Measuring Resonance and Dissonance in Social Movement Frames With Affect Control Theory

Abstract

We present a methodological innovation for analyzing archival data that involves the framing strategies from the failed 1980 Iowa Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). First, we conducted an archival analysis that suggested that pro-ERA groups used “frame resonance,” a strategy prominent in the social movement literature where activists align issues with ideologies. Meanwhile, anti-ERA groups used what we coin here as “frame dissonance” by depicting how passing the ERA clashed with ideologies. Next, we used affect control theory (ACT)’s Interact computer program to simulate how constituents likely responded to frames, given the distinct ideologies that existed during the time period. The simulations triangulated the archival analysis by (a) confirming our categorization of framing strategies as either resonance or dissonance and (b) identifying frame dissonance as potentially better for mobilizing than frame resonance. Our study demonstrates the value of Interact for triangulating archival analyses and adds a new framing strategy to the social movement literature.

Keywords

affect control theory social movements frame dissonance deflections equal rights amendment

Why do some social movements garner success in achieving their stated goals while others fail? This persistent concern has captured much scholarly and activist attention (see, e.g., Hallgrímsdóttir 2006; McAdam and Boudet 2012; Snow et al. 2014). One reason for limited analysis of the outcomes of social movement goals is that data collection often occurs after the movement is over, leaving researchers with incomplete data to piece together key social processes that shape the movement’s outcome. In our case, we examined the failed 1980 Iowa Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and framing strategies used by activists. Yet because we studied the movement after the fact, a methodological quandary with our data—and one that others face in using archives or secondary data—was how to address limitations inthe available information. We were missing archival data documenting voter responses as to how each side framed the necessity of the ERA, and given the ideological perspectives that existed in the late 1970s. We introduce affect control theory (ACT) and its accompanying computer program, Interact, as a solution to this methodological dilemma. We ran computer simulations in Interact that we built from our archival analysis of framing strategies. This previously untapped use of ACT not only deepened understanding about why the Iowa ERA failed but also contributed new theoretical insights to social movement theories of framing.

By all conventional indicators, the 1980 Iowa ERA should have passed via voter referendum. Like the federal ERA, the Iowa ERA was a bipartisan issue early in its inception (Rymph 2006). Pro-ERA forces had elite allies within Iowa’s state legislature, which generally secures movement success (Soule and Olzak 2004), as well as a loosely connected, grass-roots coalition (termed the Iowa ERA Coalition) that represented nearly every county in the state. Pro-ERA members traveled in earnest across Iowa, bearing a simple message: Including women in the state constitution would recognize their equality with men.

Just six months before Iowans voted, the anti-ERA countermovement (termed STOP ERA) entered the political landscape. Debates ensued between pro- and anti-ERA forces about the Iowa ERA that crystallized into two distinct ideologies regarding women’s place in society, with each side proffering their own definition of “equality.” Pro-ERA groups drew from a feminist ideology and defined equality as leveling existing gender disparities. They framed passing the ERA as vital for recognizing women’s rising stature. This strategy coincides with a social movement concept called “frame resonance,” which occurs when movement actors make social issues compelling to their audience by deploying frames that cast events as aligning with a cultural ideology, thereby resonating with assumptions about how the world should be (Bloemraad, Silva, and Voss 2016; Oliver and Johnston 2000; Schemer, Wirth, and Matthes 2012; Snow and Benford 1988).

In contrast, the anti-ERA group defined equality as already embedded within traditional gender roles that secured a level playing field for women as revered members within the family unit. Accordingly, the group countered that passing the ERA would disrupt traditional gender roles and ultimately lead to greater gender inequality. To cast the ERA in this counterintuitive way (that passing an ERA would lead to greater gender inequality), the anti-ERA group used a framing strategy that is absent in the scholarship on social movement framing strategies. We coin this strategy “frame dissonance,” which occurs when frames outline events that cut against ideological expectations for how events should unfold and thereby creates dissonance in the intended audience. The pro-ERA group adopted the strategy as well but primarily relied on frame resonance.

Despite overwhelmingly using a framing strategy—frame resonance—that is often associated with movement success (Brown 2014; Morrell 2015), the pro-ERA movement failed. This curious observation places the Iowa ERA as a critical case to study and address calls that scholars break from conflating frame resonance and success (Benford and Snow 2000; Bloemraad et. al. 2016; Ferree 2003). We looked to additional methodological techniques to verify and augment our interpretations regarding frame dissonance as a previously overlooked strategy that is distinct from frame resonance.

Like social movement theories of framing, ACT is concerned with how cultural expectations shape our understandings of social order (Goffman 1974). The theory claims that culturally shared understandings about identities, behaviors, settings, and emotions are fairly stable and have a fixed affective connotation, known as fundamental sentiments (Heise 2007). As individuals move through social life, situation-by-situation, they are motivated to make meaning of situations to confirm fundamental sentiments. Interact models “events,” which are situations where one actor behaves toward an object, and calculates a deflection score that quantifies the degree to which events confirm or disconfirm fundamental sentiments (Heise and MacKinnon 1987). The greater the deflection score, the more an event is seen as unlikely and disruptive, akin to Garfinkel’s (1967) “breaching exercise” where an individual can make taken-for-granted expectations visible by disrupting norms. We developed a methodology that models the events implied by the frames of pro- and anti-ERA advocates using Interact given the cultural expectations of the late 1970s. A frame dissonance strategy disconfirms fundamental sentiments, while a frame resonance strategy confirms fundamental sentiments.

In bridging theoretical insights between ACT and social movement scholarship, we unveiled findings about the failure of the Iowa ERA otherwise shrouded and which compel a rethinking of long-standing propositions regarding framing strategies. Our use of Interact, an analytic tool of ACT, addresses limitations in post hoc analyses of qualitative data. In archival work, scholars may enjoy the benefits of collections that contain an abundance of documents but are limited by the idiosyncrasies of whomever preserved the historical artifacts that may lead to missing information about historical events (McAdam 1988), like voter responses. ACT offers an interpretive framework to triangulate our archival analysis and interpretation of voter responses. We use Interact to produce deflection scores to corroborate that frame dissonance is distinct from the well-established frame resonance. The tenets of ACT illuminate how frame dissonance may be more effective in mobilizing people than frame resonance, which underscores that frame dissonance warrants greater attention in the literature. Taken together, our study presents new tools for the social movement scholar and those who work in archives, content analyses, or other secondary data.

