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.

need to be considered.
The main issue addressed in the current study is
how viewers respond to stereotypic (8) and
non-stereo typic (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.

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).

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).

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

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).

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).

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 stereo typic 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 (P prod). The research
questions that arise from this exploratory
investigation of gender schema and female roles
in television advertising are as follows:

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.

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 Pprod?

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.

METHOD
Stimulus Ad Selection

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 A ad literature
(cf., Gardner, Mitchell and Russo 1985;
MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch 1986).

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 P char (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 P char between S
and Noo-S ads (p=.85). However, S ads scored
lower for Pad (p=.002) and higher for Pprod
(p<.OOl).

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.

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.

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).

68

BSRI and the character BSRI ratings. The results

were consistent with the hypothesis. As shown in
Table 4, the direction of the standardized coeffi
cients 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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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.

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

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

69

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 of PersofUllity and Social
Psychology, 37 (6), 1047-1054.

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

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, 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

Lewis, Michael and Marsha Weinraub (1979),

"Origins of Early Sex-Role Development," Sex
Roles, 5 (2), 135-153.

Communication, 24 (Spring), 110-118.

Dominick, Joseph R. and Gail R. Rauch (1972),

"The Inlage of Women in Network TV
Commercials," Journal of Broadcasting, 16
(Summer), 259-265.

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.

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.

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.

Frable, Deborrah E. S. and Sandra L. Bern

(1985), "If You Are Gender Schematic, All
Members of the Opposite Sex Look Alike,"

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.

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
of Advertising, 14 (2), 4-12.

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.

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.

Moore, Susan M. and Doreen A. Rosenthal

(1980), "Sex-Roles: Gender, Generation, and
Self-Esteem,"Australian P~hologist, 15

(November),467-477.
Gilly, Mary C. (1988), "Sex Roles in Advertising:
A Comparison of Television Advertisements in
Australia, Mexico, and the United States,"JoUTfUll
of Marketing, 52 (April), 75-85.

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.

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.

O'Donnell, William J. and Karen J. O'Donnell

(1978), "Update: Sex-role Messages in TV
Commercials," Journal of Communication, 28
(Winter), 156-158.

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.

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.

Kolbe, Richard H. (1983), "Bern Sex-Role

Inventory Analysis of Children's Television
Conlnlercials,"AMA Educators' Conference
Proceedings, eds. Patrick E. Murphy and

Scheibe, Cyndy (1979), "Sex Roles in TV

Commercials," Journal of Advertising 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 of Marketing, 43 (Summer),

79-84.

72

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of

Perceptual Measures of the Character,

Advertisement, and Product

Non-Stereotypic
Advertisements

Stereotypic
Advertisements

Perceptions About the:

Laundry Dishwashing
Detergent
Liquid

Decaf
Dog Food Coffee

Major Ad Character
Female Subjects

4.37
(1.41)

4.80
(1.14)

4.43
(1.04)

5.09
(1.28)

Male Subjects

4.59
(1.44)

4.72
(1.11)

4.31
(1.14)

4.77
(1.27)

Female Subjects

4.04
(1.48)

4.51
(1.16)

4.40
(1.11)

4.95
(1.28)

Male Subjects

4.14
(1.36)

4.47
(1.14)

4.30
(1.12)

4.60
(1.24)

Female Subjects

4.79
(0.93)

4.73
(0.96)

4.11
(0.86)

4.79
(1.13)

Male Subjects

4.45
(0.98)

4.50
(0.81)

4.00
(0.82)

4.38
(1.14)

159
190

175
232

172
207

155
203

Advertisement

Product

Number of Subjects
Female
Male

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

Non-Stereotypic
Advertisements Subjects'
Personal
Decaff
Dog
BSRI
Laundry Dish
Food Coffee
Detergent Liquid
Mean
Stereotypic
Advertisements

Predominant Character's
BSRI Rating

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)

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)

Masculinity SubscaJe

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:
Character
Advertisement Product

Predictor Variables

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

.56

.50

.35

Character Femininity Rating Beta

.338***

.290***

.239***

Character Masculinity Rating Beta

Dishwashing Liquid Advertisement

.274***

.314***

.274***

R2

.22

.22

.16

.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

.52

.44

.31

Character Femininity Rating Beta

.548***

.416***

.145**

Character Masculinity Rating Beta

Decaffeinated Coffee Advertisement

.083*

.133**

.128*

R2

.33

.22

.05

.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:
Character
Advertisement Product

Predictor Variables

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

.44

.49

.30

Dishwashing Liquid Advertisement

Difference Fenlininity Rating Beta

-.184***

-.133**

-.094

Difference Masculinity Rating Beta

-.199***

-.257***

-.195***

R2

.09

.10

.06

.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**

R2

.09

.06

.03

.30

.24

.18

Decaffeinated Coffee Advertisement

Difference Femininity Rating Beta

-.446***

...387***

Difference Masculinity Rating Beta

-.149**

-.037

-.014

R2

.21

.15

.02

.45

.38

.16

p<.05.
**

p<.Ol.

***

p<.OOl.

76

-.021