ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 Female Roles in Television Advertising: Viewers' Use of Gender Role Cues in Appraising Stereotypic and Non-Stereotypic

Role Portrayals

Richard H. Kolbe, Washington State University, Washington Carl D. Langefeld, Indiana University, Indiana

[to cite]:

Richard H. Kolbe and Carl D. Langefeld (1991) ,"Female Roles in Television Advertising: Viewers' Use of Gender Role Cues in

Appraising Stereotypic and Non-Stereotypic Role Portrayals", in GCB - Gender and Consumer Behavior Volume 1, eds. Dr.

Janeen Arnold Costa, Salt Lake City, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 65-76.

[url]:

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/15534/gender/v01/GCB-01

[copyright notice]:

This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in

part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.

Female Roles in Television Advertising: Viewers' Use of Gender Role Cues in Appraising

Stereotypic and Non-Stereotypic Role Portrayals

Richard H. Kolbe, Washington State University, Washington Carl D. Langefeld, Indiana University, Indiana

The study uses the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) as both a self-rating and projective scale to predict viewer responses to stereotypic and non-stereotypic role portrayals in television conlmercials. Projective BSRI ratings of ad characters were significant predictors ofperceptual judgments about the ad character, advertisement, and product. Differences between self-ratings and projective character ratings on the BSRI were also significant predictors of the ad perceptual judgments. Directions for future research in examining role stereotyping in advertising are offered.

INTRODUCTION

The depiction of female roles in television advertising has raised a number of provocative research questions. Research in this area has been fostered by the observations made by media analysts regarding the inconsonance of fenlale role portrayals relative to social norms. Supporting these observations have been numerous content analyses which have pointed to the small number, poor quality, and limited breadth of roles afforded female characters in the medium relative to those held by females in real life (Courtney and Whipple 1974; Dominick and Rauch 1972; Gilly 1988; McArthur and Resko 1975; O'Donnell and O'Donnell 1978; Scheibe 1979; Schneider and Schneider 1979). The evidence suggests that advertisers have often used portrayals which can be labeled stereotypic female roles (e.g., female as housewife, female as subservient to a male) as opposed to non-stereotypic roles (e.g., female as athlete, leader, business person).

While the content of female roles in television advertising is well understood, the factors which influence viewers' perceptions of these roles has received less research attention. Central to this issue is the determination of which factors explain viewer responses to role portrayals. In addition, the implications of such judgments on perceptions about the advertisement and advertised product

need to be considered.

The main issue addressed in the current study is how viewers respond to stereotypic (8) and non-stereotypic (NON-S) role portrayals. The basis of such responses is related to the manner in which an individual processes gender-related information -- a process likely rooted in an individual's own level of masculinity and femininity. If this relationship holds, then masculinity and femininity self ratings should be predictors of viewer perceptions of role portrayals and related attitudes toward the ad character, product, and the ad itself.

Gender Processing

The use of gender-related information to process and interpret stimuli is a substantial component of cognitive processing (Bern 1985). From early in life, individuals categorize people, objects, and behaviors as masculine and feminine, usually with prescriptions as to their appropriateness for the individual's own gender (Bandura 1977; Fein et al. 1975; Kagan 1964; Kohlberg 1966; Lewis and Weinraub 1979; Mischel 1966; O'Bryant and Corder-Bolz 1978). For people we encounter in social interactions (perhaps including vicarious interactions via television), we frequently ascribe qualities of masculinity and femininity (two orthogonal, bipolar dimensions). The propensity to use gender role cues to categorize others varies across individuals. Yet, gender remains an important classificational dimension for many individuals (Bern 1985).

Gender-related processing has been considered in a number of marketing studies with only limited success. For example, Gentry and Haley (1984) were unsuccessful in using gender schema processing to predict ad recall. Schmitt, LeClerc and Dube-Rioux (1988) found attitude toward the ad did not differ between gender-orientation subject groups. These results contrast with the

65

psychological literature which has frequently found differences due to the gender orientation of subjects (cf., Bern and Lenney 1976; Frable and Bern 1985; Moore, Graziano and Millar 1987; Moore and Rosenthal 1980; Quackenbush 1987).

