INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page{s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in die adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in “sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right .in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

I Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zoeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 74— 324-6

MARTING, Leeda Pollock* 194-5- AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IMAGES OF MALES AND FEMALES DURING PRIME-TIME TELEVISION DRAMA.

The Ohio State University* Ph.D.* 1973 Mass Communications

t i I I t University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan% ■ ft

© 1973

Leeda Pollock Marting

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IMAGES OF MALES AND FEMALES DURING PRIME-TIME TELEVISION DRAMA

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Leeda Pollock Marting, B.S«, M.A. *****

The Ohio State University 1973

Reading Committee: Approved by Wallace C* Fotheringham Joseph M. Foley Paul V. Peterson

Department of Communication ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Professor Wallace C. Fotheringham the author wishes to express deep gratitude for his willingness to give so freely of his time and talents in the planning and execution of this research. His guidance and support are gratefully recognized. This researcher is also indebted to Professors Joseph M. Foley and Paul V. Peterson who provided helpful criticism and valuable counsel. To Rodger A. Marting a sincere thank you for under­ standing , constant encouragement, and assistance with family responsibilities. And to my young daughter, Kristin, fond appreciation is expressed for her patience.

ii VITA

June 28, 1945 . . B o m — Birmingham, Alabama 1967...... B.S., University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 1967-1968 .... Teacher, E. B. Erwin High School, Birmingham, Alabama 1968-1969 . . . . Educational Relations Assistant Director, American Red Cross, Birmingham, Alabama 1969-1970 . . . . Teaching Assistant, Department of Journalism, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 1970...... M.A., University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 1970-1971 .... Instructor, Department of Journalism, Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 1971-1973 .... Teaching Associate, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1973, Executive Assistant, The Columbus Foundation, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS 'British Control of Television Advertising,1* Journal' of Broadcasting, 17:2 (Spring, 1973), pp. 159-172.

ill FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Maas Communication Studies In Persuasive Conanunications. Professor Wallace C. Fotheringham Studies in Broadcast Regulation. Professor Joseph M. Foley Studies in International Broadcasting. Professor Walter B. Emery Studies in Journalism. Professor Paul V. Peterson

iv TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 11 VITA...... Ill LIST OF TABLES...... vll Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Purpose of the S t u d y ...... 6 Importance of the Study...... 7 Scope of the Study 9 Organization of the Study...... • . 12 Notes...... 14 II. RELATED STUDIES...... 16 French Research...... 16 NOW Research...... 18 Other Recent Studies...... 21 Earlier Research...... 24 How the Present Study Departs from Previous Studies ...... 28 Notes...... 32 III. METHODOLOGY OF THE S T U D Y ...... 34 The Forced-Choice Technique...... 34 Selection of Elements for the Rating Instrument...... 37 Determination of Applicability of Elements in Describing Real Males and Females • • 38 Determination of a Preference Value for Each Element...... 45 The Grouping of Elements into Triads . . . 45 Notes...... 54

v Chapter Page XV. PRESENTATION OP RESULTS...... '. . 56 Application of the Measuring Instrument by Viewers of Prime-Time Television. • • 56 Cross-Validation Study 81 Favorableness/Unfavorableness of Elements 87

V. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . 90 Implications for Those with Special Interests in the Area of Television Imagery. ••••...••••••••• 103 implications for Further Research. .... 107 Notes.. • • • • • ...... ••••• 110 APPENDICES A ...... Ill B ...... - 113 C ...... 116 D ...... 117 E ...... 121 F ...... 125 G ...... 128 H ...... 129 I ...... 131 J ...... 133 K ...... 136 L ...... 139 M ...... 141 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 144 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1. Top-Bated Television Series in the Columbus, Ohio, Market. 11 2. Combined American Kesearch Bureau and Nielsen Top-Rated Television Series in the Columbus, Ohio, Market, February /March, 1973...... 12 3. DeFleur's Study o£ Occupational Roles on Television. ....•••• ...... • 25 4. Usable Questionnaires for Applicability Data. 42 5. Form A— Descriptions Remaining...... 43 6. Form B— Descriptions Remaining...... 43 7. Significant t*s for Applicability Data. . . . 44 8. Rank-Ordered Preference Values...... 46 9. Age of Respondents Describing TV Characters • 57 10• Education of Respondents Describing TV Characters...... 58 11. Occupation of Respondents Describing TV Characters...... 58 12. Female TV Characters Selected for Descriptions...... 60 13. Male TV Characters Selected for Descriptions. 61 14. Active/Proud/Strong-Willed Triad...... 63 15. Faithful/Sincere/Honest Triad ...... 64 16. Dependable/Real/Loyal Triad ...... 64

vii Table Page 17. Successful/Confident/Productive Triad .... 65 18. Aggressive/Outspoken/Curious Triad. • .... 66 19. Assertive/Efficient/Respected Triad • . • • • 66 20. Kind/Helpful/Mature Triad ...... 67 21. Sympathetic/Independent/Understanding Triad • 67 22. Supportive/Dominant/Just Triad...... 68 23. Ambitious/Consistent/Authoritative Triad. . • 69 24. Open-Minded/Sensitive/Wise Triad...... 69 25. Self-Fulfilled/Personable/Leader Triad. . . . 70 26. Easy-Going/Subjective/Originator Triad. . . . 70 27. Modem/Logical/Materialistic Triad...... 71 28. Practical/Superior/Decisive Triad ...... 72 29. Objective/Systematic/Empathetic Triad .... 72 30. Warm/Compassionate/Protective Triad ..... 73 31. Impulsive/Dogmatic/Optimistic Triad ...... 73 32. Adventurous/Dynamic/Patient Triad ...... 74 33. Arrogant/Intuitive/Tough Triad...... 74 34. Conceited/Sophisticated/Daring Triad...... 75 35. Nosey/Egotistic/Narrow-Minded Triad ...... 76 36. Unorganized/Ambivalent/Erratic Triad. .... 76 37. Selfless/Bubbly/Zany Triad...... 77 38. Loud-Mouthed/Nonsensical/Selfish Triad. . . . 77 39. Irrational/Trite/Unemotional Triad...... 78

v• m • • Table Page 40. Frivolous/Dull/Passive Triad...... 79 41. Scatter-Brained/Simple/Gullible Triad .... 79 42. Yes-Man/Shallow/Naive Triad ...... 80 43. Subservient/Subioissive/Inferior Triad . . • . 80 44. Dumb/Withdrawn/Incorapetent Triad...... 81 45. Elements That Contributed Most to the Significant Chi-Squares ...... 82 46. Hard-Working/Responsible/Persistent Triad . . 83 47. Aggressive/Outspoken/Curious Triad...... 84 48. Impulsive/Dogmatic/Optimistic Triad ...... 85 49. Nosey/Egotistic/Narrow-Minded Triad ..... 85 50. Selfless/Bubbly/Zany Triad...... 86 51. Comparisons of Images Perceived More Appli­ cable to Real Males than to Real Females and the Images Perceived More Applicable to Male Television Characters than Female Television Characters...... 98 52. Comparisons of Images Perceived More Appli­ cable to Real Females than to Real Males and the Images Perceived More Applicable to Female Television Characters than Male Television Characters ...... 100 53. Favorableness/Unfavorableness of Elements Found to be Significant in Describing Television Characters ...... 102

ix CHAPTER X

INTRODUCTION

O wad some Pow'r the gif tie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! — Robert Burns In Vienna, Austria, during the summer of 1971, over a hundred participants from Eastern and Western Europe, the United States, and Canada met for six days to study the media images of females* The consultation, which was sponsored by the World Council of Churches, issued this statement at the close of its sessions: The image of women represented by the mass media has been narrow and destructive. It has insulted us by portraying us as incom­ petent and stupid. It has degraded us by using us as sex objects.. It has distorted our values by implying that we care most about our clothes and our looks. It has limited our aspirations and the hopes of our daughters by implying that we are fit for a few stereotyped roles. It has portrayed us as lovers of men and mothers of children but not as individuals and independent women with values and identi­ ties of our own. At a time when the status of women is changing all over the world, when women's emancipation is becoming a reality, the mass media must not continue the tired old prac- . tices that are symbols of our inferior status. A year later, at the twenty-fourth session of the United Nations, the Commission on the Status of Women

