kristinbrownua.files.wordpress.com · Web viewThis research study addresses the issue of gender roles in American contemporary, primetime television advertising. Specifically, the

Running Head: GENDER STEREOTYPES IN TELEVISION COMMERCIALS 1

Gender Stereotypes in U.S. Primetime Television Commercials: A Statistical Analysis

Patrick Boardman / Kristin Brown

Dr. Y. Pasadeos – APR 550

University of Alabama

GENDER STEREOTYPES IN TELEVISION COMMERCIALS 2

Gender Roles in Television Commercials: A Statistical Analysis

Statement of the Problem

This research study addresses the issue of gender roles in American contemporary,

primetime television advertising. Specifically, the research examined the ways in which

advertising potentially reinforces gender stereotypes through its portrayal of the central

characters in television commercials. Conceptually, stereotypes refer to a set of held beliefs

generalized across a specific population. With regards to gender stereotypes, messages that

rigidly link socially masculine traits with males and socially feminine traits with females are

considered stereotypical. Operationally, stereotypes involve inequality in variables such as age,

role, basis for credibility, argument type, etc. in gendered central characters in advertisements.

Each variable is discussed at length in Appendix A of this study.

Because an integral step in the advertising message creation process involves targeting,

issues of gender-related appeals serve as targeting strategies and tactics. For example, if an

advertisement for a product seeks to use an ego-gratification appeal to a male target audience,

certain gender issues could become implicated such as sexual attractiveness and subservience.

As a result, this issue bears significance to advertising in the sense that message creation can be

informed by stereotype data. Because some researchers (Eisend, 2010) view advertising content

as a mirror of cultural values, this study will also provide relevant data about the current state of

gender relations in America.

Background / Literature Review

A great deal of research has been conducted to examine gender roles in advertising.

Starting around the 1960s, researchers have studied how advertising portrays men and women,

and studies have continued through several decades into the mid-2000s. As advertising


impressions began to shift from radio to television, so too did the research; most of the recent

research in advertisements' gender roles has dealt with television advertising exclusively. In a

seminal 1975 article, McArthur and Resko presented an often-replicated coding scheme to

measure gender stereotypes present in television advertising through content analysis. The 1975

study presented the idea that gender stereotyping in advertising might directly influence

perceptions and behavior relating to sex-based differences in society, a notion that has since

sparked debate. Researchers like McArthur and Resko (1975) maintain that advertising affects

society, while others like Holbrook (1987) hold that advertising simply reacts to the values

already held by society. Eisend (2010) calls this issue the mirror vs. mold argument.

Another benchmark article from the body of research on gender stereotyping, published

by Furnham and Mak in 1999, presents a series of studies across several continents. Ultimately,

Furnham and Mak concluded that gender stereotyping has existed relatively uniformly across

time and geographic region, and that women are underrepresented and tend to be visually

portrayed (as opposed to having narrative voice).

Indeed, the general body of research on the topic of gender stereotyping in advertising at

least affirms its existence, though there exists some disagreement about the direction in which

prevalence of gender stereotyping is heading. In 2010, Eisend conducted a meta-analysis which

aggregated over 60 different primary studies (dating from 1975 to 2007) that examined gender

stereotypes in an effort to draw holistic conclusions from the existing body of scientific

evidence. Eisend found that some studies suggest that gender stereotyping is on the decline,

while others suggest that it is on the rise.

Because our proposed research examined only American television advertisements, it is

useful to report on major research that deals strictly with United States advertisements. In terms


of research that exclusively measures gender roles in advertising within the United States since

the McArthur and Resko (1975) study, two major papers have been published. The first,

conducted by Bretl and Cantor, (1988) concluded that the gender of primary characters in

American advertisements has approached a more uniform distribution – but women were still

underrepresented. Among other observations, Bretl and Cantor also concluded that women were

still presented as being unemployed with higher frequency, occupying domestic roles (as

opposed to professional), though more men were also being presented in this fashion.

The second American-centric advertisement gender role study was published in 2003 by

Ganahl, Prinsen and Netzley. Ganahl et. al’s study served as an update to Bretl and Cantor’s

article, hoping to measure what changes had taken place over the 10-year period between 1988

and 1998. The researchers found that underrepresentation persisted for women, with no

discernible strides being made in the area of primary character’s gender. Ganahl et. al also

compared the data from advertisements to actual U.S. census data, noting that variables such as

female character age were not representative of the actual population. This additional step of

comparing advertising data to census data lends extra insight into American society, and is

therefore a useful step our research emulated.

