CURIO Symposium Presentation by Keyla DeLaCruz

This is my presentation for my Theories of Mass Communication class. I presented this at the Curio Symposium and placed fourth in my section. I researched LGBTQ+ characters in children's animated films, focusing on five Disney films.

1. Stereotypes and Representation:
LGBTQ+ Characters in Children's
Animated Films

By: Keyla de la Cruz-Ramirez

2. Presentation Outline
01
03
02
04
Introduction Methodology
Results
Theoretical
Implications

3. LGBTQ
●Stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer individuals
●The additional “+ˮ stands for all of the other identities not
encompassed in the short acronym.
LGBTQ+ representation
●refers to how lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
individuals are portrayed across various forms of media,
including films and television.

In 2017, Moonlight became
the first queer movie to win
the Oscar for Best Picture
The white, pink, and light blue
stripe to represent the Trans
community. While the black and
brown stripes still represented
communities of color.
Progress Pride Flag

4. In The Mitchellʼs vs. The
Machines, Katie is Sony Pictures
Animation first LGBTQ
character.

In 2011, Nielsen reported that 28.3% of motion
pictures and department stores advertised
LGBT-inclusive programming.

Mares et al. 2023) found that “over 80% of
teens and parents reported media had inspired
conversations about the teens' LGBTQ identity
In Ridley Jones, a mummy queen
named Ismat has two mummy
dads.

5. ●R1 Are LGBTQ+ characters more likely to be framed based on stereotypes?
●R2 Are LGBTQ+ characters portrayed in ways that challenge or uphold
traditional gender norms?
Research Questions
Framing theory, first
introduced by Goffman,
suggests that people's
interpretation of information
is shaped by how it is
presented.
Stereotypes are widely
held, oversimplified beliefs
about a particular group. In
the media, LGBTQ
characters have often been
subject to stereotypical
portrayals, which can limit
the depth of representation.

6. Methodology
●Finding Dory 2016, Onward 2020, Zootopia 2016, StrangeWorld 2022, and Lightyear
2022
●The amount of screen time for each character was tracked to assess whether the duration of
their presence had any significance to the filmʼs storyline.
● Identified the character type (human or non-human), gender, and LGBTQ+ identity, as either stated
by the film or implied through the narrative. The role of each character in the story, their level of
power, and the nature of their relationship to the main plot were also noted.
●Characterʼs physical appearance
●Dialogue

7. Results
Table 1
Frequency of Character Types
Character Number Percent
Human 4 44.4
Non-Human 1 11.1
Animal 2 22.2
Other 2 22.2
Total 9 100%
LGBTQ
identity
Number Percent
Lesbian 5 55.6
Gay 2 22.2
Bisexual 0 0
Transgender0 0
Queer 2 22.2
Non-binary0 0
Other 0 0
Total 9 100%
Table 3
Frequency of LGBTQ+ Identity

8. Results
Table 4
Frequencies of How Character Identity is Portrayed
Identity portrayed Number Percent
Through dialogue 2 22.2%
Through behavior 0 0
Through interaction with others 5 55.6%
Not disclosed 0 0
Not disclosed in film, but disclosed by producers 2 22.2%
Total 9 100%

9. Results
Representation Type
LGBTQ+ Positive Negative Neutral Other Total
Lesbian 1 0 4 0 2
Gay 0 2 0 0 2
Bisexual 0 0 0 0 0
Transgender 0 0 0 0 0
Queer 1 0 1 0 2
Non-binary 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 2 5 0 9
Table 5
Cross Tabulation Comparing LGBTQ+ Identity with Representation Type
Note: Chi-Square = .044 (p < .05)

10. Results: Character Portrayal
Clothing style Number Percent
Traditional 7 77.8
Non-traditional 0 0
Cultural 0 0
Uniform 2 22.2
Other 0 0
Total 9 100
Table 8
Frequency of Clothing Styles
Hairstyle type Number Percent
masculine/androgy
nous short cut
2 22.2
Colorful/dyed hair 1 11.1
long/styled hair 0 0
Shaved
side/undercut
2 22.2
drag-inspired 0 0
natural/neutral 2 22.2
No hair 2 22.2
Total 9 100
Table 9
Frequency of Hairstyle Types

11. Relationship Status Number Percent
single 2 22.2
Married 2 22.2
In a relationship 0 0
Implied relationship 5 55.6
Other 0 0
Total 9 100
Table 10
Frequency of Relationship Status

Results: Character Portrayal - Relationship Status & Age

12. Results: Dialogue & Behavior
Dialogue Number Percent
no LGBTQ+ specific terms or language 6 66.7
uses LGBTQ+ terms explicitly 2 22.2
implies LGBTQ+ identity through dialogue 1 11.1
Total 9 100
Table 12
Frequency of Dialogue Types

13. ●While there was one primary lead LGBTQ+ character, most of
the LGBTQ+ characters were secondary or supporting
characters

●The LGBTQ+ characters in this study did not notably
challenge or uphold traditional gender norms.

●Hair types were fairly distributed across characters, and no
particular pattern emerged that suggested a definitive
challenge to gender norms

●Relationships involving LGBTQ+ characters were generally
implied, either through interactions with other characters or
through subtle dialogue.

14. ● Disney has opted for a neutral representation, refraining from
overt stereotypes.

●More than half of the LGBTQ+ characters were portrayed as
adults

●The lack of broader LGBTQ+ identities remains an issue for the
community

15. References:
Baran, J. S., & Dennis, K. (2020). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and future. Oxford University Press.
Blanco-Herrero, D., Rodríguez-Contreras, L., & Gutiérrez-San-Miguel, B. (2021). New forms of masculinity in Western films: The end of the Marlboro
Man? Communication & Society, 34(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.34.2.1-14
Borah, P. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 246–263.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x
Disney. (n.d.). Disney Wiki. Fandom. Retrieved December 10, 2024, from https://disney.fandom.com
Li-Vollmer, M., & LaPointe, M. E. (2003). Gender transgression and villainy in animated films. Popular Communication, 1(2), 89–103.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15405710PC0102_2
Pullen, C. (2011). Heroic gay characters in popular film: Tragic determination, and the everyday. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies,
25(3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2011.565870
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass
Communication & Society, 3(2/3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07
Speck, H. (2020). Band of brothers (and sisters): Gender framing in U.S. Army commercial advertising. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal,
35(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.58997/smc.v35i2.77
Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60–78.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00329.x
Zimmerman, A. (2022). Building a culture of quiescence: The framing of animal-based foods in children’s fiction movies. Southern Communication
Journal, 87(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2021.1983013

16. CREDITS This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, and
includes icons by Flaticon, and infographics & images by Freepik
THANKS!