Kicking motion” frames referred to the unique kicking style (e.g., rugby-style punting) that Australians typically embody. As for “age”, several individuals mentioned that Australian punters were older than other college athletes – which is supported by news stories highlighting that some Australian punters were first-year students in their mid-late twenties (see Kramer, 2019).

Looking at RQ2, a series of chi-square analyses were conducted to determine whether statistically significant associations emerged between audience frames for Australians, punters, and Australian punters. Of the nine analyses conducted, two found significant patterns. The first was a positive relationship between the use of prototypical stereotypes for punters and Australian punters (X² = 12.72, p < .01). These results provide evidence to suggest that the some of the audience frames used for punters could have also been used in the framing of Australian punters. The other significant relationship was the use of exemplar stereotypes for Australian punters and the use of prototypical stereotypes for punters (X² = 7.77, p < .01). 

Further analyses were conducted on the sub-categories of these significant relationships for audience framing of Australian punters. Of these, there were six significant associations between sub-categories. Respondents using “skill/position” (X² = 31.32, p < .01), “leg” (X² = 5.32, p < .05), “niche/weird” (X² = 4.11, p < .05), and “small/slim” (X² = 37.13, p < .01) framing for punters used similar frames for Australian punters. These results suggest that the inclusion of “Australian” did not alter the framing of punters from one to the other – a signal that there might be less familiarity with Australian punters. Additionally, there was a positive relationship between those that use a “skill/position” framing and the use of “person/team” framing for Australian punters (X² = 5.70, p < .05). This suggests that the inclusion of “Australian” might have triggered or primed exemplar schema leading to a different type of framing. Moreover, there was a significant relationship between the use of “niche/weird” framing for punters and “motion” framing for Australian punters (X² = 8.07, p < .01). Similarly, the inclusion of “Australian” might have primed existing schema related to the unique punting motion of Australian punters. Finally, this priming effect is further supported by frequency totals (Table 3) suggesting that unique frames for Australian punters were used by several individuals.

To address RQ3, RQ4, RQ5, and H1-H3, a generalized structural equation model was performed using the gsem function on Stata 17 – with OLS and logistic regressions being performed simultaneously. In answering RQ3 and testing H1-H3, an OLS regression was conducted using audience frames for Australian punters, media use, and value predispositions as independent variables (Table 4). Of the variables tested, five were significant predictors of attitudes toward Australian punters: “ability (better)” framing (b = .31, SE = .12, z = 2.53, p < .05), “unique motion” framing (b = .34, SE = .13, z = 2.64, p < .01), “person/team” framing (b = .44, SE = .13, z = 3.47, p < .01), college football viewing (b = .07, SE = .03, z = 2.47, p < .05), and internationalism (b = .12, SE = .05, z = 2.67, p < .01). These results supported H3, while the remaining hypotheses (H1, H2, H3a,b, and d) were not supported. 

Next, six logistic regression analyses were used to determine the extent to which several types of media use (RQ4) and value predispositions (RQ5) predicted invoking distinct types of frames (for each frame, 0 = no; 1 = yes). As demonstrated in Table 5, there were six significant predictors of audience frames: nationalism and invoking “skill/position” frames (b = .58., Wald = 2.39 , p < .05), smugness and invoking “skill/position frames (b = -.59., Wald = -2.32 , p < .05), college football viewing and invoking “ability (better)” frames (b = .31., Wald = 2.28 , p < .05), TV sports news viewing and invoking “unique motion” frames (b = -.96., Wald = -2.43 , p < .05), college football viewing and invoking “unique motion” frames (b = .64., Wald = 4.23, p < .01), and fantasy sports participation and invoking “person/team” frames (b = .93., Wald = 2.12, p < .05) . The relationship between TV news and invoking “unique motion” frames reflects less-than-one log-odds – meaning as TV viewing increases, the likelihood of “unique motion” being selected decreases.

In addressing RQ4 specifically, watching more college football was associated with individuals invoking “ability (better)” and “unique motion” frames – supporting a cultivation hypothesis. Moreover, fantasy sports participation predicted the use of “person/team” framing, suggesting that the intricacies of fantasy sports – wherein individuals select individual players to be part of their weekly fantasy lineups – may influence audience framing. Additionally, in answering RQ5, both nationalism and smugness were indicators of invoking “skill/position” frames, even though smugness had a negative coefficient. 