The evidence of gender related processing and perception formation would seem to be very much a part of the issues related to viewer's responses to female roles in television advertising. That is, there should be some cognitive response that stereotypic portrayals elicit from viewers, either in the direction of acceptance or rejection. From this perspective, the current study regresses somewhat fron1 past research to address more basic issues related to gender role judgments about stereotypic and non-stereotypic role portrayals. In general, this study considers the perceptual judgments about stereotypic and non-stereotypic roles and their relationships to the gender judgments of these ad characterizations.

Bern Sex-Role Inventory

Bern has proposed the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) as a means for appraising an individual's gender orientation through Masculinity and Femininity subscales (Bern 1974; 1981). The standard approach researchers have taken in using the BSRI is to classifY individuals into one of four gender orientation categories via sample-based median splits on Masculinity (M) and Femininity (F) dimensions. Individuals high on both M and F are called androgynous; high M and low F individuals are masculine; low M and high Fare feminine; and those low on both dimensions are undifferentiated. Males classified as masculine are called "sex-typed,"as are feminine females. Factor analyses of the BSRI indicate that a more internally consistent and parsimonious scale can be achieved with only one-half of the original items (Bern 1981). The short form BSRI, which contains 10 masculine, feminine, and neutral items, was used in the current study.

As mentioned previously, users of the BSRI have traditionally classified subjects into one of four gender orientation categories. However, examination of the methods used to create the two subscales and their empirical distributions suggest that these scales do not have natural categories, but instead approximate a multivariate normal distribution. A median split, a convenient and commonly used method for classifying sub­

jects, forces the separation of many similar observations near the median into distinct categories for which gender schema theory (Bern 1985) predicts different resul ts. For example, there is little difference between a M or F score of 49 and 51 (scores which are well within the measurement error of the BSRI); yet, the use of a cutpoint of 50 would indicate that the individuals who possess these scores would be markedly, and in our opinion artificially, different. Although intuitively appealing, the categorizing technique does not take advantage of the ordinal nature of the data and sacrifices statistical power. This suggests the use of F and M as continuous variables; however, this approach comes at the expense of the traditional interpretation of the nomenclature (i.e., feminine, n1asculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated).

Consistent with this view, Cook (1985) points to other weaknesses of the median-split method. Cook's review of the BSRI literature indicates that the four median-split categories are often used without adequate theoretical justification and largely serve as convenient labels. Cook suggests there is a need to address the effects of M and F individually. "[A]nyexperimental effects may be entirely attributable to one of the two dimensions, for exanlple nlasculinity. This overriding power would make levels of the other variable, and the classification by extension, largely superfluous" (Cook 1985, p. 104). Her recommendation is to give consideration to alternative uses of the scale (including difference scores, interactions, etc.) to help explain research phenomenon.

A final rationale for the use of F and M as continuous variables is that Bern's Gender Schema Theory (1985) essentially predicts only the responses of sex-typed and androgynous individuals, leaving two other groups' behaviors unexplained. In total, these reasons point to the need to consider alternative methods of analysis of M and F.

Current Research

The current study uses the BSRI as both a projective instrument (used to rate ad character gender orientations) and a self-rating scale. While the BSRI is designed to be a self-rating scale, it has been used as a projective scale in at least two other studies (Kolbe 1983; Peevers 1979). These measures are used as predictor

66

variables for perceptual judgments of the character (Pchar)' advertisement (Pad)' and advertised product (Pprod). The research questions that arise from this exploratory investigation of gender schema and female roles in television advertising are as follows:

1. In general, do stereotypic ad characters obtain a less positive perceptual rating thap non-stereotypic characters? 2. Do projective ratings of the BSRI differ for various character portrayals? 3. Are stereotypic fen1ale character roles rated as highly fenlinine? 4. Are non-stereotypic female character roles rated as more masculine than stereotypic female characters? 5. Does the gender of the observer influence the perceptions of characters or the BSRI projective rating of the ad characters? 6. Are the BSRI masculinity and femininity character ratings predictive of Pchar' Pad' and Pprod? 7. Does the absolute difference between BSRI projective character ratings and BSRI self-ratings predict Pchar' Pad' and Pprod?

