SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising

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


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


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


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


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


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


7/12

(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


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


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


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


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


.338

.290

.239


.274 .314

.274

R

2

.22

.22 .16

R

.47

.46

.40

Non-Stereotypic Female Role Portrayals

Dog

Food

Advertisement


.464

.365

.225


.178 .199 .174

R

2

.27

.20

.09

R

.52 .44

.31

Decaffeinated Coffee Advertisement


.548 .416

.145

Character Masculinity Rating Beta .083

.133

.128

R

2

.33

.22

.05

R

.57

.46

.21

p


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


Beta

-.209

-.162

-.168

R

2

09

.06

.03

R

.30 .24 .18

Decaffeinated Coffee

dvertisement

Difference Femininity

Rating Beta

-.446

387

-.149


Beta

-.037

-.014

-.021

R

2

.21

.15

.02

R

.45

.38 .16

p

Documents

SD Gender Conference 2 - Female Roles in Television Advertising