Background

The ERA

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been an ongoing movement for nearly a century. Following the momentum of a successful campaign to pass the nineteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution that extended voting rights to women, the suffragette Alice Paul led the charge for the ERA in the 1920s (Rupp and Taylor 1987). Although initially the lead advocates of ratification, Republicans in the 1970s began to articulate how women and men should participate in private and public sectors that extolled traditional gender roles and juxtaposed feminist concerns in opposition to conservative values (Kalman 2010; Rymph 2006). These changes were motivated, in part, by the New Right’s increasing influence that shifted the Republican Party from a moderate platform to one that embraced conservative family values (Kalman 2010).

The federal ERA was approved by Congress in 1972 and sent to state legislatures for ratification. Removal of Republican support for the ERA from their 1980 agenda contributed to stalled progress toward ratifying the amendment to the U.S. Constitution, leaving ratification just three states short of the 38 that the Constitution requires. Losing political currency on a national-level, ERA advocates turned their attention to ratifying state-level Constitutions. Two states adjacent to Iowa (Illinois and Missouri) had not yet voted for federal-level ratification, making Iowa’s passage of a state-level amendment crucial because many believed that passage in Iowa would catalyze these states into ratification (Mansbridge 1986).

Within Iowa, the pro-ERA campaign began in the early 1970s with little opposition. Like other state-based ERA movements, they argued that including the word “woman” in Iowa’s state constitution would represent an absent population and secure women’s equality alongside men. The ERA became a ballot initiative in the 1980 Iowa general election.¹ The language of the Iowa ERA read (proposed changes are italicized): “All men and women are by nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights – among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. Neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions shall, on the basis of gender, deny or restrict the equality of rights under the law.”

In contrast to Mansbridge (1986) and other scholars (e.g., Soule and King 2006) who studied important aspects of the ERA at the organizational and legislative level to explain its failure, we focus on how ideological differences shaped the framing strategies of both sides, thereby influencing voters’ perspectives of the amendment. We compare how Iowa-based pro- and anti-ERA groups sought credibility for their claims about the consequences of the ERA.

The Framing of Social Issues

A proliferation of social movement research has employed Goffman’s (1974) concept of “frames,” which are interpretive schemata used to understand a situation. Snow and Benford (1988) applied Goffman’s observations about frames to outline how social movement actors use frames to mobilize people to “buy in” to the movement and, ideally, compel people to action. “Framing” is the active process through which social actors make sense of events or social issues (prognosis) and the discursive work through which advocates make claims about events, causes, or projects and propose solutions (diagnosis; Brown 2014; Morrell 2015).

Despite the volume of framing research, two gaps in knowledge remain. First, many who examine framing strategies cite frame resonance as a key strategy for securing movement success, yet its limits for success are unclear. Some (Benford and Snow 2000; Ferree 2003) have critiqued the theory of frame resonance as tautological, as it assumes a successful movement used the strategy, whereas failed movements did not (Bloemraad et al. 2016). Others are also calling for greater consideration of which strategies beget failure (Jasper 2011; Snow et al. 2014). Second, how countermovements set the stage for undermining the original movement, by using framing strategies beyond resonance, is still relatively unexplored. Previous research documents how countermovements—an oppositional movement—discredit and undermine the legitimacy of claims made by the original movement (McCright and Dunlap 2000; Meyer and Staggenborg 1996).

Our analysis of the failed Iowa ERA is well-suited to address these gaps in the social movement literature because it describes how a countermovement succeeded using a strategy distinct from frame resonance. Research on the ERA demonstrated that initially advocates framed the amendment as necessary for increasing women’s representation in the Constitution (Mansbridge 1986). With the entrance of the anti-ERA, opponents shifted the debate away from the value of Constitutional representation to the negative consequences the ERA would have on women and the family unit. The anti-ERA used a frame dissonance strategy, which led to pro-ERA advocates following suit by highlighting the consequences of not passing the ERA with frame dissonance. Our analysis exposes greater variability in framing strategies than social movement scholarship currently covers. To better understand this variability, particularly given a historical context to which we do not have direct access, we leveraged ACT’s Interact as a triangulating methodological approach.

ACT

A guiding assumption of ACT, and symbolic interactionism more generally, is that individuals strive to maintain social order (McCall 2006). Order is achieved when our interactions with others and interpretations of them are aligned with ideologically based expectations. This cultural milieu envelops social movement frames and framing activity, making it critical for social movement scholars and others interested in contextualizing discursive analyses to apprehend it empirically. Several features of ACT enable researchers to better operationalize distinct social orders, measure the degree of disruption and maintenance of a social order, and understand the outcomes of disruption and maintenance of a social order.

The first advantageous feature of ACT is how it operationalizes social orders—that is, the ideologically based expectations that individuals strive to maintain. Fundamental sentiments are affective connotations of social concepts, including identities people possess (e.g., voter, employer, doctor) and behaviors people enact (e.g., support, fire, heal). Fundamental sentiments are characterized along three bipolar dimensions (Osgood, May, and Miron 1975): evaluative (good vs. bad), potency (powerful vs. powerless), and activity (lively vs. quiet). The three values for a specific social concept within an ideology are known as the EPA profiles, which quantitatively represent a social order. Members of an ideology generally share EPA profiles for concepts; when they do not, particularly for identities, it indicates the presence of distinct social orders (Heise 2007).²

By using EPA profiles to operationalize distinct social orders, researchers can compare cultures within and across time and space (e.g., Schneider and Schröder 2012). This is a tremendous advantage for extending theories about the interplay between cultural contexts and framing. Specifically, one problem that plagues the newest methods to examine social movement processes is accommodating multiple ideological perspectives (Schemer et al. 2012). In our case, multiple ideologies were at play. While feminists during this time period prioritized women’s liberation, and often in the form of equality alongside men in public and private spheres, the conservative family values movement sought to revere women and men as having distinct “roles” in family and public life (Kalman 2010). As we demonstrate in our analysis, researchers can deduce an EPA profile of an identity based on discourses of what is and is not appropriate behavior to represent multiple ideological perspectives.

The second advantageous feature of ACT is its ability to quantify the degree of disruption and maintenance of a social order. Numerous studies have corroborated Interact simulations of how events confirm and disconfirm ideological expectations (Heise 2007). Events are the focal unit of analysis for Interact simulations, which is when an actor (i.e., the identity of the subject of the event) enacts a behavior toward an object (i.e., the identity of the recipient of the behavior). All three components (actor, behavior, object) of an event are social concepts and have their own EPA profile. Interact analyzes the EPA profiles of components in an event and produces output that indicates the degree to which the event conforms to ideological expectations, referred to as the deflection score. Higher scores indicate less conformity (i.e., frame dissonance) and lower scores indicate greater conformity (i.e., frame resonance). Given common ideological expectations surrounding a mother’s relationship with a child, an event like “Mother Nurtures Child” generally produces a low deflection score. Interact uses the same principles to arrive at obvious conclusions, like a mother should nurture a child, as it does for other, less obvious conclusions. In our case, this affordance is particularly important given that it is not obvious how an audience in the late 1970s interpreted the framing of the ERA.