1 adopted resolution 1 CXXZV)s Influence of mass communi­ cation media' on' the- formation of a- new attitude towards the role' of women in present-day society. The resolutionr which was sponsored by Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic, requested the Secretary-General to invite comments from Member States of the United Nations and interested non-government organizations on the subject and to prepare a report of such comments for submission to the Commission at its twenty-fifth session (1973)• The Commission's rationale for inclusion of this topic in the United Nations' agenda was stated in the resolution: Recalling that the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women establishes the urgent necessity of adopting all the measures required to ensure the effective recognition of the equality of men and women, Cons cious of the great influence of mass communication media in the determination of cultural patterns which affect the full development of women, Noting that all the Commission's efforts to promote the advancement of women encounter a serious obstacle in the deep-rooted atti­ tudes in men and women which tend to perpetu­ ate the status quo. Observing that these attitudes are due to cultural patterns which to a certain extent determine their way of thinking and feeling and which are disseminated on a vast scale today as .a result of the technical advances in mass communication media, [The Commission on the Status of WomenJ Resolves to include in the agenda of its twenty-fifth session an item entitled "Influ­ ence of mass communication media on the 3 formation, of a new attitude towards the role of women in present-day society,"2 Also during 1972, the National Organization for Women (NOW) filed petitions with the Federal Communica­ tions Commission against WABC-TV of New York City and WRC-TV of Washington, D.C., asking that their licenses be denied for their failure to ascertain women's needs and interests in programming and for violation of the fair- ness doctrine. According to the’ New York' Times, "the petition [against WABC-TV] is believed to be the first attempt to force the Federal regulatory agency and the public to recognize the role television plays in creating and reinforcing sex-role stereotypes."^ The vice- president of the New York NOW chapter described the type of programming which led to these petitions: A generalized contempt for women is implicit in the entire pattern of programming. From "The Courtship of Eddie's Father" to "The Young Lawyers,” women are domestic drudges and office ancillaries, dependent on men emo­ tionally and economically, their extraordinary incompetence exceeded only by their monumental stupidity. Decision-making, positions of power and leadership, authority and status in the community— these are the province of men only.5 The preceding three examples— the Vienna Consulta­ tion, the United Nations resolution, and the Now peti­ tions— indicate a growing concern for the way in which the mass media communicate about women and their roles in 4 society*. As George Gerbner said, "The organs of mass communication provide the means of selecting, recording, viewing and sharing man's notions of what is, what is important, what is right and what is reflated to what else."6 Feminists agree with Gerbner that the mass media do have an important part in shaping the concepts their audiences have about life, and they feel the media perpetuate stereotypic and biased ideas about women. Betty Friedan has indicated possible consequences of such representation: Is it a coincidence that millions of real girls who have grown up watching televi- sion--and seeing only that emptily "glamorous" housewife image of women*— do not, in high school, have any goal of their own future except being such a passive housewife? Is it partly from lack of any self-respecting image of a woman as a person herself that so many stop their own growth in junior high to start that frantic race to "trap" a main, get preg­ nant in high school, or quit college to take a "housework" job in industry, to put their husbands through medical or engineering school. By seducing real girls into evading the choices, efforts, goals, which would enable them to grow to maturity and full human identity in our soci­ ety, television's image of women is creating millions of unnecessarily mindless, martyred housewives, for whom there may never be a thrill or challenge greater than the dirty kitchen sink.7 While there is no research linking limited goals of high school girls to television viewing, there is evi­ dence that in the United States fewer gifted women than gifted men enter college. About half of the brightest 40 percent of high school graduates go on to college; of the half who stay away, two-thirds are women. More gifted women than gifted men drop out of college, accord­ ing to a study by the National Merit Scholarship Corpora­ tion. Almost 14 percent of the women compared with 9 percent of the men who scored high on the 1957 National Merit Scholarship qualifying test left school.& Women's share of college degrees, which had risen from 19 percent at the turn of the century to almost 41 percent just before World War IX, slid back considerably during the 195 0s but returned to the earlier level in the mid- 1960s. In 1965, women received only one in eleven of the Ph. D.'s awarded.9 Concern for what television may be doing to young females occurs again and again in feminist literature. Midge Kovacs stated that "Television is a wasteland for women. . . . Our daughters require positive images and role models to inspire them, images of independent, achieving women. Instead we get Lucy, Bewitched and Archie Bunker's wife, the Dingbat— mockingly prejudiced images of women."1® Caroline Bird summarized the issue when she said, "Our main quarrel with televi­ sion, of course, is that it does not provide human models for a bright 13-year-old girl who would like to grow up to be something more than an ecstatic floor waxer."11 Pu*TJQ3e of the Study The preceding discussion has Indicated wide Inter- est In the area of media Imagery and Its possible effects. The purpose of this study was to empirically assess the Images of both males and females In prime-time television drama. As will be discussed In Chapter II, much of the research In this area has been Incomplete. Specifically, this inquiry was guided by the following questions: (1) How do the images of males in real life differ from the images of females in real life? How are the Images similar? (2) How do the Images of males in prime-time tele­ vision drama differ from the images of females in prime-time television drama and vice versa? How are the Images similar? (3) How do the images of male television characters differ from the images of males in real life? (4) How do the images of female television charac­ ters differ from the images of females in real life? (5) Which sex has the more favorable television images— males or females? Impoytance' of the Study The importance of this study has been alluded to earlier in this chapter* Yoko Ono and John Lennon summar­ ized much of the criticism of television's treatment of women in one of their 1972 songs: Woman is the nigger of the world . * . We insult her everyday on T.V. And wonder why she has no guts or confidence When she's young we kill her will to be free . . . Woman is the nigger of the world . • .-12 There are a number of critics who believe, without question, that the images of women beamed at viewers daily are limiting and demeaning. But is this view of the treatment of females in television one which is shared by other segments of the viewing audience— non-feminist women, men, college students, and others? Or is this the criticism of a very small, vocal minority? If broadcast­ ers and other media managers, knowingly or unknowingly, are not acting "in the public interest” by presenting females unfairly, as these critics would argue, then evi­ dence is needed. Subjective criticism and incomplete documentation is not enough. ■ ■ It should be noted, however, that "while [the fair­ ness doctrine] cannot be used to compel the outright sup­ pression of offensive television stereotypes, it does ensure a balanced presentation of views; if the licensee presents one side of an issue in his programming, he must- present the other side as well."13 Hopefully, the data which this research will yield will be of value to such groups as the National Organization for Women, .the Fed­ eral Communications Commission, and broadcasters, as they grapple with the issue of extending fairness requirements to entertainment programming. The * author also thinks that the issue of how males are treated in television programming should be addressed. William Fore in his book, image and Impact: How Man Comes' Through in the Mass' Media, examined "the ways the mass media manipulate and distort man's image of himself, his world, and his values• Certainly, Archie Bunker is as stereotypic as Edith Bunker. After spending seven weeks in Europe last year (1972), the author was very interested in the response of Europeans to the images of American male and female television characters. While the critics voice concern over what the media images do to the American, self-image, it is interesting to think about how these television images affect the perceptions of foreign audiences con­ cerning our national Character. And while this research did not focus on foreigners' responses to American television characters, the information derived may prove helpful to those involved in the export of American television 9 programs and -to those in government, such as the United States Information Agency. Such research also seems important if it can alert television viewers, who perhaps have never thought about the idea of imagery before, to the whole notion: The common denominator in this communi­ cation process is not so much content as it is image. The style and feel of the media them­ selves are at least as important as what they "say." The real communication is carried by images, bundles of perception we develop as a result of constant exposure.15 When a viewer perceives the image and what it may be doing to him, he is then able to control or influence the image-make r.