Purpose of Proposed Research

The purpose of the conducted research was two-fold. First, it provided updates to

American advertising gender role data. The last major study of American gender roles, though

published in 2003, cut off its sample in 1998, around 13 years from the time of this study.

Because Eisend (2010) suggests that stereotypes in advertising mirror societal norms, we should

expect any changes in American society to have impact on advertising data. With the advent of

the Internet and other cultural shifts, society has ostensibly changed enough to impact the data.


Secondly, previous studies that measured stereotypical gender roles in advertising used

individual characters as a unit of analysis. This provides a great deal of data about who is

performing which action with what effect in commercials, but do not provide a great deal of data

about these actions relative to a member of the opposite gender. For this reason, an additional

dimension was introduced in our research in the form of a category known as the male-female

dyad. If both men and women were present in a single commercial, several coding elements were

employed in order to ascertain the power relationship of the dyad. The unit of analysis remained

central characters, but if a dyad was present, relative relations were explored.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

RQ1: When men and women interact within modern American television commercials, which

gender (if any) has a higher frequency of positions of power?

RQ2: When compared to actual U.S. census data, are stereotypical-sensitive variables such as

age and role more disparate in favor of any gender?

H1: In advertisements in which a man-woman dyad is featured, women will occupy the

submissive role more frequently than men.

H2: In terms of representation when compared to population distribution, professional women

will be underrepresented and their mean age will be skewed.

Method

The unit of analysis studied during this research was individual characters in primetime

television advertisements, defined operationally in an attached appendix. The most central

observation for our study was sex of the central character. Once the central character’s sex was

identified, other crucial observations about how the character was portrayed were analyzed. The

age, basis for credibility, and role of the central character were noted, as they were all important


pieces in identifying the intended persona of the portrayed character. The location of the

advertisement was also noted, as it could set the tone for character depiction, i.e. a woman or

man at home during the day versus a woman at a workplace during the day.

Identifying whether the advertisement’s arguments (if any) are factual or opinionated, as

well as any possible rewards obtained from the advertisement’s product, also held important

implications for gender role stereotypes (e.g. if arguments presented by women are mostly

opinionated, rather than factual). Lastly, the type of product was analyzed to check for

association with any particular gender, another possible symptom of gender stereotypes. All of

the categories explained above lead to a final determinate question: whether it was men, women,

or neither that were depicted as dominant/powerful in relation to one another.

The research frame for this study included all advertisements aired on the seven major

channels (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, TBS, ESPN, HGTV) during prime time network hours (7-10

CST) over a given research period (2 weeks). Within the research frame, a sample was taken by

forming constructed weeks. Two constructed weeks consisted of one-hour blocks from each

network, on alternating nights (i.e., Monday: 7:00 ABC, Tuesday: 9:00 CBS)

Since not all commercials/advertisements have only one central character, our coding

sheet allotted up to two central characters to be thoroughly analyzed, a prominent male and

prominent female. If the two characters shared equal significance in the commercial

advertisement, the two characters were coded by order of appearance, etc.

After the two constructed weeks were completed, all data was tabulated and analyzed in

various ways. Our main focus was to compare data findings and discover whether or not prime

time television advertisements reinforced gender stereotypes through any number of selected

variables.


FindingsIn preparation for this study, we selected two important research questions and

hypotheses that addressed them. Several of the tests performed on our data sought to confirm or

disprove our hypotheses, and the remainder probed for any other interesting, issue-relevant

anomalies.

Our first hypothesis (H1) predicted that, in those commercials containing a male-female

dyad, males would occupy the position of power more often than women. Below is a table

containing the data used to test the claim:

Table 1: Frequencies of power positions in male-female dyads

Observed* (Set O1) Expected (Set E1)

Power: Power:

Equal/Unclear 64 (missing) Equal/Unclear N/A

Women 20 Women 50

Men 30 Men 50

Null hypotheses: O1 does not differ significantly from E1 Reject or Retain: Retain*Data distilled from variable ‘DyadPower,’ where n=287 and ‘No Dyad’ = 173, leaving an n of 114

Though the collected data shows a small disparity in favor of men, the data could not be shown

to be significantly different. Ultimately, this goes against the claim in the hypothesis. Possible

reasons for this result (as well as implications resulting from the test) can be found in the

discussions and conclusions section of this study.