The last feature of ACT that we highlight enables researchers to better understand the outcomes of disruption and maintenance of a social order. Whereas social movement theories of framing strategies suggest that frame resonance is more likely to mobilize people, ACT suggests that the greater potential to mobilize occurs with frame dissonance. The basis is its assumption that people seek to maintain social order and will attempt to behaviorally realign a situation with the fundamental sentiment (Nelson 2006). For example, in the context of a heated ballot initiative, one possible behavior is voting for or against the initiative to prevent events from occurring that disconfirm fundamental sentiments.

Altogether, we have a situation where researchers cannot directly engage with respondents to collect additional information about how they responded to frames, but ACT offers tools to remedy this limitation. We blend the approach of others who used Interact for substantiating their interpretations (e.g., Boyle and McKinzie 2015; Kroska and Harkness 2011) with those who have used ACT as a heuristic device for interpreting qualitative data (e.g., Berbrier 1998; Francis 1997). We add to these methodological approaches by using Interact to triangulate our findings from the archival analysis in a manner that attends to the distinct social orders that existed in the late 1970s. In so doing, we corroborated frame dissonance as a strategy used by social movement actors and likely provoked different responses in voters than frame resonance. The affordances of ACT are particularly important for researchers who, like us, are interested in modeling social orders that existed in previous time periods but with limitations in the available information from archives including voter responses to framing strategies.

Methods

Our data are from the Iowa Women’s Archives at the University of Iowa, which contains files from key Iowa ERA organizations. Pro-ERA activists formed a grassroots bipartisan movement and mobilized under the Iowa ERA Coalition. Margaret Anderson, a Republican feminist, headed this organization. Iowa Women Against the ERA was the central anti-ERA group in Iowa. This group was under the direction of Phyllis Schlafly, a well-known leader in the national Republican Party. The holdings in the archives include meeting memos, press releases, brochures, flyers, internal memoranda, radio transcripts, and survey data on movement activity. Because we were interested in understanding voter responses to the frames of each movement, we analyzed only public communication from pro- and anti-ERA groups. We report data from 1972 (when the U.S. Congress adopted the federal-level ERA) until the 1980 Iowa general election.

Abductive Analysis of Archival Documents

To analyze the archival materials, we used an abductive analysis, which is a pragmatist approach aimed explicitly at theory construction (Tavory and Timmermans 2014). With existing knowledge bases from the first author in social movement scholarship and the second author in ACT, we began our analysis with initial coding (Charmaz 2014) to garner patterns that emerged from our data. As a process of developing and following “theoretical hunches” or “speculative theories,” abductive analysis is helpful in situations when a researcher has encountered observations that do not fit existing theories but can analyze variation across a study, case, or field site (Tavory and Timmermans 2014). We began speculating that frame resonance did not accurately capture all ERA framing strategies. Instead, a different strategy that we termed frame dissonance offered a more accurate depiction. Our initial intercoder agreement was 87 percent across the codes of resonance and dissonance. After calibrating and refining our definitions of these codes (Denzin and Lincoln 2005), we then did a second pass on the data to develop subcodes for how each movement used frame resonance and dissonance.

During the subcode development stage of analysis, we found that the two sides markedly differed in their views of women. Ideologies often diverge in their view of salient identities (Heise 2007). Accordingly, we focused our attention on how each side depicted consequences of passing the ERA for women. Together, we identified three dominant themes per movement group, which are summarized in the first column of Table 1. For the pro-ERA, we identified the following themes: the inclusion of women in the Constitution, women earn less than men in the workforce, and protecting women’s rights from state legislators. For the anti-ERA, we identified the following: women fighting in combat, women infringing upon a husband’s role in the family, and women being placed in harm’s way at work. The second column of Table 1 highlights how the majority of the pro-ERA frames encompassed a single theme, “inclusion of women in the Constitution,” and relied on this theme for the majority of their framing activities (75 percent of the time). Conversely, the anti-ERA frames were more evenly dispersed over the three themes.

Table 1.

Summary of Frame Themes and Events Modeled From Analysis of Iowa ERA Archives

		Events modeled
Frame theme	% of frames	Actor	Behavior	Object
Pro-ERA (total frames = 36)
1. Inclusion of women in Constitution	75%	Client, townsman	Accommodate, authorize, back, embrace, help, protect, respect, support, uplift	Woman
2. Women earn less than men in the workforce	5%	Employer, manager	Alienate, bias, discriminate against, disrespect, exploit, hinder, oppress, subjugate	Woman
3. Protecting women’s rights from state legislators	19%	Civil servant, judge	Betray, discredit, disregard, double-cross, mislead, plot against, steal	Woman
Anti-ERA (total frames = 24)
1. Women fighting in combat	25%	Woman	Assault, attack, combat, fight, punish, shoot, terrorize, torture, vanquish	Criminal, outlaw
2. Women infringing upon a husband’s role in the family	29%	Woman	Discredit, embarrass, humiliate, laugh at, mortify, patronize, shame, undermine	Father, husband
3. Women being placed in harm’s way at work	25%	Employer, manager	Abandon, betray, disrespect, exploit, hurt, penalize, victimize, wrong	Woman

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because not all frames fit into one of the themes summarized here. Within each theme, we simulated each actor identity enacting each behavior toward each object identity.

Finally, we resituated the themes generated from the archival analysis within existing social movement scholarship alongside ACT. Through our collaborative analytic process, we realized ACT shares assumptions with the scholarship on framing strategies by viewing meaning-making processes as rooted in culture. But in contrast to the social movement scholarship, ACT would assume that frame dissonance prompts people more readily towards action than frame resonance.

Interact Simulations

We ran Interact simulations as a triangulating strategy to confirm the existence of frame dissonance and demonstrate that it is distinct from frame resonance. To accomplish this, we needed to identify empirically the distinct ideologies that existed in the time period, construct events that represented frames, and then quantify the average degree of disruption produced by the frames.