Scope of the' Study The media are numerous and diverse, and any study in this area must have self-imposed limitations. While magazine advertising,1** television commercials,1^ and newspapers,1** for example, have been attacked as per- petuators of stereotypic images of females, this research focused on a definite segment of television program­ ming— the top 17 dramas and situation comedies. A case could be built for examining television shows which have the largest national audiences week after week. Archie and Edith Bunker are a national couple, well-known to most viewers; while Erica and Jeff of the soap opera, 10 "All of My Children," are recognized .by a limited audi­ ence • This is not to negate the impact of daytime tele­ vision programming or of other media, but the prime-time series provided an important starting point for this inquiry into media imagery. The sampling of television shows and characters used in this study was based on a combination of American Research Bureau and Nielsen ratings for the Columbus, Ohio, market during February/March, 1973. Table 1 indi­ cates the top-rated dramas and situation comedies for both American Research Bureau and Nielsen* As might be expected, there were discrepancies among the findings of the two audience research organizations. For example, the Doris Day Show appeared in the Nielsen Top 15, but it did not appear in American Research Bureau's Top 15. To account for such differences, the two rankings were com­ bined (by assigning numeric values to each show); and Table 2 indicates the 17 shows in the top 12 positions. Variety, musical, and talk shows were excluded from this sample because they feature people as themselves and not as fictional characters. While most movies have a dramatic format, they were excluded from the sample because of their fleeting one-shot nature. The images of a movie's characters may be quickly forgotten, but the viewer who has watched a series for months TABLE 1

_ TOP-RATED TELEVISION SERIES IN THE COLUMBUS, OHIO, MARKET

American Research Bureau Nielsen February/March, 1973 February/March, 1973 Total Total Program Homes Program Homes

1. All in the Family 225,000 All in the Family 218,000 2. Hawaii Five-0 195,000 Hawaii Five-0 175,000 3. Cannon 176,000 Sanford and Son 166,000 4. Medical Center 171,000 The Waltons 164,000 5. Obe Waltons 167,000 Medical Center 161,000 6. Maude 161,000 Gunsmoke 156,000 7. Gunsmoke 160,000 Cannon 151,000 *8. Bridget Loves Bemie 150,000 Mary Tyler Moore Show 148,000 *9. Mary Tyler Moore Show 150,000 Maude 147,000 10. Sanford and Son 140,000 Here's Lucy 146,000 • 11. The Bob Newhart Show 133,000 Bob Newhart Show 143,000 12. Here's Lucy 132,000 Doris Day Show 142,000 *13. Partridge Family 131,000 Partridge Family 141,000 *14. Marcus Welby 131,000 Marcus Welby 139,000 15. Bamaby Jones 126,000 Ironside 136,000

*In the cases where the total homes were equal, the rank was based on the total persons viewing: Bridget Loves Bemie, 305,000; Mary Tyler Moore, 299,000; Marcus Welby, 209,000; and Partridge Family, 286,000. 1 2 has the opportunity to form strong images of its charac­ ters •

TABLE 2 COMBINED AMERICAN RESEARCH BUREAU AND NIELSEN TOP-RATED TELEVISION SERIES IN THE COLUMBUS, OHIO, MARKET FEBRUARY/MARCH, 1973 1. All in the Family 2. Hawaii Five-0 3. Medical Center/The Waltons 4. Cannon 5. Gunsmoke/Sanford and Son 6. Maude 7. Mary Tyler Moore Show 8. Bob Newhart Show/Here*s Lucy 9. Bridget Loves Bernie 10. Marcus Welby/Partridge Family 11. Doris Day Show 12. Bamaby Jones/Ironside

Certainly, variety shows and movies, as well as commercials, all contribute to the images projected by television of males and females. However, the continuing series provide the forum for more complete characteriza­ tion and consistency of image. Columbus, Ohio, audience research figures were used, because all subjects utilized in the study reside in this television market.

■ Organization of the Study To answer the questions posed in this chapter, the study was organized in the following manner. Chapter II reviews and evaluates related studies in this area. Chapter III discusses the development of a measur­ ing instrument to access the images of both males and females as portrayed in television. Chapter IV discusses the application of the measuring instrument to prime-time television viewers and the results obtained from that application. Also, Chapter IV presents the findings of a cross-validation study and a favorableness/unfavorable­ ness of words study. Chapter V evaluates the results of the numerous procedures used in the course of the study and states the final conclusions and implications for future research. 14 NOTES

•Hforld Council of Churches Consultation on "The Image of Woman in the Mass Media," Vienna, June 14-19, 1971. ^Margaret K.;Bruce, Assistant Director, Division of Human Rights, and Chief, Section on the Status of Women of the United Nations, sent a copy of resolution 1 (XXIV) to the writer, along with other pertinent information con­ cerning the resolution. Among the articles dealing with license challenges are: George Gent, "Women's Group Challenges WABC-TV's. Renewal," The New York Times, May 2, 1972, p. 87. John Carmody, "WRC-TV vs. NOW:. Of License Renewal and Discrimination," The Washington' Post, September 1, 1972, p. B2. "Women Seek Denial of WRC-TV Renewal," Broadcasting, September 4, 1972, p. 22. "NBC Defends Policies in Female Rights," Broadcast­ ing, December 4, 1972, pp. 38, 40. 4George Gent, op. cit. ^Judith Adler Hennessee and Joan Nicholson, "NOW Says: TV Commercials Insult Women," The New York Times Magazine, May 28, 1972, p. 12. ^George Gerbner, "Communication and Social Environ­ ment," Scientific American, 227 (September, 1972), p. 155. ^Betty Friedan, "Television and the Feminine Mys­ tique," in Television, ed. by Barry G. Cole (New York: The Free Press, 1970), pp. 274-275.

Q Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Woman's Place: ' Options' and Limits in Professional Careers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 19 71), p. 5T. • • ^Margaret Mead and Francis Kaplan (eds.) ,’ American Women (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), p. 27. ^Midge Kovacs, "Women: Correcting the Myths," The New York Times, August' 26, 1972, p. 25. 15 ^Caroline Bird, "What's Television Doing for 50.9% of Americans," TV Guide, February 27, 1971, p. 6. 12 Yoko ' Ono and John Lennon, woman Xs the Nigger of the- World (New York: - Apple. Records, Inc., 1972*. 1 3 ■Nancy E. Stanley, "Federal Communications Law and Women's Rights: Women in the Wasteland Fight Back," The Hastings Law Review, Volume 23 (1971), p. 43. ^William Fore, image and Impact: How Man Comes Through in the Mass Media (New York: Friendship Press, 1970), p. 9. •^Tbid. , p. 7. 16Alice E. Courtney and Sarah Wemick Lockeretz, "A Woman's Place: An Analysis of the Roles Portrayed by Women in Magazine Advertisements," Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 8 (February, 1971) , pp. 92-95. 1 7Anne Tolstoi Foster, "Is That Really Me? Today's Woman Has a Tough Time Recognizing Herself in Those TV Commercials,” TV Guide, June 19, 1971, pp. 18-20. 18Pam Sebastian Kohler, "Objectivity Ends at the Hemline,” The Quill, Volume 60, Number 10 (October, 1972), pp. 25-27. CHAPTER II