The second hypothesis (H2) predicted that data gleaned from television commercials

would differ from actual population data in the United States, thus exposing a disparity between

reality and ad content. In order to test this hypothesis, we gathered two distinct distributions from

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census – ‘workforce gender breakdown’ and ‘age,’

respectively.

In a cross-tabulation of ages and gender, we found that several significant differences

(where df = 2, sig = .001). Namely, more women than men were portrayed as being young, and


more men than women were portrayed as old. This data, along with a comparison to actual U.S.

census percentages can be found in Table 2, below.

Table 2: Crosstab: Age x Gender

Men Women

Observed* (O1) Expected** (E1) Observed (O2) Expected (E2)

Young 32 (23.7) (48.9) 40 (43.0) (45.7)

Middle-aged 86 (63.7) (33.0) 51 (54.8) (33.3)

Old 17 (12.6) (11.4) 2 (2.2) (14.6)

Indeterminate X N/A X N/A

Null hypotheses: O1,2 does not differ significantly from E1,2 Reject or Retain: Reject*Data distilled from variables ‘Age’ and ‘Gender’ | **Value taken from 2010 U.S. Census | X – Value omitted for purposes of this test

In terms of census data, our research found that ad content fails to match the actual population

data with regards to age. The one age category in which the greatest disparity exists is ‘Old

(65+),’ wherein males are accurately represented, whereas women are vastly underrepresented.

Another method for testing H2 against actual population data can be found in Table 3.

The workforce gender breakdown test we conducted compared male workforce with female

workforce both in reality and the ad world. The results can be seen below:

Table 3: Workforce and Gender

Observed* (Set O1) Expected (Set E1)

Employed:

Men 49 (70) Men 74290 (53.1)

Women 21 (30) Women 65579 (46.9)

Null hypotheses: O1 does not differ significantly from E1 Reject or Retain: RejectData distilled from ‘role’ variable, where role value was either ‘professional’ or ‘worker (blue collar)’

Our data shows a distinct disparity between men and women in the workforce – one in which ads

portray a great deal more men than women as holding jobs. Because this data cannot be found in

actual population data, our hypothesis holds. For a visual representation of the disparity, check

Appendix C of this study.


In addition to answering our research questions, this study yielded several interesting

issue-relevant points. First, in terms of ‘bases for credibility,’ men are significantly more likely

to hold a position of product/service authority; women are significantly more likely to be occupy

either a decorative (negligible) or product-user credibility. Next, we found women to be

significantly more likely to be the central character in commercials containing an

unscientific/emotional argument. Finally, we found that men are more likely to be the central

character of ads featuring scientific/factual arguments. Visual representations of these findings

can be found in Appendix C of this study.

Discussions and Conclusions

The specific questions that drove our research included understanding gender roles and

positions of power in gender pairs within modern American television commercials. We wanted

to compare stereotypical-sensitive variables such as age and role in commercials to actual U.S.

census data to find if modern television commercials are more disparate in favor of any gender.

Finally, we wanted to reflect on advertising’s role on current gender relations in America by

updating conclusions drawn by existing research. Our findings ultimately supported many of the

claims existing in research, as well as confirmed one of our original hypotheses. Ultimately, one

hypothesis failed to materialize. However unexpected, we are still able to comment on the failed

hypothesis’ implications in the larger context of the advertising industry.

Because our data shows a discrepancy between ad content and actual population

information, several stereotypically sensitive implications arise. First, advertisers showing

less ‘young’, more ‘middle-aged’, and less ‘old’ people in their work fail to accurately represent

the audiences they reach. Because older men are fairly represented and older women

underrepresented, a subtext of ‘graceful male aging vs. shameful female aging’ is implicit.


However, the data we gathered is imperfect. If this test were to be done again, narrowed

windows for age would be given to ensure the data is more accurately measured. By having to

include census data statistics for ages 1-35 in the ‘young’ category, the percentage of ‘young’

population didn’t measure precisely what we might have wished it to.