In the first step of running Interact simulations, we operationalized the two ideologies by creating an EPA profile based on how each movement described an ideal “woman.” Although there are preexisting EPA profiles for “woman” and traditional gender roles (e.g., “housewife”), they do not accurately capture the notion that conflicting movements are often enmeshed in ideological battles (McCaffrey and Keys 2000; McCright and Dunlap 2000). Conflict may lead to sharp contrasts in ideologies, as each side seeks to form and reaffirm group boundaries (Merton 1972). Distinct ideologies that share geographical and historical space hold similar EPA profiles for behaviors and emotions but different ones for salient identities (Heise 2007; Smith-Lovin and Douglas 1992). Accordingly, we entered an EPA profile into Interact to capture each ideology’s perspective of a woman (described further in the Results). This is an innovative use of Interact, which we leverage for conducting an analysis that is attentive to the distinct social orders that existed in a previous time period. For all other components besides “woman” that constitute the events we modeled, we selected the closest preexisting identity (for actors and objects in events) and behavior available in a publicly available dictionary of EPA profiles (Smith-Lovin and Heise 1988). The index of profiles was collected in 1978 from a convenience sample of undergraduate students at the University of North Carolina who rated 720 identities and 600 behaviors. We assume that the EPA ratings in this dictionary capture the social order that existed during that time because informants share affective meanings of most social concepts (Ambrasat et al. 2014; Heise 2007).

Second, we constructed events to represent the frames each side deployed. For example, the frame “Women make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes” is represented by the event “Employer Discriminates Against a Woman.” To minimize bias in our selection of which events to simulate, we enlisted the help of four research assistants (RAs) who were unaware of our research questions. Two RAs began by independently determining what events (actor, behavior, object) were implied by each movements’ frames (for a similar coding approach, see Alhothali and Hoey 2015). They were instructed to generate as many events as possible. Although the precise words used by each RA differed, the events they generated closely paralleled the qualitatively extracted themes from the social movement framing activities. Next, we asked the other two RAs to generate as many possible synonyms for each behavior and identity (for actors and objects) that did not imply “woman” in the events generated by the first set of RAs. We gave them the concepts out of context, meaning not in the event form of actor enacts a behavior toward an object. They were only constrained by selecting synonyms from the 1978 dictionary. We calibrated our selection of concepts from the 1978 dictionary with the RAs’ selections so that they better represented the context that the first set of RAs interpreted from the frames.

The last three columns on the right-hand side of Table 1 summarize the Interact simulations for each side’s framing strategies. We crossed all possible actors, behaviors, and objects to create the sample of events that represent each theme. There were instances where the RAs who identified synonyms in the 1978 dictionary were limited by the available concepts. For example, the theme “women fighting in combat” implies an event like “woman fights soldier.” Unfortunately, “soldier” is not available in the 1978 dictionary. Accordingly, the RAs identified the closest synonyms—“criminal” and “outlaw”—to capture the assumption that the soldier with whom a woman fights is an enemy.

For every individual event, we simulated it by each ideology (feminist, conservative family values) and sex of the perceiver of the event (female, male), for a total of four simulations per event. We considered the perspectives of both females and males since the 1980 Iowan voting population was almost evenly split by sex (Ling and Rice 2008). We further assumed that the majority of voters heard both anti- and pro-ERA messages regardless of voters’ ideological perspective because of shifts in support. A midelection survey conducted by the pro-ERA highlighted that until six months before the vote, 59 percent of Iowans supported the ERA.³ With the entrance of the countermovement, voters’ support shifted to “undecided.” By the time of the actual vote in 1980, 55.8 percent of voters opposed ratifying the state constitution, whereas 44.2 percent supported ratification (Ling and Rice 2008). The number of events we simulated for each theme ranged from 56 to 64. Overall, we simulated a total of 392 events.

We conceptualize deflection as a quantitative indicator of the degree to which events implied by frames align with a cultural ideology, thereby confirming or disconfirming fundamental sentiments. Higher scores reflect less resonance and greater dissonance. We estimated an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression where we regressed the deflection score produced by the events on the sex (female vs. male) and ideology (conservative family values vs. feminist) of the perceiver and all six themes. This allowed us to estimate the average deflection produced by the events representing each movement theme, controlling for the sex and ideology of the perceiver.

To categorize whether average deflection scores were instances of frame resonance or dissonance, we relied on cutoffs from previous research (Boyle and McKinzie 2015). Scores less than 8.0 indicate events are expected and confirm fundamental sentiments, which we characterize as a frame resonance strategy. Scores that are 8.0 or greater are unexpected and disconfirm fundamental sentiments, which we characterize as a frame dissonance strategy.

Results

Differing Ideologies Around “Woman”

In Interact, we crafted EPA profiles to mimic the distinct ways that pro- and anti-ERA groups defined “woman.” For the pro-ERA group, the EPA profile we constructed was (E= +2.00, P = +1.50, A = +1.50). For the anti-ERA group, the profile was (E= +2.00, P = −1.50, A = −1.50). These values are based on how each side portrayed women and resemble EPA profiles for related identities available in the 1978 dictionary (e.g., housewife, spouse, woman, man). We arrived at similar conclusions when simulating events with these preexisting labels (results available upon request). But to capture that framing contests often lead to exaggerations of salient identities and form conclusions built from the qualitative data, we report results from only the simulations using our EPA profile constructions.

Pro-ERA: Feminist ideology

The “woman” identity carried a positive evaluation in feminist ideology (E = +2.00). For example, one of the pro-ERA fundraising strategies encouraged individuals to donate money in their mothers’ honor. In return, donors received a Mother’s Day card to let their mothers know that a donation was made on their behalf. Pro-ERA organizers described the gesture as a “gift of equality in recognition that the women we honor on this special day have earned and deserve a place in our State Constitution.”⁴ Thus, women deserved to be honored—a behavior commonly conferred upon those who possess good identities—and they performed activities to earn the accolade.

In ACT’s vernacular, the identity of “woman” also carried a powerful and active fundamental sentiment (P = +1.50, A = +1.50). For pro-ERA groups, passage of the amendment signaled that women could exercise agency and make autonomous life decisions. In a press release, the Iowa ERA Coalition stated that the ERA “asks for an opportunity for equal choices about how we all—men and women—lead our lives.”⁵ All choices were available and valued, according to this logic, including more traditional ones: “What is the place of women in our society? At home, taking care of the family? That is a perfectly acceptable choice, one of which is to be commended.”⁶ Through their lens, a “woman” could adopt a less powerful and lively role, like homemaker, so long as it was through exercising her autonomy and not to fulfill patriarchal expectations.