METHOD

Stimulus Ad Selection

Off-air television advertisements were used to present stereotypic and non-stereotypic role portrayals. This differs from other studies which have typically used print advertisements. The ability to see the character, hear her speak, and observe behavior and mannerisms offers the viewer more input as to the personality of the individual appearing in the ad than could a print advertisement. This provides the respondent with more information upon which to make attitudinal and gender orientation judgments.

Television advertisements used in this study were selected by a pretest employing expert judges. The two judges, one male and one female, who are marketing professors trained in promotion and advertising, evaluated the role portrayals in 49 television advertisements. The judges evaluated the ads for the purposes of: (1) identifying ads with distinctive major characters (one which had a 10 second or longer appearance in the ad with one or more lines of dialogue); (2) rating the general femininity and stereotypic qualities of

major female ad characters; and (3) rating the masculinity and femininity of the major character with key items selected from the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (those items with the highest eigenvalues in factor analyses of the scale (Bern 1981)). In total, these dimensions were used to identify ads which contained character roles that were distinctive, either stereotypic or non-stereotypic, and possessing personality characteristics typical of stereotypic and non-stereotypic individuals. Distinctiveness of the character role was important in assuring that subjects would identify and attend to major characters while viewing the ads. Such identification and attention capabilities were necessary in order for subjects to adequately make judgments about the characters. Based on the judges' ratings, four advertIsements were selected for use in this research.

In both types of ads (stereotypic and non-stereotypic), one ad contained a female character appearing alone, while the second ad had a female/male dyad, with the female character having the major role. The male/female interaction represents a more dynamic character portrayal than a single female character speaking to the camera and as such poses a more distinct role portrayal for subjects to analyze.

The stereotypic role presentations were contained in laundry detergent and dishwashing liquid ads. The detergent commercial featured a woman who washed the shirt of her truck driving husband. Both a male and female appeared in this ad. The dishwashing liquid ad had a single female character who spoke directly to the camera. The dishwashing liquid ad character was the only person in the ad.

Non-stereotypic ads were for a major dog food brand and decaffeinated coffee. The dog food ad featured a female kennel owner, the only character in the ad, who spoke to the camera. The coffee ad featured a female scuba diver who was served coffee by her husband on board a boat.

Experimental Sessions

The ads were shown to undergraduate students enrolled in the introduc tory marketing course at a northwestern university. A total of 426 subjects,

67

in groups of 75-100, participated in the study. As over 30% of all students at the university take this course, a wide range of majors are represented. The use of student subjects was considered appropriate as they are a group which should be responsive to gender role portrayals.

The students were told that the premise of this study was to determine how individuals view television commercials, particularly in regard to charact~r portrayals. The students were told they would be viewing a series of commercials and asked to make sonle candid judgments about the ads. After viewing each commercial, subjects selected the individual whom they perceived to be the major ad character. Subjects reported how often they had seen the ad and rated the major character on the BSRI. Perceptual judgments about the character, ad, and product were obtained with 7-point semantic differential scales anchored by irritating/not irritating, unpleasant/pleasant, dull/dynamic, depressing/uplifting, offensive/not offensive, and not enjoyable/enjoyable. These items were borrowed and adapted from the Aad literature (cf., Gardner, Mitchell and Russo 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch 1986).

After viewing all four commercials, subjects then rated themselves on the BSRI and provided general demographic information (age, sex, marital status, citizenship). The results reported here focus on the projective BSRI ratings, perceptual measures, and BSRI self-rating.

RESULTS

BSRI Short Fornl Usage

The short form BSRI was used in this study. The 30 item short form has obvious advantages over the 60 item Original BSRI in terms of administrative time and parsimony. Bern (1979; 1981) proposed the shortened version as a means of addressing criticisms of the psychometric weaknesses of the original form. The resulting 30 item scale increases the internal consistency and orthogonality of the F and M scales (Bern 1981). The social desirability of the BSRI adjectives in the two scales was also balanced, which was a weakness of the original BSRI. Thus, the short form represents a refinement of the inventory (Bern 1981).

A confirmatory analysis of the psychometric properties of the short form BSRI supports the internal consistency of the F and M scales. Cronbach's Alphas for the self-rating use of the BSRI F and M scales were .90 and .84, respectively. Projective BSRI reliabilities ranged from .91 to .94 on the F scale and .88 to .91 on the M scale. These reliabilities were considered ,;::-. ng indicators of the internal consistency of the

_scales under both application situations.