RELATED STUDIES

£ French Research In January, 1971, Genevieve Poujol of the French National Institute for the Education of the Masses sur­ veyed 350 French women in an effort to: (1) Reconstitute the images women receive from the mass media, and (2) Know women's reaction vis-A-vis the images. Respondents were asked to select a female image in the media of their choice: newspapers, magazines, tele­ vision, et al. The questionnaire asked them to sketch a portrait of this image with the help of certain questions. The following.is a series of three questions drawn from the questionnaire: What is her emotional situation? In love ' ~ ' ' , loved , deserted , alone ■ • • • • Or what? Give details. Does she follow a profession? If so, which? Give details• Does she have another role in society? If so, what in your view is this role?1 • •. * . • Understanding full well that something of the flavor of these questions may have been lost in the translation from 16 17 French, to English, it still appears that some of the questions are extremely broad, leading, and open to vari­ ous interpretations. After this initial sketch of the "media female," respondents were presented with two identical lists of 31 verbs. The object of the first list was to provide a selection of eight verbs which best described the female media image. The second list was checked for the eight verbs which best described the ideal or "model" image of woman as the respondent would like it to be. The following image of women in the media was drawn from this research: As far as an image is concerned, this survey only gives us the possibility to recon­ stitute one that is made up of bits and pieces. If we keep to the choices we meet most fre­ quently, we can reconstitute a married woman, one who is loved, mother of a family with an outside occupation, but with no other commit­ ment in society, belonging to the middle-class from which she originated and well-off finan­ cially. This woman is shown to be loving, comprehensive, and above all attentive, mas­ terly, sometimes vindicative; she "pulls through" and occasionally she is successful, but above all she collaborates, she tries to please much more than to s e d u c e . 2 Also, the study concludes that "the soci­ ological characteristics of the participants [respondents] are similar to those of the images described and that the model the participants aspire to is not very different from the part played by the woman character studied. . . . 18 The participants seem to have selected characters which had much in common with themselves ^ There are numerous methodological problems with this research. There is no explanation, for example, of how the list of 31 verbs was developed. There is no explanation of the statistical tests enployed (if any) or the method of analysis. There is no evidence or valida­ tion for the summary statements. In short, the survey lacks rigor and can hardly be called research at all. Ms. Poujol's study is included here because it is the only study to date which has attempted to define "how" the character is perceived rather than "what" the character does in the program in terms of occu­ pation or role.

' NOW Hesearch For both the WABC-TV and WRC-TV petitions to deny, NOW conducted detailed monitoring studies of the program­ ming of each station; the WRC-TV monitoring study alone was over 200 pages in length.^ It is impossible to summarize here all of the findings of the NOW research, but mention will be made of a couple of areas under investigation by NOW to give some indication of the methodology and analysis used. In the WRC-TV monitoring study, a content analysis was made of the station's programming from 1 A.M. to l.A.M* for a composite week-of seven days. The purpose of the monitoring was to gain statistical information on the actual numbers of males and females in programming; the races, ages, occupations, and nature of participation of these males and females; and the kinds of subjects discussed*and activities shown during a typical week. Chapters in the study focus on comparisons of the treat­ ment of females and males in commercials; soap operas; children's programming; news; entertainment, talk shows, public affairs, and sports; quiz shows; and dramatic and variety shows• In the chapter entitled, "Comparison of Treatment of Females and Males in Dramatic Programming and Variety Shows Aired By WRC-TV," the following findings were cited 70% of all characters were male; almost 3/4 of the lead characters were male; proportionally more females were secondary characters; 40% of all males were oyer 40, but only 15% of the females were in this age category; only 21% of characters with occupational roles were female; most females were depicted as dependent, helpless and emotionally unstable characters.5 20 In the WABC-TV study, the New York City Chapter of NOW did an analysis of 1,241 commercials utilizing more than 100 monitors who watched WABC-TV programming from April 24 to May 7, 1971, and two weeks in January and February, 1971. The findings were as follows: 42.6 percent of women in commercials were involved in household tasks; 37.5 percent were domestic adjuncts to men; 16.7 percent were sex objects; and 9.3 percent were shown as autonomous people, leading independent lives of their own.6 One of the problems with the NOW research, according to American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., is that subjec­ tive monitors, who were very involved with the Women1s Liberation Movement categorized character portrayals in advertising and programming. "The NOW presentation is clearly lacking in objectivity. Despite its elaborate detailing of the 'qualifications' of its monitors, its program allegations show such an advocate bias as to fall well outside the broadest definition of 'facts.'"^ The National Broadcasting Company, Inc. echoed the same criticism in their response to the NOW petition to deny renewal of WRC-TV*s license: "Petitioners' program monitoring studies are seriously defective. The studies were carried out by persons with a strong bias against WRC-TV. Those persons were required to make many 21 subjective judgments and even the subjective results are presented in a misleading manner.”** In terms of what NOW is trying to prove, it would appear that this system of categorization does not com­ pletely reveal the female image. For example, a woman may be shown in a commercial at the washer bleaching the baby's diapers (which would be categorized as "household tasks”)• But the research does not direct itself to this central question: how is she presented? Is she shown as an idiot who does not know the difference between Brand A or Brand B, or is she presented as a competent, fulfilled homemaker?

Other Recent Studies The summer, 1972, issue of the Journal' of Broad­ casting contained an article entitled, "The Image of Women in Network TV Commercials.” Its purpose was "to describe how women are portrayed in television ads, and how their portrayal contrasts with that of men."** Two monitors analyzed a sample of a week's worth of prime-time televi­ sion commercials appearing on the network flagship sta­ tions in New York. Their conclusion was similar to the one found by the NOW study of commercials: . . . In the world of the television commer­ cial, women are housewives or low-level employ­ ees— never do they combine employment with man­ agement of their homes and personal lives. 22 When she does appear, the typical female is a young housewife, pictured in-the home, helping to sell some product found in the kitchen or bathroom. Those women. that are shown away from home relate to people in a service role, either as a stewardess on an airplane, or as a secretary in an office. And occasionally, an attractive model is seen advising other women how they too can look beautiful. If we view the results from the perspec­ tive of someone in the feminist movement, we find that in general, their criticisms are well taken. The image of the female, as shown in these ads, is in line with conventional stereo­ types. Commercials presenting the image of the "modem" woman are virtually non-existent.3-0 A study of sex representation in television drama was reported in the spring, 1973, issue of the Journal of Broadcasting. Seggar and Wheeler monitored data from a total of 250 half-hour units of late afternoon (after 3:30 P.M.), evening, and weekend television over a five- week period. Observations were made of 1,830 persons in which activities revealed occupational status. "A major finding was that of the total 1,830 portrayals, 81.7% were male, and only 18.3% female. Only two female Chicanos were portrayed, and no American Indian women were portrayed. "3-1 An analysis of the occupations portrayed by the characters indicated the limited imagery males and females received: 29.1% of all white males were shown as physicians, policemen, musicians, servicemen, and govern­ ment diplomats. 23 42.3% of the British males were portrayed as guards, musicians, writers, physicians and servicemen; . over 50% of the male Chicanos and blacks were shown in five occupations, and most were service- oriented jobs ; over 50% of females in every group (blacks, British, Chicanos, Europeans, and whites) were portrayed in five 'occupations: secretary, nurse, stage/dancer, maid and m o d e l . -*-2 Occupation and sex representation in television soap operas was reported in Public Opinion Quarterly (Summer, 1972) by Natan Katzman. During a four-week span, observ­ ers coded the participants in one episode per week of each of fourteen soap operas; 371 different characters were described.^

As the reader will recall, Seggar and Wheeler found that in late afternoon, evening, and weekend drama, only 18.3% of the characters portrayed were female; while the remainder were. male. Katzman found that of the 371 char­ acters in daytime serials, 192 were male and 179 were female. 4 This roughly equal proportion of the sexes was consistent over all the shows; however, the sexes were not evenly distributed when occupation was considered. Katzman stated: The occupations assigned to characters provided the clearest indication of the soap operas' concept of the roles of the sexes. Of males with identified occupations— including "student" and "child"— 60 percent were doctors, lawyers, or businessmen. Less than 5 percent 24 of the women were in these categories; but 62 percent of the women were nurses , secre­ taries, or housewives, and about 45 percent worked to earn money.. Although the working woman is an accepted part of the serials, her role is typically one of stereotyped feminine labor.15

Earlier Research In 1964 Melvin DeFleur reported his study of occu­ pational roles portrayed on televisionHe was con­ cerned with television as a learning source about jobs for children. He studied 250 half-hours of late after­ noon, evening, and weekend programming which depicted people interacting in modem settings, where recpgnizable work or occupational activities were being carried out. Among his many findings was the following: Over all, the world of work on televi­ sion is a man's world. It tends also to be a man's world in the actual labor force, but the distribution of the sexes is more unequal for television. Among the televised workers, 83.9 percent were males and only 16.1 percent were females. In the Indiana labor force, 68.9 percent of the workers were males' and 31.1 per­ cent were females. (With more than two million workers in the Indiana labor force, the statis­ tical significance of even very small differ­ ences is great.)17 Nine years later, the figures were almost the same: Seggar and DeFleur (1964) Wheeler (1973) Male Portrayals 83.9 percent 81.7 percent Female Portrayals 16.1 percent 18.3 percent 25 It appears that women Improved some in terms of represen­ tation in total portrayals since 1964. However, women constitute 51.3 percent of the population;*® an obvious underrepresentation exists. But the more interesting difference between DeFleur's study and the Seggar-Wheeler study is found in the breakdown of occupations between males and females.