Anti-ERA: Conservative family values ideology

Like feminist ideology, conservative family values ideology perceived a “woman” as positively evaluated and deserving of “gifts” (E = +2.00). Some of these gifts were bestowed upon her as she transitioned through marital roles:

In America, a man’s first significant purchase is a diamond for his bride and the largest financial investment is a home for her to live in. American husbands work overtime to keep their wives in comfort and pay premiums on life insurance policies to provide for her comfort when she is a widow.⁷

Unlike in feminist ideology, however, indicators that a “woman” enacted behaviors that caused her to earn these gifts were absent. Her life path was directed at her husband’s behest, rendering a woman within this ideology powerless and inactive (P = −1.50, A = −1.50). For example, changing economic circumstances compelled women to work outside of their homes, but that did not subdue the powerless and inactive sentiments surrounding the “woman” identity within this ideology. Here, a “woman” was unable to physically perform certain tasks. In describing a “woman” in the police force, they reasoned that “women need and want to be cared for—they don’t want to have the tough assignments, but they want to be included in the police force equally as men. But, when things get down to the nitty gritty, where physical strength is required, men officers believe a patrolwoman just can’t hold up her end.”⁸

For anti-ERA organizers, a powerless, inactive “woman” identity was not necessarily vulnerable. Traditional marriage ensured a woman’s protection:

Our civilization has developed customs that decree a man must carry his share by physical protection and financial support of his children and of the woman who bears his children, and also by a code of behavior that protects both women and the children. This is accomplished by the institution of the family.⁹

Thus, a “woman” need not be powerful and active. Once she was married, her counterpart supported the family on her behalf, allowing her to rear children and keep family life in order.

These contrasting ideological perspectives on a salient identity like “woman” led to differing interpretations of equality and the perceived consequences of the ERA. Both sides were able to portray themselves as for equality because they deployed different ideologies and framing strategies, as our Interact simulations showed.

Framing Strategies

Whereas pro-ERA groups relied heavily on a framing strategy of resonance and frequently had “woman” in their framing strategy as the passive recipient of the consequences of passing an ERA, the anti-ERA exclusively used a framing strategy of dissonance and often positioned “woman” as the active subject in their framing strategies. In ACT’s vernacular, this means that a “woman” was often the object in the events implied by pro-ERA frames, but the actor in those implied by anti-ERA frames. Pro-ERA forces largely framed passage as benefitting all of society and necessary for women to gain equality with men, which resonated with feminist ideology. Meanwhile, the anti-ERA forces framed the consequences of the ERA by indicating how passage would clash with conservative family values ideology. Specifically, they argued that voting for the ERA would undermine women’s equality with men, while disrupting institutions such as the family, work, and the armed forces.

Our Interact simulations corroborate the distinct character of each strategy. Table 2 summarizes the OLS regression predicting the average deflection score produced by events implied by the six themes we identified.

Table 2.

Summary of OLS Regression Predicting Deflection From Simulated Events Representing ERA Framing Themes

Predictor	b/s.e.
Perceiver sex
Female (vs. male)	−.15**
Female (vs. male)	(.05)
Perceiver ideology
Conservative family values (vs. feminist)	.14**
Conservative family values (vs. feminist)	(.05)
Framing themes (vs. Pro-ERA: Inclusion of women in Constitution)
Pro-ERA: Women earn less than men in the workforce	1.51***
Pro-ERA: Women earn less than men in the workforce	(.08)
Pro-ERA: Protecting women’s rights from state legislators	2.02***
Pro-ERA: Protecting women’s rights from state legislators	(.08)
Anti-ERA: Women fighting in combat	1.52***
Anti-ERA: Women fighting in combat	(.08)
Anti-ERA: Women infringing upon a husband’s role in the family	1.96***
	(.08)
Anti-ERA: Women being placed in harm’s way at work	1.73***
Anti-ERA: Women being placed in harm’s way at work	(.08)
R-squared	.72

Note: N = 392. b is the unstandardized regression coefficient and s.e. is the standard error.

p < .01. *** p < .001.

For ease of interpretation, we plotted the predicted deflection scores with 95 percent confidence intervals, for each of the six themes in a separate figure. To determine if a theme represented either frame dissonance or resonance, we used the cutoffs. We primarily rely on Figure 1 to review our results below.

Figure 1.

Average Deflection Score for Events Implied by Frame Themes With 95% Confidence Intervals

Pro-ERA

Reflected in the first theme is the interpretation that including the word “woman” in the Constitution would secure equal footing with men. As one pro-ERA radio advertisement read:

If you believe in the principles of equality, vote yes for the Iowa Equal Rights Amendment. If you believe that men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law, vote yes. If you think the time is now for Iowan’s to make Iowa a true state of equality, vote yes for the Equal Rights Amendment.¹⁰

This frame casts inclusion in the Constitution as an important affirmation that women were equal with men. The frame depicted voters as having the capacity to effect change by voting for the ERA. The “Gift of Equality” campaign described earlier, for example, emphasized that it was voters who were empowered to include their mothers in the Constitution. The frame presents a good and powerful act directed toward a good and powerful actor, which confirms feminist ideology’s view of “woman.” We take this to indicate frame resonance and not dissonance, which the Interact simulations confirmed. Figure 1 shows that events representative of this theme generated an average deflection score of 2.00. Based on our cutoffs, these events are considered normative and unlikely to conflict with fundamental sentiments.

While the majority of framing strategies used by the pro-ERA resembled frame resonance, at moments they relied upon dissonance to respond directly to anti-ERA counterclaims about the detrimental impacts of the ERA. The second theme in Figure 1, “women earn less than men in the workforce,” summarizes the first of these dissonance strategies used by the pro-ERA. Consider the frame they used, and still frequently used today in platforms organized around gender pay equity, “Women today earn only 59 cents for every dollar earned by men, and women across our land suffer in poverty because of discrimination.”¹¹ This strategy resembles familiar “injustice” frames that appear in other social movement frame analyses (Benford and Snow 2000). We offer a new take on this kind of frame in identifying the underlying strategy: An event is deemed as unjust because it disconfirms fundamental sentiments. The average deflection score yielded from the events that represent this frame was 8.63, which based on the cutoffs confirms that these events are largely within the dissonance range and unexpected according to feminist ideology. Not shown is that female conservative family value perceivers drove down the average for this theme, as the average deflection score for them was 7.61.

The third theme, “need to protect equal choices from legislation,” demonstrates another example where an injustice frame is an instance of frame dissonance. In the Iowa ERA campaign, this frame called attention to the possibility that the state legislature could at any time revoke women’s rights, precipitating events that diverge from feminist ideology. For example, Margaret Anderson warned that:

Even though legislative action over the last ten years has removed many of the inequalities in the state, we need to make legal equality a part of the Constitution so that it cannot be revoked at some point down the line. What a state legislature can give, a state legislature can take away.¹²

Notwithstanding the contributions of the state legislature in securing gender equality, voters were cautioned that they could go back on their word. We characterize framing the need for protection against the betrayal of a state official as a dissonance strategy. Figure 1 shows that the average deflection score from events depicting this frame was 12.68, a value that crosses the cutoff forexpected events and verifies our interpretation.

Anti-ERA

From the perspective of anti-ERA advocates, voting against the ERA was the only way to ensure that women were protected from the “loose and liberal” changing values regarding women in society. The anti-ERA repeatedly detailed consequences that would follow if “sex-neutral” language replaced “sex-specific” language in state laws.