Perceptions of Ad Characters, Advertisements, and Products

Stereotypic characters did not have consistently lower perceptual judgments than non-stereotypic characters in this study (see Table 1). In total, stereotypic ad characters were not viewed negatively as response averages were above the midpoint of the scale. Results of analyses of variances suggest that there were significant differences between the commercial perceptual judgments of Pchar (p=.003), Pad (p<.OOl), and Pprod (p<.OOl). Contrasts were used to test for dIfferences between perceptual judgments of the stereotypic and non-stereotypic ads. There was no evidence of a difference in Pchar between S and Noo-S ads (p=.85). However, S ads scored lower for Pad (p=.002) and higher for Pprod (p<.OOl).

The BSRI ratings provided differing evaluations across character portrayals (see Table 2). Results fronl an analysis of variance of the pooled male and female subjects' ratings indicates significant differences on character ratings for both the M (p<.OOl) and F scales (p<.OOl). Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference (LSD) test suggests that the mean ratings for all four characters were significantly different on the M scale (p<.05). Note that the stereotypic ad character mean ratings are both lower than the NON-S ad characters (8 vs. NON-S contrast, p<.OOl). On the F subscale, results from the Fisher's LSD test suggest that the mean rating on both the detergent and coffee commercials are different from all other commercials, but there was no evidence that the mean ratings for the dog food and dishwashing liquid commercials were different. The 8 vs. NON-S contrast indicated that the S ads tended to have higher femininity ratings (p<.OOl). Overall, the results suggest that the BSRI did yield differing ratings for the four characters.

68

These results are important. A character's level of femininity can be appraised by the magnitude of the F subscale score as well as the relative difference between the F and M scores. The latter method coincides with Bern's conceptualization of a feminine personality (Bern 1985). The above results indicate that stereotypic ad characters were viewed as highly feminine by both methods of evaluation; characters in stereotypic roles are rated as high F and low M (see Table 2). Characters in non-stereotypic roles were rated as being more masculine than characters in stereotypic roles. Interestingly, the character with the highest M rating (coffee ad) had the lowest F score. In sum, these findings and the scale's high internal consistency support the use of the BSRI as a projective scale.

Other Potential Factors

Neither prior exposure nor the subject's gender were consistent predictors of perceptions about the character and advertisement. Subject's prior exposure was not a significant predictor of Pchar' Pad' or Pprod (p>.05). Gender was not a predictor of Pchar and Pad. An exception was found in the coffee Pad where females gave the ad a higher rating than males (p<.Ol). It was not surprising that there were significant differences between males and females in Pprod for the coffee (p<.OOl), dishwashing liquid (p<.Ol), and detergent ads (p<.Ol).

BSRI Regression Analysis

It was hypothesized that the manner in which an observer evaluates the gender orientation of a character is related to the observer's perceptual judgments. To investigate this question, multiple regressions were computed which regressed each of the three perceptual scores onto the M and F subscales (see Table 3). As indicated by the standardized regression coefficients, F and M scales were significant positive predictors for all three perceptual dimensions. In fact, the amount of explained variance for Pchar and Pad is quite high, ranging from 20 to 33 percent.

Characters similar in gender orientation to the subject were hypothesized to be seen as more attractive than those who were greatly different. In order to investigate this question, a second set of regressions were computed using the absolute differences between subjects' self-ratings on the

BSRI and the character BSRI ratings. The results were consistent with the hypothesis. As shown in Table 4, the direction of the standardized coeffi­cients was negative, though not all were significant predictors. Non-significance occurred for F on the laundry detergent (5) ad and M on the coffee (NON-S) ad. Despite these exceptions, the F and M scales do explain a respectable portion of the total variability; they explain between 9 and 21 percent of the variance in the perceptual judgments about the character and between 6 and 24 percent in ad perceptions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The perception observers make about stereotypic role portrayals in television advertisements involve distinctive perceptual processes which require rather subtle measures to tease out their effects. Given the complexity and subtlety of the phenomenon, it is unlikely that one scale or theory will be suitable for all marketing applications. While the body of consumer research has largely abandoned the BSRI as a tenable research tool (cf., Schmitt, LeClerc and Dube-Rioux 1988), the current research suggests a re-evaluation of this position. As a resul t of the findings obtained here, a number of research issues are raised.