TABLE 3 DEFLEUR'S STUDY OF OCCUPATIONAL ROLES ON TELEVISION

Televised Portrayals Categories Male ‘ Female 1. Professional, technical, and kindred workers 29.8 37.2 2. Farmers and farm managers 0.5 0.0 3. Managers, officials, and proprietors (except farm) 33.1 7.1 4. Clerical and kindred workers 2.5 28.6 5. Sales workers, retail and other 1.1 0.0 6. Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers 3.6 8.6 7. Operatives and kindred workers 5.5 5.7 8. Private household workers 4.9 11.4 9. Service workers 13.9 0.0 10. Farm laborers and foremen 0.0 0.0 11. Laborers (except farm and mine) 1.6 0.0 12. Occupations not reported 3.5 1.4 Total ioo.o. 100.0

Table 3 indicates that women were shown in profes­ sional portrayals (37.2 percent) more than their male counterparts (29.8 percent). While women were shown more often than males in clerical positions (28.6 percent), 26 DeFleur indicated that television approached reality most closely in its portrayal of clerical and kindred workers because women occupied 29.6 percent of the Indiana cler­ ical labor force (the setting for the study) .3'9 However, it does appear that women were presented in less stereo­ typic occupations in 1964 than as they are presented today. A 1961 doctoral dissertation by Richard H. Bell also bears relevance to the topic at hand. One of Bell's purposes was to "determine whether any consistent image of the American character is presented in contemporary network television drama.To accomplish that goal, Bell analyzed 192 programs. He grouped characters as protagonists, adversaries, or supporting characters. The protagonists were male 85.4 percent of the time, and in most cases (57.8 percent) the adversary was male.^3. Though women were not the center of action. Bell did examine the husband-wife relationship and the dominance of women in television dramas. In terms of the question of who is most dominant in television marriages, Bell found the following:‘ 1 22 Percentage of Those Programs Showing Family Portrayals Wife-mother dominant 40.2 Husband-father dominant 24.5 Equal—no dominance 7.8 Lone male heading family 27.4 Total 99.9 27 Of the dominant males, one—fourth were of foreign extrac­ tion, reducing the dominant Anglo-Saxon husband-father to 18.7 percent.23 Of least frequency is the situation in which the husband and wife have equality, with neither dominating (7.8 percent). Equality of the sexes appar­ ently did not apply very often in the 1961 television culture. ■ However, when single women were considered, Bell found a somewhat different picture:2^ Percent of Total Programs Women obviously dominating men 16.5 Women subtly influencing men 22.8 Women subordinate to men 44.1 Women equal to men 1.0 Not applicable 15.6 Total 100.0 Bell draws the conclusion that in television "women seem V to gain strength when they marry. They can then dominate more openly." 2 5 Bell's study did not provide information about the occupational roles of the females studied. Finally, a study, conducted by Sydney Head in 1952, examined 209 programs with 1,023 major characters; 68 percent of these characters were male.2® During the early days of television, reality (where the population was roughly 50-50 males and females) and the television world came closest to being similar, though females were still notably underrepresented. 28 Head also found that, of the -television population having identifiable occupations , the following were the largest groups:

17 percent were engaged in police and protective work 17 percent were in professional crime 11 percent were housewives 10 percent were in the professions*? He did not break the salaried occupations into sex categories. This very early study of television content contains very little applicable data concerning women— except, that number^wise, women were represented more than at any time since.

How the Present Study Departs from Previous Studies The present research attempts to eliminate some of the problems of the previous studies. (1) A broader cross-section of the population serves as evaluators of the images. In the case of the NOW moni­ toring studies of WRC-TV programming, "Many of the moni­ tors were members of local chapters of the National Organ­ ization for Women or other women's rights groups such as the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the Washington Feminists, and the Women's Equity Action League. However, there were some monitors not affiliated with any women's rights group. 29 It is the contention of this paper that the NOW monitors, who volunteered time and services without com­ pensation (programming was monitored from 7 A.M. to 1 A.M. for seven days), had a deep commitment to women's rights and a vested interest in the study's outcome. While deliberate distortion of data on their part is not implied, the evaluation of implicit data, rather than explicit data, is a highly subjective activity and sub­ ject to personal bias. What the present study adds to the previous findings is an analysis of the images of male and female characters as perceived, for example, by those not affiliated with the feminist movement and by those opposed to feminist goals. (Chapter III discusses the individuals queried.) Such diversity in viewpoint provides a more balanced view of what constitutes the images of males and females in television. (2) Bias on the part of the evaluator of the' media image is- reduced or eliminated. Whether the evaluator of the media image is pro-feminist, anti-feminist, or neu­ tral, knowledge that a study concerns stereotyping, net­ work bias, or controversial issues can affect the find­ ings. The measuring instrument developed by this study bears resemblance to the forced-choice technique. 30 The theory underlying this Instrument is that the Individual Is asked to make a choice among three alterna­ tives , each of which appears to him or her to be equally preferable or equally undesirable. The Individual is unable, because of the equal preference values of the items, to discern which item is the more desirable for him or her to choose. Hence there is a reduction in bias. At no time in the course of the study was this researcher a participant—subject evaluating media content. Many of the previous studies— Seggar/Hheeler, Katzman, Bell, DeFleur and others— employed the researcher as coder/interpreter. (3) An emphasis on quantitative categorization of male and female roles rather than an understanding of the person's' image in the role is eliminated. The rating scale provides descriptions of how persons are portrayed in television rather than what they are portrayed as doing. For example, categorizing persons as secretaries, physicians, sales personnel, and so forth is immaterial to this study. Rather, the rating scale indicates if the image of the character was perceived by the audience as competent or incompetent, logical or illogical, intelli­ gent or unintelligent, and the like without regard to the kind of job or role held. 31 In many of the previous studies, false connections were made between roles and occupations of media characters and the images perceived and formed by audience members. (4) In addition to contrasting the image of men as opposed to the image of women,' this' study examines how the television images of both males and' females is different from or congruent with' the1 images of men and women in "real1* life. As one New York Times Magazine reader expressed it in a letter to the editor: The vast majority of American women— especially housewives over 30— do not actively participate in the Women's Liberation Movement. Xn fact, most seem content with their role as wife, mother, and housekeeper. And that, of course, is exactly the female image portrayed on TVi Xf and when the majority— or a sizable minority— of women actively support Women's Liberation, advertisers will revise their cam­ paigns accordingly. Until then, they will appeal to’ real people , not to ideals . ^ "" (Underscoring added.) ’ Xf this Times reader is correct, then one really cannot be critical of the networks who present women pre­ dominantly in domestic roles. However, if the manner in which females in domestic roles is presented is vastly different from the manner in which "real" housewives and mothers are perceived, then perhaps a case of stereotyp­ ing and bias can be built. An integral part of this research is assessing what the images of males and females are in real life. 32 NOTES