The first theme, “women included in draft,” suggested that changing the language of draft laws would place women in combat situations. The premise for their forewarnings was the amendment’s broad language. They cautioned that:

The amendment formulates no exceptions for the military. Women will serve in all kinds of units and will be eligible for combat duty. Neither the right to privacy nor any unique physical characteristic justifies any different treatment of the sexes with respect to voluntary or involuntary service.¹³

The pro-ERA movement countered that the Iowa ERA affected only the state Constitution and would have no bearing on federal draft laws. Still, the anti-ERA groups persisted by claiming that if the state Constitution was ratified, gender-specific language would be removed and women would have to enlist in the state militia.

The idea that a good, powerless, and inactive “woman” was in an active combat situation produced an average deflection score of 8.78, which Figure 1 shows reaches the threshold for frame dissonance. Not shown here (but details available upon request) was that the average deflection score crossed the threshold only for those who hold a conservative family values ideology. Specifically, events suggested by this frame—women in combat—was only a controversial topic within conservative family values ideology. Unlike previous examples of frame dissonance, this theme does not rely on an injustice but rather implies events that diverge from the role expectations of women within the conservative family values ideology.

Anti-ERA advocates further warned that the introduction of sex-neutral language would also result in changes to marital laws, thereby placing women in interpersonal events that would disrupt expectations surrounding women from both ideological perspectives. This frame is captured in the second theme, “woman infringes upon husband’s role in the family.” For example, they explained that:

In Colorado the legislation changed the word ‘husband’ to ‘spouse,’ a sex-neutral term…which means the wife is now obligated to support her spouse. In another case in Pennsylvania in 1974, a state law was invalidated that placed the primary duty of support for minor children on the father. ¹⁴

With changes in the law, a woman who was deemed good, powerless, and inactive would be forced to discredit and undermine a husband’s role in the traditional family as the primary breadwinner. As Goffman (1956) and others (Lizardo and Collett 2013) have suggested, people become embarrassed when they are unable to affirm their roles or identities. From the example above, the woman is portrayed as causing the embarrassment. Figure 1 shows that this theme produced an average deflection score of 11.53. Based on our cutoffs, it confirms our classification of this theme as frame dissonance. As with the prior theme, this theme does not invoke an injustice but instead relies on framing the incongruence between the consequence of passing the ERA and conservative family values ideology.

Driving women into the workforce was framed as problematic for yet another reason, comprising the third frame, “women will be placed in harm’s way at work.” Anti-ERA advocates were concerned that women would have to engage in dangerous activities that they were not prepared to face, including lifting heavy items in factories and fending off perpetrators in police work.¹⁵ These workplace activities were dangerous because women were perceived as not possessing the requisite physical characteristics.

The anti-ERA frames characterized potential workplace harm as far-reaching by portraying innocuous jobs, such as working at a bank, as a harmful environment:

ERA will wipe out protective labor legislation, which protects the working woman from being exploited. Those who favor ERA say that protective laws will be extended to men, but the facts show otherwise. In California, the Bank of America was giving taxi rides to female employees who had to work after dark. This was a thoughtful gesture to protect the women against rapes, muggings, etc. A state court ruled that the bank was discriminating against male employees. Rather than give a similar but unnecessary service to men, the Bank stopped the taxi rides for women.¹⁶

This theme suggests that an employer victimizes and exploits a woman by compelling her to work in harmful environments. When the good, powerless, inactive identity of “woman” is victimized, Figure 1 shows that this generates an average deflection score of 10.04. Based on our cutoffs, this is an unlikely situation from the lens of conservative family values, which we take to be an instance of frame dissonance.

Both Table 2 and Figure 1 show that the average deflection score for the events related to the theme “inclusion of women in the Constitution,” which dominated pro-ERA framing strategies, was significantly lower than the overall average deflection score for all other themes. Figure 1 also shows that the themes that conveyed events with the highest overall average deflection score were “protecting women’s rights from state legislators” from the pro-ERA and “women infringing upon a husband’s role in the family” from the anti-ERA. Because people are likely to behave in ways to realign situations with social order, this suggests that these two themes were the most powerful at mobilizing voters.

Discussion

Our analysis of the 1980 Iowa ERA movement (a) demonstrates a new methodological strategy using computer simulations from Interact to triangulate post hoc analyses from archival data and (b) elaborates social movement scholarship on framing processes by establishing frame dissonance as a new concept and previously overlooked strategy. Our findings further contribute to scholarship on other state-level movements and are poised to generate “useable knowledge” for activists (Snow et al. 2014:38–39).

We built upon prior research (Berbrier 1998; Boyle and McKinzie 2015; Francis 1997; Kroska and Harkness 2011) and adopted Interact as a tool for improvinginterpretations of historical data. Archives are compelling because they hold information to build social histories of organizations and events (McAdam 1988). Yet there are idiosyncrasies in which materials are present or absent. Interact allows for researchers to fill in gaps where information is absent. We exploited a previously unused feature of Interact by constructing unique EPA profiles for “woman” according to the ideological perspectives that existed in the time period. This empirical move enabled us to arrive at conclusions rooted in the historical data and address limitations in prior research that could not attend to multiple ideological perspectives. It also allowed us to infer how voters responded to frames, which were observations missing from the archives.

Our methodology allowed us to contribute theoretically to the existing social movement framing scholarship by developing the concept of frame dissonance. Had we stopped at the point of a traditional analysis of archival data, we would have concluded that frame resonance was not successful. While this conclusion lends empirical support to scholars’ (Bloemraad et al. 2016; Ferree 2003) assertion that resonance and movement success are too often conflated, such a bold statement that unsettles established findings from decades of scholarship may be met with skepticism. In using an abductive analytical strategy, we found early on in the research process that assumptions from social movement theories of frame resonance diverge from those of ACT, as the latter suggests that the greatest motivation to mobilize for change occurs when events and frames produce dissonance—rather than resonance. Accordingly, we turned to Interact to supplement our interpretations by quantifying the extent to which frames align with ideological expectations. The simulations offered empirical verification of how frame dissonance is a strategy distinct from frame resonance. Thus, Interact, specifically, but social psychological theories of social order more generally, allowed us to elaborate—empirically and conceptually—on the framing literature.