First, the judgments of stereotypic role portrayals as totally unacceptable to viewers perhaps needs to be modified. While it is not recommended that advertisers redouble their use of stereotypic presentations, the findings of the current study suggest that stereotypic roles do not necessarily result in negative perceptions about the ad or product. One plausible explanation for this finding is that certain products may well be viewed by observers as being suited to more stereotypic roles and therefore these roles do not elicit disproportionately negative responses. However, this reasoning needs to be tested for a variety of products and role portrayals.

Second, the much maligned Bern Sex-Role Inventory did function well as a predictor of perceptual judgments about ad character, advertisements, and, to a lesser extent, advertised products. The scale also yielded projective gender orientation scores for ad characters which correspond to a priori gender orientation judgments of the character roles. These findings

69

suggest some role for the BSRI in consumer behavior research.

Third, the importance of recognizing individual differences and their affect on gender-related processing is central to this stream of research. The alternative use of the BSRI Femininity and Masculinity scales as continuous variables may allow for greater sensitivity in detecting the subtle aspects of gender processing. Using the median-split method of grouping subjects may be simply too coarse-grained a measurement technique to isolate the differences which exist in subjects' responses to marketing stimuli.

Last, the study methodology can be refined and other topics examined. Measures of viewer perceptions of ad content can be made more detailed, sensitive, and perhaps more specific to the phenomenon in question. Administration of the study on an individual basis rather than in a group setting using single ad exposures may yield more definitive results and thereby reduce reactive effects. Populations other than college students may also provide additional insights. Future research should consider why differences in the relative weights of F and M may exist for various role portrayals (including male roles). Contrasting and comparing BSRI nledian-split results with findings of the BSRI as a continuous variable may also provide interesting insights.

The terms "subtle"and "sensitive"have been used frequently in the previous discussion with good reason. As mentioned in the introduction of the paper, the existence of gender related processing is unequivocal and likely a strong and frequently implemented cognitive construct people use to give order to their environment. Such processing undoubtedly includes marketing phenomenon. Yet the significance of this cognitive processing to marketing stimuli has been rather difficult to isolate. This is likely due to the complexity of the process and the cues needed to activate the process. This says nothing about the difficult task of measuring gender-related cognitive processing. Hence, the field has considerable need for defining the boundaries for scales such as the BSRI and developing other more specific gender processing scales for marketing use. As has been the experience in using personality inventories to explain marketing behavior, the value of such scales has been largely constrained by the theoretical underpinning of the scales which

generally do not include marketing applications. It would seenl that the area of gender role processing and marketing phenomenon offers a large number of research potentials for scale and theory developnlent.

As an exploratory study, the current research offers some direction for examining the affects of stereotypic and non-stereotypic role portrayals on viewer perceptions. The intent was to evaluate the potential of gender orientation judgments in explaining ad perceptions. The results indicate that gender orientation judgments are relevant to our understanding of ad perceptions regarding ads with stereotypic role. The authors hope this research raises new areas of study and selVes as a catalyst for future efforts in this important research area.

REFERENCES

Bandura, Albert (1977), Social Leaming Theory. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bern, Sandra L. (1974), "The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny,"JolU1Ul1 of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 (2), 155-162.

Bern, Sandra L. (1979), "The Theory and Measurement of Androgyny: A Reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten Critiques,"Journal ofPersofUllity and Social Psychology, 37 (6), 1047-1054.

Bern, Sandra L. (1981), Bern Sex-Role Inventory Professional Manual, Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Bern, Sandra L. (1985), "Androgynyand Gender Schema Theory: A Conceptual And Empirical Integration,"Nebraskll Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 32, ed. Theo B. Sonderegger, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 179-226.

Bern, Sandra L. and Ellen Lenney (1976), "Sex Typing and the Avoidance of Cross-Sex Behavior," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 33 (January), 48-54.

Cook, Ellen P. (1985), Psychological Androgyny, New York: Pergamon Press.

Courtney, Alice E. and Thomas W. Whipple

70

(1974), "Women in TV Commercials," Joumal of Communication, 24 (Spring), 110-118.