As to the ‘visual woman’ issue reported in the literature review section of this study, our

data reinforces much of the existing research. We were able to determine that modern American

ads contained more women as product users and decorative roles. More men were in authority

roles, thus possessing narrative voice. In the larger context of the advertising / PR world, this

finding might speak to a need for professionals to rethink product messaging and copywriting in

order to more accurately balance bases for credibility.

We originally hypothesized modern advertisements with men/women dyads would show

women occupying the submissive role more frequently than men. Our tests led us to reject this

hypothesis. Though unexpected, several factors might help explain this result. First, the overall

trend in advertising seems to be moving away from rigid dyadic interactions. Instead, many ads

opt to use a format with a flurry of scenes containing many central characters (or else a narrator,

limiting the central character to a single gender). Viewing this trend through Eisend’s Mirror

argument, we could conclude that gender issues are becoming more absent from the collective

consciousness of society. This is not to say that the problems are necessarily solved, only that

they are largely dismissed. Alternatively, because our sample size was not exhaustively larger,

the retained null hypothesis could be due to an inadequate size. It should be noted that more men

had power in the dyad relationships within our sample, albeit too small to conclude with 95%

confidence. If this test were to be run again, more men/women dyad commercials would need to


be coded and analyzed to get a larger sample size. This could determine if this was the problem

found in our research.

Our research found several other stereotypically sensitive issues within ad content.

Because men are more likely to deliver factual arguments and women more likely to deliver

opinion-based arguments, stereotypes about the ‘emotional woman vs. logical man’ are

reinforced. Additionally, because ad content fails to accurately depict the more-or-less equal

gender distribution in the workforce, the ‘domestic woman vs. working man’ stereotype is

perpetuated. Again, if Eisend’s mirror argument is to be taken seriously, the perpetuation of

these stereotypes can have real implications for gender relations in America. For example,

women are still paid less than men for equivalent work – a fact that might be mitigated by the

widespread portrayal of workingwomen. Advertisers, then, can be said to have an ethical

responsibility for furthering gender politics.

Many of the results that concluded differently than we expected are likely due to flaws in

our research method. A limitation noticed that was not a part of this original study is the gender

role portrayal of men and women when they are not part of a men/women dyad commercial

advertisement, i.e. women cooking in the kitchen, men drinking beer with male friends after

work, etc. Many stereotypical gender roles in single gender commercials were noticed

throughout the research, which may have produced further significant findings about gender

roles portrayed in primetime television commercials with the introduction of more variables

(actions taken, attitudes held, etc.).

Though our method included a specific unit of analysis, randomly generated constructed

weeks, and a significantly large sample size, our scope still allowed for imperfections. In

addition, this study did not measure advertisements from every possible channel at every


possible time frame (i.e. commercials airing on cable networks outside of primetime). A final

significant limitation for our research included the tone of commercials, i.e. if they were intended

to be statistically unrepresentative in order to use humor or fear tactics.

This research can be very valuable to advertising and public relations professionals, as

knowing what accurate percentages of roles dealing with gender and age exist in society

compared to what is depicted in commercials could determine whether consumers trust

advertisements. For example, finding areas with significant difference of disparity and altering

them could create more trust and factuality, as well as success, i.e. having more women give

‘factual/scientific’ arguments in commercials and having men portrayed as product users more

often, namely in items used by both men and women. Changes in society should be mirrored by

advertising portrayals.


References

Bretl, D. J., & Cantor, J. (1988). The portrayal of men and women in U.S. television

commercials: a recent content analysis and trends over 15 years. Sex Roles, 18, 595–609.

Eisend, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of gender roles in advertising. Journal Of The Academy Of

Marketing Science, 38(4), 418-440. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0181-x

Furnham, A., & Mak, T. (1999). Sex-role stereotyping in television commercials: a review and

comparison of fourteen studies done on five continents over 25 Years. Sex Roles, 41,

413–437.

Ganahl, D. J., Prinsen, T. J., & Netzley, S. B. (2003b). A content analysis of prime time

commercials: a contextual framework of gender representation. Sex Roles, 49, 545–551.

McArthur, L. Z., & Resko, B. G. (1975). The portrayal of men and women in American

television commercials. Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 209–220.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Employment status of the civilian

noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm

United States Census (2010). Age and sex composition. http://www.census.gov/prod/

cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf


Appendix A: Unit of Analysis and Coding Variables


Unit of Analysis

Central figure(s) – Prominent actors in the commercial, because of featured speaking or

prolonged screen time. Can be male or female. Each ad can contain up to one of each

gender.