We found that to the detriment of thepro-ERA group, they persistently deployed frames conveying the value of including women in the Constitution, and this was associated with significantly lower deflection scores than other frames. Such resonance frames likely generated little incentive for people to act because the events implied by the frames created little dissonance. In sharp contrast, nearly every frame by the anti-ERA groups generated deflection scores in the unlikely range, which we characterized as a frame dissonance strategy. The anti-ERA group more consistently used frame dissonance, which based on ACT assumptions is more likely to incite behavior (like voting) that would prevent those events from occurring. If the pro-ERA had moved away from the value of passing the ERA as residing in the inclusion of women in the Constitution and more persistently used frame dissonance to highlight palpable consequences for women (such as protecting rights from legislators), they may have been successful in passing the amendment.

Additional research could continue tobuild upon our social psychological approach to explore further how identities, social movements, and framing strategies intersect to produce dissonance or resonance. The Black Lives Matter movement, for example, has raised awareness and initiated conversations about violence against blacks in the United States. From an ACT perspective, part of this work is accomplished by first redefining the identity of “Black American” as a positively evaluated identity that experiences structural violence frequently:

Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our de-humanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes.¹⁷

Our study suggests that the more a social movement can elevate the EPA rating for an identity (e.g., “Black American”) to provoke people to react to bad behaviors (e.g., murder) performed by actors (e.g., police officers), they will create dissonance. To stoke greater dissonance, the identity of the actor (in this case, police officers) must also be redefined as a powerful but “bad” actor. In so doing, a movement can highlight social problems in a way that cuts against ideological expectations for public audiences and provoke action. Furthermore, our findings from the Iowa ERA suggest why antiracist activists become enraged when “Black Lives Matter” is reframed as “All Lives Matter.” The reframing disrupts the evaluation of the “Black American” identity as positive and undermines the movement’s attempt to create dissonance in how events are framed. Additionally, there is a growing countermovement that emphasizes “Police Lives Matter.” The movement–countermovement relationship here, and as it transpires in many other movements, could benefit from future research using ACT to examine how each movement attempts to negotiate the deflection produced by frames and counterframes.

Future scholarship may continue to build upon our insights here to explore additional dimensions of framing processes. We concur with Jasper (2011), who suggested that social psychological theories of emotions could help fill a void in social movement scholarship. ACT models how events inspire emotions, which scholars have only begun to use to understand social movements (Britt and Heise 2000). A researcher need only have access to public discourse to infer these emotions using Interact. This is important because, as in our case, the researcher may not be able to interview members of the public. Future scholars could adopt our methodological innovation and use Interact to address the intertwining relationship of ideological perspectives, emotions, and framing strategies to examine how politicians invoke emotions to mobilize people.

Here, we offer the conceptual and empirical foundations for future research across domains of social scientific inquiry. Interact is a viable solution to a methodological dilemma presented by post hoc analyses of qualitative methods and for discursive analyses more generally. In bringing together different schools of thought related to social movement framing and ACT, we also established a new concept, frame dissonance. The true explanatory power of the model will be demonstrated not by this single study but by a collection of studies that examine these ideas.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Iowa Women’s Archives and archivists Kären Mason and Janet Weaver, as well as Alana Alderson, Daniel Radtke, Brittany Rettenmeier, and Raven Wood for their research assistance. We are grateful for the generous feedback from the anonymous reviewers and editors. Kathryn Lively, Sarah Harkness, Fabio Rojas, Mike Sauder, Mark Walker, Jennifer Ansley, and Amanda Pullum offered helpful comments; any remaining errors are our own.

1

Amendments to the Iowa Constitution require passage in the state’s two legislatures, in two successive years, followed by majority approval from Iowa voters. This two-step process accounts for why some scholars note Iowa as a state that approved an amendment (e.g., ). The legislature approved the amendment in 1978 and 1979. The voter referendum in 1980 failed.

2

Not all scholars use “ideology” in the same manner. We use ideology to refer to systems of meaning. research on gender ideology equates ideology with identities.

3

“Campaign Handbook.” Iowa Women’s Archives (IWA), Iowa ERA Coalition, Box 2.

4

McFadden, Monica. May 1980. Press Release. IWA, Iowa ERA Coalition, Box 7.

5

McFadden, Monica. May 10, 1980. “Iowa ERA Coalition Chair Terms Dispute Over Iowa ERA as Symptomatic of Division in Our Society.” Press Release. IWA, Iowa ERA Coalition, Box 7.

6

McFadden, Monica. August 17, 1980. The Jackson Sentinel. IWA, Iowa ERA Coalition, Box7.

7

Schlafly, Phyllis. “The Fraud Called the ERA” recording. Undated. IWA, Iowa Women Against the ERA, Box 2.

8

Eagle Forum of Iowa. “A Magic Window.” IWA, Iowa Women Against the ERA. Box 1, Folder “Pamphlets, Flyers, and General, 1972-1980.”

9

Schlafly, Phyllis. “The Fraud Called the ERA” recording. Undated. IWA, Iowa Women Against the ERA, Box 2.

10

Radio Advertising Copy. 1980. IWA, Iowa ERA Coalition, Box 7.

11

McFadden, Monica. 1980. Press Release. IWA, Iowa ERA Coalition, Box 7.

12

Anderson, Margaret. February 27, 1980. Press Release. IWA, Iowa ERA Coalition, Box 7.

13

Schlafly, Phyllis. “The Fraud Called the ERA” recording. Undated. IWA, Iowa Women Against the ERA, Box 2.

14

Schlafly, Phyllis. “The Fraud Called the ERA” recording. Undated. IWA, Iowa Women Against the ERA, Box 2.

15

McDaniel, Naomi. February 15, 1974. “Women of Industry Opposed to ERA.” Letter. IWA, Iowa Women Against the ERA, Box 1.

16

Eagle Forum of Iowa. “A Magic Window: Information Compiled.” Brochure. IWA, Iowa Women Against the ERA, Box 1.

17

Black Lives Matter. “Mission Statement.” Retrieved March 15, 2016 ().

Bios

stef m. shuster is an assistant professor of sociology at Appalachian State University. Their research examines the social construction of “evidence” in two domains: (a) how social movement activists use evidence to make claims about social issues and (b) how medical providers negotiate and construct evidence to make medical decisions within uncertain terrains. Their research on medical uncertainty recently appeared in the Journal of Health & Social Behavior.

Celeste Campos-Castillo is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Their current research examines how patients manage concerns over the privacy of their health information, how information technologies may narrow or widen inequalities, the formation and resiliency of trust, and public perception of policies. This research appears in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics and Sociological Theory.

References

Alhothali

Areej

Hoey

Jesse

. 2015. “Good News or Bad News: Using Affect Control Theory to Analyze Readers Reaction Towards News Articles. ” Paper presented at the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics—Human Language Technologies, Denver, CO.

Ambrasat

Jens

von Scheve

Christian

Conrad

Markus

Schauenburg

Gesche

Schröder

Tobias

. 2014. “Consensus and Stratification in the Affective Meaning of Human Sociality.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:8001–06.