Finally, an analysis of the indirect effects of media on attitudes via audience frames was conducted on each of the significant predictors. The only significant indirect effect was a positive effect of college football viewing through “unique motion” frames (b = .22, SE = .10, z = 2.24, p < .05). Therefore, college football viewing has both direct and indirect effects on attitudes (partial mediation via “unique motion” audience framing).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to understand how audiences potentially use stereotypical thinking to frame Australian punters and to determine the extent to which media and value predispositions shape attitudes toward Australian punters. Drawing on theories of audience framing (Scheufele, 1999; Sotirovic, 2000), stereotypic thinking (Brigham, 1970; Cantor & Mischel, 1979; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Hilton & von Hippel, 1996; Katz & Braly, 1935; Mastro. 2003), sports media cultivation (Calzo & Ward, 2009; Hawkins & Pingree, 1981; Kobach & Potter, 2013; Lee & Niederdeppe, 2010; Potter & Chang, 1990), and value predispositions (Billings et al., 2013a, 2013b), individuals completed an online survey with a battery of questions – including open-ended questions asking them to explain the first thing that came to their mind when they thought of Australians, punters, and Australian punters. By capturing a detailed account of frames in mind related to Australians, punters, and Australian punters, the results provide evidence of a cultivation effect related to college football viewing on (a) frames in mind and (b) attitudes toward Australian punters. The following section will discuss the importance of these main findings, some of the limitations of the study, and future directions for research.

To begin with, the open-ended response and subsequent coding offered insight into how audiences framed Australians, punters, and Australian punters. Specific to Australian punters, there was a greater variability in responses, including the addition of context-specific frames such as “ability (better),” “unique motion,” and “old/age” frames. As with the framing of Australians and punters, exemplar cognitive models were also popular when it came to Australian punters. Within the context of Australian punters, these unique audience frames served as significant predictors of attitudes toward Australian punters, specifically “unique motion” and “ability (better)’ frames. In other words, those who frame Australian punters as having unique kicking mechanics or better than American punters were more likely to hold positive attitudes toward Australian punters. This supports claims by Petsko et al. (2022) about how the lenses that people use to describe or categorize groups are context specific. Initially, it was proposed that American audiences would rely on the Australian part of Australian punter’s identity rather than the punting portion. The results suggest that the punting portion of the identity was much more salient. Taken together, these findings show that two things can be true: (a) some individuals rely on unique frames when thinking about Australian punters and (b) those who do not will often see Australian punters as punters first.

Looking more specifically at the unique framing of Australian punters, individuals who invoked “unique motion” and “ability (better)” frames may have been influenced from watching college football. As demonstrated by the logistic regressions, watching more college football games went hand in hand with a greater likelihood of using both unique frames. Although there was an indirect effect of media on audience framing, the results still underscore the importance of media in shaping the frame setting process (Scheufele, 1999) or the availability of frames used to make assessments (Sotirovic, 2000). However, it is important to note that the patterns of media use that predicted attitudes involved watching college football games, not sports media news consumption as proposed by Bingaman (2022), suggesting that the framing of these athletes in sports news media may not be as important as watching them play college football and the subsequent commentary associated with that. These results provide an opportunity to further examine the under-researched line of framing research.

When it comes to the potential role of media in influencing attitudes toward Australian punters, the results from the generalized structural equation model suggest that greater college football viewing was associated with more support for Australian punters. These results support existing research on genre-specific cultivation (Hawkins & Pingree, 1981; Lee & Niederdeppe, 2010; Potter & Chang, 1990) while also expanding upon the scant research into sports media cultivation effects (Billings et al., 2009; Kaiser et al., 2016; Kobach & Potter, 2013; Schmidt, 2018). Importantly, the inclusion of a measurement identifying NFL consumption suggests that the association between media consumption and attitudes was not necessarily football or sports-related, but rather something unique about college football viewing itself. For example, the fact that college football has more Australian punters than the NFL might make the topic more salient for commentators, and thus lead to more time being spent on discussing the unique punting motion or players themselves. 