1 M s . Poujol's research, was presented at the 1971 Vienna consultation. A summary of this work was made available to the writer by Frances S. Smith of the Depart­ ment of Communication, World Council of Churches, Geneva. These questions were taken from "The Image of Woman in the Mass Media Questionnairep. 5. "Resume of the Provisional Report on the Survey Carried Out in Francer” 1971 Vienna consultation,. p. 2. 3Xbid., p. 3. ^National Organization for Women, Women- in the Wasteland Fight Back's ‘ A' Study of the Image- of Women in TV Programming (National Organization for Women, NCA-NOW, 1736 R Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009, 1972). ^Ibid., p. 148. ^Hennessee and Nicholson,' op.' cit. , p. 12. *^In re American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Opposi­ tion of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. to "Petition to Deny" of National Organization for Women, F.C.C. File No. BRCT-221, 1973, p. 69. Q In re National Broadcasting Co., Inc., Opposition of National Broadcasting Company, Inc. to "Petition to Deny," F.C.C. File No. BRCT-7, 1972, p. 8. ^Joseph R. Dominick and Gail E. Rauch, "The Image of Women in Network TV Commercials," Journal of Broadcasting, Volume 16, Nuiriber 3 (Summer, 1972), p. 260. 10Ibid., p. 265. ^John F. Seggar and Penny Wheeler, "World of Work on TV: Ethnic and Sex Representation in TV Drama," Journal of Broadcasting, Volume 17, Number 2 (Spring, 1973), p. 204. 12Ibid., pp. 211-212. 13Natan Katzman, "Television Soap Operas: What’s Been Going on Anyway?," Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 36, Number 21 (Summer, 1972), p. 208. 33 14 Ibid. 15Ibid., p. 209. ^Melvin DeFleur, "Occupational Roles as Portrayed on Television,"' Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 28, Number 1 (Spring, 1964), pp. 57-74. 17Xbid., p. 65. 18 United States Summary of General Population Charac­ teristics, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970. 19 DeFleur, op.' cit., p. 65. 20 Richard H. Bell, "A Study of the Image of the Amer­ ican Character as Presented in Selected Network Televi­ sion Dramas" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1961), p. 4.

21Ibid. , P- 118. 00 H 22Ibid., P* • 23Ibid., P* 113. 24 . Ibxd., P- 99. 25Ibid., P* 115. 26Sydney W. Head Drama Programs," The Quarterly of Film, Radio and Tele­ vision , Volume 9 (1954-1955), p. 181. 27Ibid., p. 182. 2**Women in the Wasteland Fight Back, op. cit. , p. 5. 29 Thomas Haskett, Letter to the Editor,' The' New York Times Magazine, June 18, 19 72, p. 4. CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The Forced-Choice Technique Mention has already been made of the need to develop a measuring instrument which reduces bias in ratings of television characters by the subject-coder. The forced-choice technique was developed originally to reduce bias and distortion in rating scales. According to Travers, the idea originated with A. P. Horst, and R. J. Wherry has been active in its development.1 To combat the tendency to rate individuals highly in employment performance, the forced-choice method has been used widely in the field of personnel.. As an approach to employee evaluation, forced-choice methodol­ ogy has been utilized with varied and diverse occupations including retail store managers,2 canteen servicemen,3 state highway patrolmen,^ city policemen,^ salesmen,® clerical personnel,7 industrial supervisors,® military officers,9 medical personnel,10 and student dormitory counselors.11 Likewise, the methodology has been adapted to measure workers' perceptions of supervisory expectations, 34 35 to evaluate supervisors1 human relations attitudes and techniquesto develop self-administering personality teststo detect college students who are over- and under-achievers,2-5 and to judge speech effectiveness.15 In the development of a forced-choice rating instrument, several steps have been agreed upon by research workers in the area. As a frame of reference for the method under development in the present study, an outline of the steps generally used in developing forced- choice instruments will be given. The rating instrument proposed departs in a number of ways from these tradi­ tional steps. Sisson has described the steps in detail, ^ and Guilford has described them as follows: 1. Descriptions are obtained concerning persons who are recognized as being at the highest and lowest extremes of the performance con­ tinuum for the particular group to be rated. 2. Descriptions sure analyzed into simple behavior qualities, stated in very short sentences or phrases or by trait names, which may be called elements. Elements are used to construct items. 3. Two values are determined empirically for each element; a discrimination value and a preference value. The discrimination value is an index of validity (as determined by an item-analysis procedure), and the preference value is an index of the degree to which the quality is valued by people like the raters who will use the instrument. 4. In forming an item, elements are paired. Two statements or terms with about the same high preference value are paired, one of which is valid and the other not. Both should have "face validity" for the rater, i.e., the rater should think that they cure both favorable for superior performance in the group rated. Two statements or terms with about equally low preference value are also paired, one being valid and the other not • 5. Two pairs of statements, one pair with high preference value* and the other with low prefer­ ence value, are combined in a tetrad to form an item. The reason for this kind of combination is that although the average rater will hot object to picking one of two favorable descrip­ tions for a person whom he knows, he sometimes balks at picking one of two unfavorable descriptions. Sometimes a fifth, neutral, description is added to form a pentad, but this is less common. 6. The instruction to the rater is prepared. The rater is to react to each tetrad as an item, saying which one of the four best fits the ratee and which one of the four is least appropriate. 7. An experimental form of the instrument is tried out in a sample for which there is an outside criterion, for the purpose of validating the responses when the descriptions are set up in this form. Discriminating responses are deter­ mined, and, if desired, differential weights are assigned. 8. A scoring key is devised, based on the results in step 7. Ordinarily, a valid, favorable trait marked as most descriptive of the ratee receives a positive weight, also a valid, unfavorable trait judged as least descriptive.*18 The procedure described above is modified consider­ ably in the present research, as will be indicated in the discussion which follows. It should be made clear that the instrument under development shares some of the steps

i 37 In forced-choice instrument: construction but that it is not a true forced-choice scale.

Selection of Elements' for the Rating instrument T The first step in developing a collection of items for inclusion in the measuring instrument was to have a group of individuals who would do the actual rating write descriptions of the individuals to be rated. As previ­ ously stated, the instrument is used to measure the images of males and females during prime-time television. Therefore, lists of all continuing male and female char­ acters in the top sixty-four television shows were pre­ sented to college-student raters.*-® See appendices A and B. As the reader will recall, continuing characters in variety and musical shows were excluded, because this study focuses on the images of fictional characters in dramatic programs and situation comedies. Each rater was asked to write a description of a character of his or her own choosing from the lists. Appendix C is a copy of the instructions given to each student. Sixty-three descrip­ tions were used which had been written by students in undergraduate communication courses at The Ohio State University. Only one student in the classes was unable to write a description because of a lack of familiarity with television content. 38 The descriptive essays and lists were examined; over a hundred elements were extracted. Particular atten­ tion was given in this analysis to the frequencies with which certain elements appeared in several different descriptions, and a count was kept of the frequency with which the elements appeared in the descriptions• To these elements taken from the student essays were added items drawn from selected feminist literature which had focused on media treatment of f e m a l e s . 2° it is important to this study to determine not only if the tel­ evision image of males and females is different, but if the image of females is less favorable than that of males. The feminist criticism of media treatment of females pro­ vided a fruitful source for the less preferred adjectives and trait names.