Benford

Robert D.

Snow

David A.

2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:611–39.

Berbrier

Mitch

. 1998. “‘Half the Battle’: Cultural Resonance, Framing Processes, and Ethnic Affectations in Contemporary White Separatist Rhetoric.” Social Problems 45:431–50.

Bloemraad

Irene

Silva

Fabiana

Voss

Kim

. 2016. “Rights, Economics, or Family? Frame Resonance, Political Ideology, and the Immigrant Rights Movement.” Social Forces doi: 10.1093/sf/sov123.

Boyle

Kaitlin M.

McKinzie

Ashleigh E.

2015. “Resolving Negative Affect and Restoring Meaning: Responses to Deflection Produced by Unwanted Sexual Experiences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 78:151–72.

Britt

Lory

Heise

David R.

2000. “From Shame to Pride in Identity Politics.” Pp. 252–68 in Self, Identity, and Social Movements, edited by Stryker

Owens

T. J.

White

R. W.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Brown

Gustav

. 2014. “Does Framing Matter? Institutional Constraints on Framing in Two Cases of Intrastate Violence.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 19:143–64.

Charmaz

Kathy

. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Denzin

Norman K.

Lincoln

Yvonna S.

2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Ferree

Myra Marx

. 2003. “Resonance and Radicalism: Feminist Framing in the Abortion Debates of the United States and Germany.” American Journal of Sociology 109:304–44.

12.

Francis

Linda E.

1997. “Ideology and Interpersonal Emotion Management: Redefining Identity in Two Support Groups.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60:153–71.

13.

Garfinkel

Harold

. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

14.

Goffman

Erving

. 1956. “Embarrassment and Social Organization.” American Journal of Sociology 62:264–71.

15.

Goffman

Erving

. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Hallgrímsdóttir

Helga Kristín

. 2006. “The Knights of Labour and the Failure of the Arbitration Platform, 1886-1887: Ideology, Hegemony, and Contextually Generated Opportunities for Frame Success.” The Sociological Quarterly 47:521–42.

17.

Heise

David R.

2007. Expressive Order: Confirming Sentiments in Social Actions. New York: Springer.

18.

Heise

David

MacKinnon

Neil

. 1987. “Affective Bases of Likelihood Perception.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 13:133–51.

19.

Jasper

James

. 2011. “Emotions and Social Movements: Twenty Years of Theory and Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 37:285–303.

20.

Kalman

Laura

. 2010. Right Star Rising: A New Politics, 1974-1980. New York: Norton.

21.

Kroska

Amy

. 2000. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Gender Ideology as an Identity.” Gender & Society 14:368–94.

22.

Kroska

Amy

Harkness

Sarah K.

2011. “Coping with the Stigma of Mental Illness: Developing Empirically-Grounded Hypotheses.” Social Forces 89:1315–40.

23.

Ling

Jeffrey

Rice

Tom W.

2008. “Voting in Iowa’s 1980 and 1992 ERA Referendums.” Women & Politics 20:59–72.

24.

Lizardo

Omar

Collett

Jessica L.

2013. “Embarrassment and Social Organization: A Multiple Identities Model.” Social Forces 92:353–75.

25.

Mansbridge

Jane J.

1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

26.

McAdam

Doug

. 1988. Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press.

27.

McAdam

Doug

Boudet

Hilary Schaffer

. 2012. Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000-2005. New York: Cambridge University Press.

28.

McCaffrey

Dawn

Keys

Jennifer

. 2000. “Competitive Framing Processes in the Abortion Debate: Polarization-Vilification, Frame Saving, and Frame Debunking.” The Sociological Quarterly 41:41–61.

29.

McCall

George J.

2006. “Symbolic Interaction.” Pp. 1–24 in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by Burke

P. J.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

30.

McCright

Aaron M.

Dunlap

Riley E.

2000. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims.” Social Problems 47:499–522.

31.

Merton

Robert K.

1972. “Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge.” American Journal of Sociology 78:9–47.

32.

Meyer

David S.

Staggenborg

Suzanne

. 1996. “Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunity.” American Journal of Sociology 101:1628–60.

33.

Morrell

Erica

. 2015. “Unpacking Frame Resonance: Professional and Experiential Expertise in Intellectual Property Rights Contention.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 20:361–78.

34.

Nelson

Steven M.

2006. “Redefining a Bizarre Situation: Relative Concept Stability in Affect Control Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69:215–34.

35.

Oliver

Pamela E.

Johnston

Hank

. 2000. “What a Good Idea! Ideologies and Frames in Social Movement Research.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 4:37–54.

36.

Osgood

Charles E.

May

William H.

Miron

Murray S.

1975. Cross-Cultural Universals of Affective Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

37.

Rupp

Leila

Taylor

Verta

. 1987. Survival in the Doldrums: The American Women’s Rights Movement, 1945 to the 1960s. New York: Oxford University Press.

38.

Rymph

Catherine E.

2006. Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism From Suffrage Through the Rise of the New Right. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.

39.

Schemer

Christian

Wirth

Werner

Matthes

Jörg

. 2012. “Value Resonance and Value Framing Effects on Voting Intentions in Direct-democratic Campaigns.” American Behavioral Scientist 56:334–52.

40.

Schneider

Andreas

Schröder

Tobias

. 2012. “Ideal Types of Leadership as Patterns of Affective Meaning: A Cross-Cultural and Over-Time Perspective.” Social Psychology Quarterly 75:268–87.

41.

Smith-Lovin

Lynn

Douglas

William

. 1992. “An Affect Control Analysis of Two Religious Subcultures.” Pp. 217–48 in Social Perspective in Emotions vol. 1, edited by Gecas

Franks

New York: JAI Press.

42.

Smith-Lovin

Lynn

Heise

David R.

1988. Analyzing Social Interaction: Advances in Affect Control Theory. New York, NY: Gordon & Breach.

43.

Snow

David A.

Benford

Robert D.

1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research 1:197–217.

44.

Snow

David A.

Benford

Robert D.

McCammon

Holly J.

Hewitt

Lyndi

Fitzgerald

Scott

. 2014. “The Emergence, Development, and Future of the Framing Perspective: 25+ Years Since ‘Frame Alignment.’” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 19:23–35.

45.

Soule

Sarah A.

King

Brayden

. 2006. “The Stages of the Policy Process and the Equal Rights Amendment, 1972-1982.” American Journal of Sociology 111:1871–909.

46.

Soule

Sarah A.

Olzak

Susan

. 2004. “When Do Movements Matter? The Politics of Contingency and the Equal Rights Amendment.” American Sociological Review 69:473–97.

47.

Tavory

Iddo

Timmermans

Stefan

. 2014. Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.