Dominick, Joseph R. and Gail R. Rauch (1972), "The Inlage of Women in Network TV Commercials," Journal ofBroadcasting, 16 (Summer), 259-265.

Fein, Greta, David Johnson, Nancy Kosson, Linda Stork, and Lisa Wasserman (1975), "Sex Stereotypes and Preferences in the Toy Choices of 20-Month-Old Boys and Girls," Developmental Psychology, 11 (4), 527-528.

Frable, Deborrah E. S. and Sandra L. Bern (1985), "IfYou Are Gender Schematic, All Members of the Opposite Sex Look Alike," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (2), 459-468.

Gardner, Meryl P., Andrew Mitchell and J. Edward Russo (1985), "Low Involvement Strategies for Processing Advertisements,"Joumal ofAdvertising, 14 (2), 4-12.

Gentry, James W. and Debra A. Haley (1984), "Gender Schema Theory as a Predictor of Ad Recall,"Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed. Thomas Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consunler Research, 259-264.

Gilly, Mary C. (1988), "Sex Roles in Advertising: A Comparison of Television Advertisements in Australia, Mexico, and the United States,"JoUTfUll ofMarketing, 52 (April), 75-85.

Kagan, Jerome (1964), "Acquisitionand Significance of Sex Typing and Sex Role Identity," Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 1), ed. M. Hoffman and L. Hoffman, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kohlberg, Lawrence (1966), "A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Children's Sex-Role Concepts and Attitudes,"17Ie Development of Sex Differences, ed. E. E. Maccoby, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kolbe, Richard H. (1983), "Bern Sex-Role Inventory Analysis of Children's Television Conlnlercials,"AMA Educators' Conference Proceedings, eds. Patrick E. Murphy and

Lewis, Michael and Marsha Weinraub (1979), "Origins of Early Sex-Role Development," Sex Roles, 5 (2), 135-153.

MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz and George E. Belch (1986), "The Role of Attitude Towards the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations,"Joumal of Marketing Research, 23, (May), 130-143.

McArthur, Leslie A. and Beth G. Resko (1975), "The Portrayal of Men and Women in American Television Commercials," Journal of Social Psychology, 14 (March), 522-530.

Mischel, Walter A. (1966), "ASocial-Learning View of Sex Differences in Behavior," The DeveLOpment of Sex Differences, ed. E. E. Maccoby, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Moore, Janet S., William G. Graziano, and Murray G. Millar (1987), "Physical Attractiveness, Sex Role Orientation, and the Evaluation of Adults and Children," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13 (March), 95-102.

Moore, Susan M. and Doreen A. Rosenthal (1980), "Sex-Roles: Gender, Generation, and Self-Esteem,"Australian P~hologist, 15 (November),467-477.

O'Bryant, Shirley L. and Charles R. Corder-Bolz (1978), "The Effects of Television on Children's Stereotyping of Women's Work Roles," JOUTlUlI of Vocational Behavior, 12 (1), 233-244.

O'Donnell, William J. and Karen J. O'Donnell (1978), "Update: Sex-role Messages in TV Commercials," Journal of Communication, 28 (Winter), 156-158.

Peevers, Barbara H. (1979), "Androgynyon the TV Screen? An Analysis of Sex-Role Portrayals," Sex Roles, 5 (6), 797-809.

Quackenbush, Robert L. (1987), "Sex Roles and Social Perception," Human Relations, 40 (10), 659-670.

Scheibe, Cyndy (1979), "Sex Roles in TV Commercials," Journal ofAdvertising Research, 19 (February), 23-27.

71

Schmitt, Bernd H., France LeClerc and Laurette Dube-Rioux (1988), "Sex Typing and Consumer Behavior: A Test of Gender Schema Theory," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 797-809.

Schneider, Kenneth C. and Sharon B. Schneider (1979), "Trends in Sex Roles in Television Commercials," Journal ofMarketing, 43 (Summer), 79-84.