Another notable finding was that TV sports news was negatively associated with the use of “unique motion” framing. One possible explanation could be that sports news segments often recap football games with the most important or spectacular highlights – with punting or punters not often being featured in these recaps. Thus, individuals could become less inclined to mention the motion of the kickers because they do not come across highlights or discussions about their kicking motions enough. These results could also reflect limitations of the measurement used. Individuals were asked what sports channels they watch, not specific types of media content. Further distinctions between channels and content through content analysis and survey instrumentation could provide a more thorough explanation for these findings.

Moving away from traditional forms of mass media, the results from this analysis demonstrate the potential importance of fantasy sports in how individuals frame athletes. Bell (2021, p. 110) referred to fantasy sports as a “media altering agent” that could influence consumer participation, production, and consumption of sports media. Likewise, Nesbit and King (2010) found that fantasy sport participation complemented television sports viewing. The results from this analysis take such research a step further and provide evidence that fantasy sport participation itself may influence audience framing. One possible explanation for these findings could be related to the underlying motivations behind fantasy sport participation. Farquhar and Meeds (2007) found that individuals engaged in fantasy sports were “either highly involved and enjoyed the statistics, knowing that they outsmarted those who did not win, or they were less involved and sought the thrill of victory and subsequent bragging rights” (p. 1224) – with the former known as surveillance and the latter known as arousal. A surveillance motivation could align with the findings from this study, as those who played fantasy sports were more likely to use “person/team” framing – suggesting greater familiarity with individual players. Although a relatively minor finding, future research should further explore the relationship between fantasy sports participation and (a) audience framing and (b) cultivation of attitudes toward athletes. 

When looking at value predispositions, the results suggest that those with stronger affinity for internationalism – that is, those with a greater sense of global citizenship – hold more favorable attitudes toward the inclusion of international athletes in traditionally American sports. Previous research (Billings et al., 2013a, 2013b) has already established significant relationships between sports media and value predispositions such as nationalism, patriotism, internationalism, and smugness. The findings from this survey reinforce these conclusions by showing the importance of examining these value predispositions as independent variables that can influence attitudes themselves. Additionally, the logistic regressions highlight a surprising relationship between nationalism, smugness, and the use of “skill/position” framing of Australian punters. One possible explanation for the connection between nationalism (presumed superiority) and “skill/position” framing is that acknowledgement of Australian punters beyond just being simple “kickers” of the ball could mean an acknowledgement that there is a different and potentially “better” way at playing an American sport. 

Limitations

Within the context of this study, there are several important limitations that should be noted. To begin with, the sampling techniques used for this survey were non-random in nature so the results cannot be generalized to a broader population. Instead, the results are merely reflective of those sampled; thus, other studies could result in either confirmatory or contrary findings. Although there are advantages to using convenience and snowball sampling techniques, their use still puts a limit on the scope of the findings. Another key limitation of this study is related to the measurement of media use. Both TV sports news and online/print sports news viewing were determined by channel, not specific shows, authors, or website sections. Even though a content analysis was conducted on coverage of Australian punters (Bingaman, 2022), specific exposure to this coverage was not measured in this survey – rather, it captured general sports media use. Future studies should look further at specific programs or media personalities (including Pat McAfee) to determine the extent to which specific media content influences attitudes toward Australian punters.

Even with these limitations, the results from this study serve as a foundation for the combined study of sports media consumption and value predispositions and their possible influence on attitudes toward international athletes. Moving forward, scholars could look to ascertain the potential effects of other genres or programs (e.g., highlight shows), popular mediums (e.g., streaming apps), or ideological value predispositions. With more international athletes coming to the U.S. to play sports (and specifically college sports), it is important to understand how media communication can affect attitudes towards these athletes.

---

References

Angelini, J. R., & Billings, A. C. (2010). An Agenda That Sets the Frames: Gender, Language, and NBC’s Americanized Olympic Telecast. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(3), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X10368831

Angelini, J. R., Billings, A. C., MacArthur, P. J., Bissell, K., & Smith, L. R. (2014). Competing separately, medaling equally: Racial depictions of athletes in NBC’s primetime broadcast of the 2012 London Olympic Games. Howard Journal of Communications, 25(2), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2014.888380

Atkin, C. K. (1985). Informational utility and selective exposure to entertainment media. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.) Selective Exposure to Communication. Routledge.