Determination of Applicability of Elements in Describing Real Males and Females' A list of 140 elements from the student essays and feminist literature was divided into two samples: Form A contains 70 elements and Form B contains 70 elements. See appendices D and E— "Descriptions of People." The items were selected randomly for inclusion in each series. Form A and Form B questionnaires were presented to the following subject groups: (1) Co-operative Club of Lawrence County, Ohio— The 39 members of this club hold to many of the traditional val­ ues associated with, woman's role in society— volunteer service to the community, skill in homemaking, and family life before a career. The range of ages of members is late twenties to the sixties. (2) National Organization for Women, Columbus, Ohio — The members of this group are committed to bringing about change in the status of women .in America. The age range of members in the Columbus Chapter is late teens to fifties. (3) Men in the Evening Division of Franklin Univer­ sity, Columbus, Ohio— These male subjects were drawn from three classes: Corporate Finance (two sections) and Real Estate Principles. These individuals are not typical college students? all work full-time in varied occupa­ tions. The age range of these subjects is twenties to fifties. (4) College students. The Ohio State University— Students in three sections of Speech 110, Group Discus­ sion, were queried; the age range was 17-25 years of age. The preceding groups were chosen' because it was de­ cided that the sample needed to contain portions of the population other than college students to achieve as repre­ sentative a sample as possible. An effort was made on two occasions to gather data from senior citizens at Wesley-Glen 40 Retirement Center and Westminster Terrace Senior Retire­ ment Home, both, in Columbus. Unfortunately, the forms were too difficult for the majority of residents sur­ veyed. Many had problems with lapses of memory and vision. Only a few usable questionnaires were collected/ so this data was excluded from analysis. In terms of the education of the respondents , no questionnaires were gathered from individuals with less them a twelfth grade education; and several of the respondents with a high school diploma or a high school diploma with a year or two of additional study (business or technical school) had difficulty with the question­ naire. The vocabulary is sophisticated. In terms of occupation, the subjects are spread across several job categories: officials and managers, professionals, tech­ nicians, sales, office and clerical, craftsmen (skilled), operatives (semi-skilled), laborers (unskilled), service workers, housewives, and students. Forms A and B instructed the respondents to describe a male or female they knew well by indicating the applicability of each element in describing the per- • son on this five-point scale: A— very little or no applicability at all B— slightly applicable C— moderately applicable D— very applicable E— completely or almost completely applicable 41 Each, respondent indicated the applicability of 70 ele­ ments in describing the person being thought of. In selecting a person to describe, several guide­ lines were offered. The respondent was asked not to describe a member of his immediate family or someone with whom he had shared or was sharing a romantic relation­ ship. It was felt that such closeness might provide a distorted view of the applicability of certain words to all males and females. Also, since this part of the study was aimed at providing data on how real males and females are perceived, respondents were asked not to describe fictional characters from novels, movies, tele­ vision and the like. Finally, the respondents were restricted from describing persons under 18 years of age; because this study contrasts the image of real adult males and females with the image of adult television characters. Prior to beginning the descriptions, in each group the writer asked for a show of hands to determine if the respondents were describing persons they approved of, as well as those they disapproved of. There is a tendency to describe the approved person; in each situation the writer requested that some respondents not describe an approved person but one they disapproved. This procedure 42 was employed -to insure that less desirable elements would have some applicability. Table 4 indicates the usable questionnaires obtained; some questionnaires had to be excluded because of the failure of the respondent to complete key first paqe items.

TABLE 4 USABLE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR APPLICABILITY DATA Form A Form B Totals Co-operatxve Club 9 11 20 National Organization for Women 13 12 25 Men in the Franklin Evening Division 35 22 57 College students 38 36 74 Totals ¥5 5T T75*

It is also important that there are balanced ' descriptions of males and females in terms of approval/ disapproval. This is to avoid a possible charge that negative descriptions were obtained of one sex, while positive descriptions were obtained of the other. Both Form A and Form B contained a five-point scale of approval/disapproval where the respondent indicated how, in an overall view, he felt about the person described. Prior to administration of statistical tests, Forms A and B were matched so that there were equal num­ bers of males and females at each point in the five-point 43 approval/disapproval scale to achieve the necessary bal­ ance. Tables 5 and 6 Indicate the snatching.

TABLE 5 FORM A—-DESCRIPTIONS REMAINING Females Males Totals . Approve 1 9 9 18 2 7 7 14 3 2 2 4 4 6 6 12 Disapprove 5 4 4 8 Totals 28 28 56

TABLE 6 FORM B— DESCRIPTIONS REMAINING Females Males Totals Approve 1 9 9 18 2 11 11 22 3 2 2 4 4 9 9 18 Disapprove 5 2 2 4 Totals 33 33 66

T-tests.were computed for each of the 140 elements, with sex as the independent variable, to determine which elements were used significantly more to describe females than to describe males and vice versa. A .05 level or better was required for significance. Table 7 indicates that only three elements were used significantly more to describe females than males— outspoken, bubbly, and 44 dependent:— by the respondents . Seven elements were used significantly more by the respondents to describe males than females— aggressive, arrogant, conceited, daring, egotistic and modem. It would be expected that chance alone would have produced 7-8 significant t's; therefore, these 10 t's may or may not represent real differences.

TABLE 7 SIGNIFICANT T'S FOR APPLICABILITY DATA Elements More Male Female Level of Applicable to Men Mean Mean t Significance aggressive 3.857 3.071 -2.2368 .05 arrogant 3.179 2.250 -2.1177 .05 conceited 2.893 2.000 -2.0847 .05 daring 2.964 2.286 -2.1034 .05 egotistic 3.214 2.143 -2.6877 .02 modern 3.429 2.692 -2.2017 .05 yes-man 2.273 1.625 2.2604 .05 Elements More Applicable to Women outspoken 3.091 3.848 -2.2200 • 05 bubbly 1.679 2.786 3.5673 .001 dependent 2.037 2.821 2.1713 .05

"Yes-man,” as an element significantly more appli­ cable to males than females, may come as a surprise to the reader. However, it should be noted that many of the NOW women did not apply the term, "yes-man," .to any women because it contained the suffix "man" as part of the term. If the term had been "yes-woman," then it may have had more applicability in describing females. 45 Of Interest was this finding that so few terms were found to be culturally related to sex distinction. In everyday speech, it is not uncommon to hear someone say, for example, that men are logical while women are illog­ ical and that women are emotional while men are unemo­ tional. This data would seem to indicate that while these generalizations are widespread, they did not hold when respondents described specific males and females.

Determination of a Preference Value • for" Each Element The next step was to determine preference values by combining the mean applicability scores for both males and females for each element. Sisson refers to the pref­ erence value as "the extent to which people in general tend to use it in describing other people.The aver­ age of the two means for each element was then computed; and all elements were rank-ordered, as shown in Table 8 which begins on the next page. In Table 8, the higher the mean value assigned to an item, the greater the pref­ erence of that item in describing real men and women, according to the respondents.

The Grouping of Elements into Triads The list of rank-ordered elements in Table 8 was divided into 35 groups of four elements each, as a first TABLE 8

RANK-ORDERED PREFERENCE VALDES

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability • Total Element ' for Females for Males Means

1. strong-willed 3.758 3.939 3.848 2. proud 3.697 3.788 3.742 3. knowledgeable 3.758 3.667 3.712 4. active 3.536 3.786 3.661 , 5. alert 3.571 3.750 3.660 6. persistent 3.844 3.455 3.649 7. responsible 3.630 3.607 3.618 8. hard-working 3.679 3.536 3.607 9. honest 3.758 3.455 3.606 10. sincere 3.515 3.667 3.591 11. self-respecting 3.516 3.636 3.576 12. faithful 3.815 3.320 3.567 13. loyal 3.667 3.444 3.555 14. real 3.760 3.346 3.553 15. dependable 3.593 3.500 3.546 16. curious 3.515 3.576 3.545 17. productive 3.576 3.455 3.515 18.confident • 3.429 3.536 3.482 19. outspoken 3.848 3.091 3.469 20. successful 3.500 3.429 . . 3.464 21. aggressive 3.071 3.857 3.464 22. competent 3.607 3.321 3.464 23. matter-of-fact 3.303 3.576 3.439 24. perceptive 3.333 3.536 3.434 25. interesting 3.485 3.364 3.424 26. respected 3.500 3.303 3.401 TABLE 8 — continued

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability Total Element for Females for Males Means

27. efficient 3.429 3.357 3.393 28. assertive 3.115 3.652 3.383 29. mature 3.444 3.321 3.382 30. helpful 3.485 3.273 3.379 31. kind 3.593 3.143 3.368 32. articulate 3.400 3.286 3.343 33. forward 3.111 3.571 3.341 34. understanding 3.333 3.333 3.333 35. independent. 3.321 3.321 3,321 36. sympathetic 3.485 3.152 3.318 37. just 3.423 3.214 3.318 38. dominant 3.214 3.393 3.303 39. supportive 3.419 3.156 3.287 40. quick 3.000 3.536 3.268 41. authoritative 3.071 3.464 3.267 42. consistent 3.321 3.179 3.250 43. witty 3.364 3.121 3.242 44. ambitious 2.929 3.536 3.232 45. rational 3.303 3.152 3.227 46. defensive 3.333 3.091 3.212 47. intellectual 3.286 3.107 3.196 48. stable 3.281 3.091 • 3.186 49. wise 3.212 3.152 3.182 50. sensitive 3.273 3.091 3.182 51. open-minded 3.303 3.061 3.182 52. bold 2.857 3.464 3.160 53. worldly 3.094 3.219 3.156 54. leader 3.091 3.212 3.151 TABLE 8 — continued

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability Total Element for Females ‘ for Males' Means