Coding variables

The following coding variables, with the exception of the last category (dyad relation) are

adapted from McArthur and Resko’s 1975 piece.

1. Age – Apparent age of central figure. Can be young (<35), middle aged (35-65), or old

(>65).

2. Basis for credibility – Refers to the relation of the central character to the product/service

being advertised. Can either be a product user, decorative (unrelated), or else an authority

(ostensibly a product giver or source).

3. Role – Refers to the occupation of the central character within the context of the

advertisement.

4. Location – Refers to where the central character(s) is acting.

5. Factual Arguments – Sort of argument or appeal given in favor of product/service being

advertised. In this case, appeals to reason, uses facts, etc.

6. Emotional Arguments-- Sort of argument or appeal given in favor of product/service being

advertised . In this case, appeals to emotions, uses pathos or opinion, etc.

7. Practical reward offered - Refers to portrayal of needs/wants being met by the product via

the central character. In this case, rewards that save time, money, etc.


8. Social reward offered - Refers to portrayal of needs/wants being met by the product via the

central character. In this case, rewards that benefit opposite sex/family approval, career

advancement, etc.

9. Self reward offered - Refers to portrayal of needs/wants being met by the product via the

central character. In this case, rewards that benefit the self: physical attractiveness,

cleanliness, health, etc.

10. Type of product – Refers to the sort of product/service being advertised.

11. Dyad relation – Refers to the type of power relation present between two characters. Can be

power/men (men make assertive claims, hold breadwinning role, etc.), vice versa, or

equal/unclear.


Appendix B: Coding Sheet


Coding Sheet Television Network and Time Slot: ____________

Advertisement #: _____

Product/Brand: _______________

Central Character 1: ____ M _____F

Age: Young Middle-aged Old

Basis for credibility Product User Decorative AuthorityOther

RoleSpouse Parent Professional Worker (Blue Collar)Real-life Celebrity Interviewer/Narrator Significant Other Other

Location Home Store Occupation PlaceOther

Argument:Scientific/Factual/Rational

Yes No

Argument:Unscientific/Opin/Emotional

Yes No

Reward offered:Social Enhancement

Yes No

Reward offered:Self-Enhancement

Yes No

Reward offered:Practical

Yes No

Type of product Automobile Baby: food/supplies Bank/insurance/legal Cell Phone Cable/Satellite Clothing Computer Delivery Service Education/jobs Financial Services Food/Drink Health: beauty Health: medical/fitness Home: cleaners/supplies Home: improvement Hospitality Internet/Software Jewelry Other Retail Pets Political PSAs Real estate Restaurants Stationary/office supplies Travel Other

Dyad Present Yes No

If Dyad: Power Equal/Unclear Power/Women Power/Men


Central Character 2: ____ M _____F

Age: Young Middle-aged Old

Basis for credibility Product User Decorative AuthorityOther

RoleSpouse Parent Professional Worker (Blue Collar)Real-life Celebrity Interviewer/Narrator Significant Other Other

Location Home Store Occupation PlaceOther

Argument:Scientific/Factual/Rational

Yes No

Argument:Unscientific/Opin/Emotional

Yes No

Reward offered:Social Enhancement

Yes No

Reward offered:Self-Enhancement

Yes No

Reward offered:Practical

Yes No

Type of product Automobile Baby: food/supplies Bank/insurance/legal Cell Phone Cable/Satellite Clothing Computer Delivery Service Education/jobs Financial Services Food/Drink Health: beauty Health: medical/fitness Home: cleaners/supplies Home: improvement Hospitality Internet/Software Jewelry Other Retail Pets Political PSAs Real estate Restaurants Stationary/office supplies Travel Other

Dyad Present Yes No

If Dyad: Power Equal/Unclear Power/Women Power/Men


Appendix C: Figures


Authority Decorative Product User0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MenWomen

Percentage of Gender featured in Ads with Scientific/Factual Argument

MenWomen


Percentage of gender within ads that contain no scientific/factual argument

MenWomen

Gender breakdown of workforce in ad-vertisements

MenWomen


Gender Breakdown of Workforce in Real-world

MenWomen

Documents

kristinbrownua.files.wordpress.com · Web viewThis research study addresses the issue of gender roles in American contemporary, primetime television advertising. Specifically, the