Sex-Role Stereotyping in Television Commercials: A Review and Comparison of Fourteen Studies Done on Five Continents Over 25 Years - Statistical Data Included

Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,  Sept, 1999  by Adrian Furnham,  Twiggy Mak

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

First, an obvious research problem of confounding occurs even when examining data content analyzed in the same country over different time periods. The first is that of channel equivalence. Commercial channels differ enormously in viewing figures, style, and funding. Some are national, others regional; some are aimed at a particular demographic or psychological group which is reflected in the commercials. For instance, British Channel 4 has a larger, younger, better-educated audience overall than New Zealand's TV One, which aims to capture a wider audience. The size, history, and economic status of the country, the number of channels, and the extent to which they deliberately set out to reach select or niche markets mean that it may well be near-impossible to find "equivalent channels" in different countries. Further, the precise audience of the channel is of direct relevance to advertisers, who place their particular commercials with numerous economic demographic and psychographic variables in mind (Gunter & Svennevig, 1987). Doing studies over time using a limited number of channels increases the reliability of finding trends but decreases the generalizability of the findings.

Second there is the problem of sample equivalence. It has been demonstrated that there is a time-of-day effect in commercials (Harris & Stobart, 1986), because of the different patterns of viewing of different groups in the population. Thus in most countries children watch early-morning and early-evening television, and homemakers, retired and unemployed people, and shift workers watch daytime television, while a wider general population sample watches in the evening and on weekends (Gunter, 1995). However, the precise audience mix does not differ from channel to channel and from country to country. Thus, if study 1 samples predominantly daytime and study 2 predominantly nighttime commercials, any differences may be attributable to sampling rather than actual differences. It is also known that the advertisements for particular products differ according to time of day, day of week, and season of year as a function of what is known about the audience (Furnham et al., 1997; Furnham & Skae, 1997; Gunter, 1995). Thus toy advertisements peak in the morning, whereas cars, insurance, alcohol, and food are more likely to occur in evening programs. This pattern is typical for Western-developed economics but there are subtle differences. Further, some countries ban advertisements for toys, alcohol, or other specific products (Furnham, 1993), increasing problems for equivalence.

Third, there is the problem of content categories. While most researchers have followed McArthur and Resko (1975), many have altered or added to the content categories for their own purposes. This renders many comparisons impossible unless, in some instances, certain categories are collapsed. However, it is a testament to the original work of McArthur and Resko (1975) and a number of studies done in the decade after theirs was published (Manstead & McCulloch, 1981; Harris & Stobart, 1986; Livingstone and Green, 1986), that so few changes and adaptations have been made despite cross-cultural work being done. This suggests that the original categories were comprehensive. The most difficult problem is that of national differences, which are, for many, of most interest. All the above problems occur such that it is difficult to attribute any difference to culture rather than methodological differences.