sd gender conference 2 - female roles in television advertising
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
1/12
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 o perceptual judgments about
the ad
character
advertisement
and
product. Differences
between self-ratings and projective character ratings
on the
BSRI
were
also significant
predictors o 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. Resea rch 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 attent ion. 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
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
2/12
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
undifferentia ted. 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 differen t 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
opin ion artificially, different. Al
though
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 BS RI 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
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
3/12
variables for perceptual judgments of the
character (Pchar)' advertisement (Pad)' and
advertised product
prod).
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
P
char' Pad' and P
prod?
METHO
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
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
4/12
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
h r t ~ 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 A
ad
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
;::-. n 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
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
5/12
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
P
char
and Pad.
An
exception was
found in the coffee P
ad
where females gave the ad
a higher rating than males (p
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
6/12
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 eva luate
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
of
Personality and Social Psychology
(January), 48-54.
Cook, Ellen P. (1985), PsychologicalAndrogyny,
New York:
Pergamon
Press.
Courtney, Alice E. and Thomas W. Whipple
70
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
7/12
(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 of Broadcasting,
6
(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), If You
Are
Gender Schematic, All
Members of the Opposite Sex Look Alike,
Journal ofPersonality
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 o 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
Advertis ing 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 ofSex 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 ~ h o l o g i s t 5
(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, JOUTlUl
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, 9
(February), 23-27.
71
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
8/12
Schmitt, Bernd
H.
France LeClerc and Laurette
Dube-Rioux (1988), SexTyping and Consumer
Behavior: A Test
of
Gender Schema Theory,
Journal o Consumer Research 15 (June), 797-809.
Schneider, Kenneth C. and Sharon
B.
Schneider
(1979),
Trends in
Sex Roles in Television
Commercials,
ournal
of
Marketing
43
(Summer),
79-84.
72
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
9/12
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
19 232
207 203
Note: Reliabilities for the perceptual scales ranged from .80 to .93.
73
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
10/12
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
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
11/12
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
R
2
.31 .25
.12
R
.56 .50
.35
Dishwashing Liquid Advertisement
Character Femininity Rating Beta
.338
.290
.239
Character Masculinity Rating Beta
.274 .314
.274
R
2
.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
R
2
.27
.20
.09
R
.52 .44
.31
Decaffeinated Coffee Advertisement
Character Femininity Rating Beta
.548 .416
.145
Character Masculinity Rating Beta .083
.133
.128
R
2
.33
.22
.05
R
.57
.46
.21
p
-
7/24/2019 SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising
12/12
Table 4
Multiple Regression
of
Absolute Difference Between Subject's BSRI Scores
and Character's BSRI Scores on Perceptions bout the
Character, Advertisement, and Product
Dependent
Variables
Perceptions
bout
the:
Predictor Variables Character Advertisement Product
Stereotypic Female Role Portrayals
LaundryDetergent dvertisement
Difference Fenlininity Rating
Beta
-.027
-.017
-.098
Difference Masculinity Rating
Beta
-.431
-.480 -.246
R
2
.20 .24 .09
R
44
.49
.30
Dishwashing Liquid
dvertisement
Difference Fenlininity Rating Beta
-.184
-.133
-.094
Difference Masculinity Rating Beta
-.199 -.257
-.195
R
2
.09
.10
.06
R .31
.32 .24
Non-Stereotypic Female Role Portrayals
Dog Food
dvertisement
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
dvertisement
Difference Femininity
Rating Beta
-.446
387
-.149
Difference Masculinity Rating
Beta
-.037
-.014
-.021
R
2
.21
.15
.02
R
.45
.38 .16
p