Bell, T. R. (2021). Communication as commodity exchange: Mapping the media ecology of fantasy sport. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 38(1), 95-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2021.1878149

Berry, J. W. (1969). The stereotypes of Australian states. Australian Journal of Psychology, 21(3), 227-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049536908257792

Berry, J. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

Billings, A. C., MacArthur, P. J., Licen, S., & Wu, D. (2009). Superpowers on the Olympic basketball court: The United States versus China through four nationalistic lenses. International Journal of Sport Communication, 2(4), 380-397. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2.4.380

Billings, A. C., Brown, K. A., & Brown, N. A. (2013a). 5,535 hours of impact: Effects of Olympic media on nationalism attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 579-595. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.850591

Billings, A. C., Brown, N. A., Brown, K. A., Guoqing, Leeman, M. A., Licen, S., Novak, D. R., & Rowe, D. (2013b). From pride to smugness and the nationalism between: Olympic media consumption effects on nationalism across the globe. Mass Communication and Society, 16(6), 910-932. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.822519

Bien, L. (2018, December 11). This is the golden age of NFL punting. SB Nation. https://www.sbnation.com/2018/12/11/18058128/nfl-punting-art-form-golden-age-evolution

Bingaman, J. (2022). “They come from the Land Down Under and thankfully so”: Framing of Australian punters in college football. Journal of Sports Media, 17(2), 55-79. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsm.2022.a899584

Bingaman, J. (2020). Australian football in America during COVID-19. International Journal of Sport Communication, 13(3), 533-540. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0217

Brewer, P. R., Graf, J., & Willnat, L. (2003). Priming or framing: Media influences on attitudes toward foreign countries. International Communication Gazette, 65(6), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016549203065006005

Brigham, J. C. (1971). Ethnic stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 76(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031446

Brown-Devlin, N. (2022). Introducing survey 2: Audience perceptions of leading sports media brands. In Politics in Sports Media (pp. 9-13). The University of Texas at Austin, Moody College of Communication. https://utexas.app.box.com/s/wfdx2a3rm5plpeuivr14dk36wmv428af

Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Protypes in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 3-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60258-0

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

Crofts, S. (1993). Cross-cultural reception studies: Culturally variant readings of Crocodile Dundee. Literature/Film Quarterly, 21(2), 157-168. https://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/6.1/Crofts.html&nbsp;

Cummins, G. R., & Hahn, D. (2022). Selective exposure and exemplification within sports highlights. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 66(1), 22-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2021.2008938

Cunningham, G.B., & Bopp, T. (2010). Race ideology perpetuated: Media representations of newly hired football coaches. Journal of Sports Media, 5, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsm.0.0048

D’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 870-888. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02578.x

Dashper, K. (2018). Smiling assassins, brides-to-be and super mums: the importance of gender and celebrity in media framing of female athletes at the 2016 Olympic Games. Sport in Society, 21(11), 1739-1757. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1409729

Degnan, S. M. (2019, August 3). Miami’s popular, tattooed Aussie punter drawing stars for artful body, booming kicks. Miami Herald. https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/college/acc/university-of-miami/article233484327.html

de Vreese, C. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre

Eagleman, A. N. (2011). Stereotypes of race and nationality: A qualitative analysis of sport magazine coverage of MLB players. Journal of Sport Management, 25(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.25.2.156

Farquhar, L. K., & Meeds, R. (2007). Types of fantasy sports users and their motivations. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1208-1228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00370.x

Ferrucci, P., Tandoc, E. C., Hong, S. E., Almond, A., & Leshner, G. (2016). Generalizing baseball: Holding and applying stereotypes to America’s pastime. Journal of Sports Media, 11(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsm.2016.0008

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.), Research in Political Sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). JAI Press.

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1086/229213

Gerbner, G. (1969). Toward “cultural indicators:” The analysis of mass mediated message systems. AV Communication Review, 17, 137-148. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30217499

Gerbner, G. (1970). Cultural indicators: The case of violence in television drama. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 388, 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000271627038800108

Gerbner, G. (1972a). Communication and social environment. Scientific American, 227, 152-160.

Gerbner, G. (1972b). The structure and process of television program content regulation in the U.S. In Television and social behavior: Vol. I. Content and control. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Gerbner, G. (1973). Cultural indicators: The thud voice. In G. Gerbner, L. Gross, & W. H. Melody (Eds.), Communications technology and social policy (pp. 555-573). Wiley.

Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication and Society, 1(3-4), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855

Grant, P. R., & Holmes, J. G. (1981). The integration of implicit personality theory schemas and stereotype images. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(2), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033706

Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1981). Uniform messages and habitual viewing: Unnecessary assumptions in social reality effects. Human Communication Research, 7(4), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00576.x

Hilton, J. L. & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 237-271. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.237

Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226388533.001.0001

Judd, B. (2015). Good sports: Representations of Aboriginal people in Australian sports. In K. Price (Ed.) Knowledge of Life: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia (pp. 184-202). Cambridge University. 

Kaiser, K., Williams, D., & Norwood, D. (2016). Beyond stacking in American football towards an understanding of cultural transmission, social identity and self-categorization. Sport in Society, 19(10), 1573-1595. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2016.1159195

Kobach, M. J., & Potter, R. F. (2013). The role of mediated sports programming on implicit racial stereotypes. Sport in Society, 16(10), 1414-1428. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2013.821254

Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10(2), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791647

Kramer, A. (2019, April 20). Meet Louis Hedley, Miami’s tatted, jacked, viral, 25-year-old Aussie punter. Bleacher Report. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2832033-meet-louis-hedley-miamis-tatted-jacked-viral-25-year-old-aussie-punter

Ladegaard, H. J. (1998). National stereotypes and language attitudes: The perception of British, American and Australian language and culture in Denmark. Language & Communication, 18(4), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(98)00008-1

Lee, C., & Niederdeppe, J. (2011). Genre-specific cultivation effects: Lagged associations between overall TV viewing, local TV news viewing, and fatalistic beliefs about cancer prevention. Communication Research, 38(6), 731–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384990

Marsh, A. A., Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2007). Separated by a common language: Nonverbal accents and cultural stereotypes about Americans and Australians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(3), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107300275

Mastro, D. E. (2003). A social identity approach to understanding the impact of television messages. Communication Monographs, 70(2), 98-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000133764

Odağ, Ö., & Hanke, K. (2018). Revisiting culture: A review of a neglected dimension in media psychology. Journal of Media Psychology, 31(4), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000244

O’Reilly, N. (2011). Waves of Fosters, crocodiles and ockers: Representations of Australia and Australians in American popular culture. Australasian Journal of Popular Culture, 1(2), 247-254. https://doi.org/10.1386/ajpc.1.2.247_1

Pedersen, P. M., Laucella, P. C., Miloch, K. S., & Fielding, L. W. (2007). The juxtaposition of sport and communication: Defining the field of sport communication. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMM.2007.012400

Petsko, C. D., Rosette, A. S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2022). Through the looking glass: A lens-based account of intersectional stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000382

Potter, J. W., & Chang, I. C. (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34(30), 313-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159009386745

Prideaux, J. (2009). Consuming icons: Nationalism and advertising in Australia. Nations and Nationalism, 15(4), 616-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2009.00411.x

Rogers, M. (2021, December 28). How Australian punters are taking over college football. Fox Sports. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/how-australian-punters-are-taking-over-college-football

Romney, M., & Johnson, R. G. (2019). The ball game is for the boys: The visual framing of female athletes on national sports networks’ Instagram accounts. Communication & Sport, 8(6), 738–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519836731

Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x

Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge University Press. 

Sheffer, M. L. (2020). New media, old ways: An analysis of sports media’s depiction of female athletes on Instagram and Snapchat. Journal of Sports Media, 15(2), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsm.2020.0009

Sotirovic, M. (2000). Effects of media use on audience framing and support for welfare. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2-3), 269-296. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_06

Stroud, N. J. (2007). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9

Wanta, W. (2013). Reflections on communication and sport: On reporting and journalists. Communication & Sport, 1(1–2), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479512471334

White, L. (2009). Foster’s Lager: from local beer to global icon. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(2), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500910944977

Woroszylo, T. R. Jr. (2014). Rating system for punting in the National Football League [Master’s Thesis, Ball State University]. http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/123456789/198503

Wood, N. T., & Muñoz, C. L. (2007). ‘No Rules, Just Right’ or is it? The role of themed restaurants as cultural ambassadors. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3–4), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.thr.6050047

---