72

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Perceptual Measures of the Character,

Advertisement, and Product

Stereotypic Non-Stereotypic Advertisements Advertisements

Laundry Dishwashing Decaf Perceptions About the: Detergent Liquid Dog Food Coffee

Major Ad Character

Female Subjects 4.37 4.80 4.43 5.09 (1.41) (1.14) (1.04) (1.28)

Male Subjects 4.59 4.72 4.31 4.77 (1.44) (1.11) (1.14) (1.27)

Advertisement

Female Subjects 4.04 4.51 4.40 4.95 (1.48) (1.16) (1.11) (1.28)

Male Subjects 4.14 4.47 4.30 4.60 (1.36) (1.14) (1.12) (1.24)

Product

Female Subjects 4.79 4.73 4.11 4.79 (0.93) (0.96) (0.86) (1.13)

Male Subjects 4.45 4.50 4.00 4.38 (0.98) (0.81) (0.82) (1.14)

Number of Subjects

Female 159 175 172 155 Male 190 232 207 203

Note: Reliabilities for the perceptual scales ranged from .80 to .93.

73

Table 2

Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) Mean Ratings (and Standard Deviations) of Major Ad Characters

and Research Subjects

Predominant Character's BSRI Rating

Stereotypic Advertisements

Laundry Dish Detergent Liquid

Non-Stereotypic Advertisements Subjects'

Personal Dog Decaff BSRI Food Coffee Mean

Femininity Subscale

Female SUbjects 59.79 (7.08)

51.85 (9.47)

53.44 (8.81)

46.54 (10.39)

55.26 (8.27)

Male Subjects 57.50 (8.17)

49.58 (9.26)

49.58 (10.16)

43.66 (9.66)

51.78 (8.26)

Masculinity SubscaJe

Female Subjects 37.31 (11.43)

43.66 (10.36)

47.78 (9.95)

53.96 (8.45)

51.01 (7.32)

Male Subjects 36.58 (10.57)

41.96 (8.68)

46.50 (9.77)

50.21 (10.04)

52.89 (7.07)

74

Table 3

Multiple Regression of Major Character BSRI Masculinity and Femininity Subscales on

Perceptions About the Character, Advertisement, and Product

Dependent Variables

Perceptions About the: Predictor Variables Character Advertisement Product

Stereotypic Female Role Portrayals Laundry Detergent Advertisement

Character Femininity Rating Beta .252*** .145** .162**

Character Masculinity Rating Beta .468*** .465*** .294***

R2 .31 .25 .12

R .56 .50 .35

Dishwashing Liquid Advertisement

Character Femininity Rating Beta .338*** .290*** .239***

Character Masculinity Rating Beta .274*** .314*** .274***

R2 .22 .22 .16

R .47 .46 .40

Non-Stereotypic Female Role Portrayals

Dog Food Advertisement

Character Femininity Rating Beta .464*** .365*** .225***

Character Masculinity Rating Beta .178*** .199*** .174***

R2 .27 .20 .09

R .52 .44 .31

Decaffeinated Coffee Advertisement

Character Femininity Rating Beta .548*** .416*** .145**

Character Masculinity Rating Beta .083* .133** .128*

R2 .33 .22 .05

R .57 .46 .21

p<.05.

** p<.Ol.

*** p<.OOl.

75

Table 4

Multiple Regression of Absolute Difference Between Subject's BSRI Scores and Character's BSRI Scores on Perceptions About the

Character, Advertisement, and Product

Dependent Variables

Perceptions About the: Predictor Variables Character Advertisement Product

Stereotypic Female Role Portrayals Laundry Detergent Advertisement

Difference Fenlininity Rating Beta -.027 -.017 -.098

Difference Masculinity Rating Beta -.431 *** -.480*** -.246**

R2 .20 .24 .09

R .44 .49 .30

Dishwashing Liquid Advertisement

Difference Fenlininity Rating Beta -.184*** -.133** -.094

Difference Masculinity Rating Beta -.199*** -.257*** -.195***

R2 .09 .10 .06

R .31 .32 .24

Non-Stereotypic Female Role Portrayals

Dog Food Advertisement

Difference Femininity Rating Beta -.178*** -.138** -.025

Difference Masculinity Rating Beta -.209*** -.162** -.168**

R 2 .09 .06 .03

R .30 .24 .18

Decaffeinated Coffee Advertisement

Difference Femininity Rating Beta -.446*** ...387*** -.149**

Difference Masculinity Rating Beta -.037 -.014 -.021

R2 .21 .15 .02

R .45 .38 .16

p<.05.

** p<.Ol.

*** p<.OOl.

76