55. personable 3.148 3.148 3.148 56. self-fulfilled 3.031 3.242 3.136 57. excitable 3.407 2.857 3.132 58. origination 3.121 3.094 3.107 59. subjective 3.281 2.909 3.095 60. easy-going 3.000 3.179 3.089 61. sentimental 3.091 3.063 3.077 62. materialistic 2.879 3.242 3.060 63. logical 2.939 3.182 3.060 64. modem. 2.692 3.429 3.060 65. emotional 3.333 2.741 3.037 66. decisive 2.923 3.148 3.035 67. superior 3.188 2.875 3.031 68. practical 2.976 3.091 3.030 69. empathetic 3.174 2.792 2.983 70. funny 2.964 2.964 2.964 71. systematic 3.094 2.818 2.956 72. objective 2.970 2.879 2.924 73. protective 2.938 2.903 2.920 74. compassionate 3.143 2.679 2.911 75. idealistic 2.938 2.879 2.908 76. warm 3.192 2.607 2.899 77. optimistic 2.857 2.926 2.891 78. dogmatic 3.034 2.733 2.883 79. soft/gentle 2.970 2.788 2.879 80. impulsive 2.750 3.000 2.875 81. patient 2.818 2.758 2.788 82. dynamic 2.536 3.037 2.786 TABLE 8 — continued

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability Toted Element ' for Females for Hales Means 83. adventurous 2.536 3.036 2.786 84. prejudiced 2.625 2.939 2.782 85. nurturant 2.720 2.833 2.776 86. flexible 2.821 2.714 2.767 87. fulfilled 2.645 2.875 2.760 88. domestic 2.750 2.750 2.750 89. tough 2.938 2.545 2.741 90. conformist 2.727 2.719 2.723 91. intuitive 2.625 2.818 2.721 92. arrogant 2.250 3.179 2.714 93. narrow-minded 2.781 2.606 2.693 94. egotistic 2.143 3.214 2.678 95. nosey 2.576 2.727 2.651 96. daring 2.286 2.964 2.625 97. compliant 2.696 2.542 2.619 98. sophisticated 2.556 2.679 2.617 99. insecure 2.464 2.679 2.571 100. nervous 2.545 2.455 2.500 101. sexy 2.607 2.385 2.496 102. yielding 2.219 2.758 2.488 103. conceited 2.000 2.893 2.446 104. dependent 2.821 2.037 2.429 105. follower 2.607 2.231 2.419 106. erratic 2.370 2.321 2.345 107. ambivalent 2.095 2.571 2.333 108. unorganized 2.121 2.485 2.303 109. deceptive 2.032 2.485 2.258 110. zany 2.258 2.226 2.242 TABLE 8 --continued

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability Total Element ' for Females ' for Males’ Means

111. bubbly 2.786 1.679 2.232 112. selfless 2.233 2.212 2.222 113,. selfish 2.077 2.333 2.205 114. nonsensical 2.696 2.542 2.198 115. loud-mouthed 2.455 1.909 2.182 116. shy 2.500 1.857 2.178 117. hindrance 2.419 1.931 2.175 118. unemotional 1.970 2.364 2.167 119. trite 2.516 2.033 2.094 120. irrational 1.964 2.214 2.089 121. passive 1.879 2.273 2.076 122. neurotic 2.091 2.032 2.061 123. dull 1.857 2.250 2.053 124. frivolous 2.038 2.043 2*040 125. gullible 2.071 2.000 2.035 126. simple 1.970 2.031 2.000 127. scatter-brained 2.121 1.879 2.000 128. unambitious 1.906 2.091 1.998 129. naive 1.806 2.125 1.965 130.. ' shallow 2.152 1.758 1.955 131. yes-man 1.625 2.273 1.949 132. illogical 1.893 2.000 1.946 133. inferior 1.857 2.036 1.946 134. inarticulate 1.788 2.063 1.925 135. submissive 1.962 1.833 1.897 136. subservient 1.818 1.909 1.863 137. incompetent 1.667 1.818 1.742 138. withdrawn 1.515 1.848 1.681 TABLE 8 — continued

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability Total Element for Females for Hales' Means 139. hypochondriac 1.481 1.792 1.605 140. dumb 1.519 1.556 1.537 52 step in preparing the rating scale for television charac­ ters. These groups of four words (tetrads) were pre­ sented to 19 subjects who were instructed to check the one word in each group which was most unlike or different from the others. See Appendix F— "Semantics Study.11 This procedure to reduce the groups to triads . was neces- : sary,' because the equal preference value of words does not always indicate likeness among the words nor does it mean similar desirability. For example, a group of four words with equal applicability, values might be: zany, rational, wise and practical. Zany obviously does not fit with the other three words, despite their equal applicability in describing people. Therefore, zany would be. eliminated from the group. An added benefit in this reduction procedure is that triads are easier for subjects to handle than tetrads. The subjects involved in this "Semantics Study" were all graduate students or holders of at least a master's degree. It was felt that subjects skilled in the verbal area were needed. Not every group required the elimination of a word because in some cases all the words seemed to fit equally according to the subjects. With 19 subjects it would be expected that each of the four elements would be checked four to five times. As a guide in reducing the tetrads. each time one of the four elements was checked at least seven times as being most unlike the others it was elim­ inated. As a result.of this procedure, the following 29 elements were eliminated: knowledgeable, alert, self- respecting, interesting, articulate, forward, quick, witty, defensive, bold, worldly, excitable, sentimental, emotional, funny, idealistic, soft/gentle, prejudiced, nurturant, conformist, follower, deceptive, shy, hin­ drance, neurotic, unambitious, illogical, inarticulate, and hypochondriac. Appendix J represents the measuring instrument developed to assess the images of male and female charac­ ters during prime-time television. 54 NOTES

^R. M. W. Travers, "A critical review of the valid- ity and rationale of the forced-choice technique," Psychological Bulletin, 1951, 48, 62-70. 2 Erwin K. Taylor, Dorothy E. Schneider, and Hubert Clay, "Short Forced-Choice Ratings Work,” Personnel Psy­ chology., 1954, Volume 7, pp. 245-252. 3 Robert J. Wherry, "An Evaluative and Diagnostic Forced-Choice Rating for Servicemen," Personnel' Psychol­ ogy, 1959, Volume 12, pp. 227-236. 4 Sherwood H. Peres, "A Diagnostic Forced-Choice Evaluation * of Highway Patrolmen” (unpublished Ph.D. dis­ sertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1958). 5 Norman E. Stander, ”An Evaluative and Diagnostic Forced-Choice Rating Scale for Policemen" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1960). 6 Erwin K. Taylor, Dorothy E. Schneider, and Nancy A. Symons, "A Short Forced-Choice Evaluation Form for Sales­ men," Personnel Psychology, 1953, Volume 6, pp. 393-402. 7 Horace W. Ray, "Development of a Forced-Choice Rating Scale for Evaluating the Performance of Clerical Personnel" (unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1959). 8 Marion W. Richardson, "Forced-Choice Performance Reports: A Modern Merit Rating Method,"' Personnel’, 1949, Volume 26, pp. 205-212. ~ “ g E. D. Sisson, "Forced-Choice— The New Army Rating," Personnel Psychology, 1948, Volume 1, pp. 365-381. ^®S. Newman, M. S. Howell, and F. j. Harris, "Forced- Choice and Other Methods for Evaluating Professional Health Personnel," Psychological' Monographs, 1957, Number 439. ■^Leonard Staugas and Louis L. McQuitty, "A New Application of Forced-Choice Ratings," Personnel' Psychol­ ogy, 1950, Volume 3, pp. 413-424. 55 12 Roger Lr Harrisonr "Workers' Perceptions and Job S u c c e s s Personnel Psychology# 1959, Volume 12, pp* 619-625. 13 Solomon L. Schwartz and N. Gekoski, "The Supervis­ ory Inventory: A Forced-Choice Measure of Human Rela­ tions Attitude and Technique,"' Journal of Applied Psy­ chology, 1960, Volume 44, pp. 233-236. “ ^Leonard V. Gordon, "A Comparison of the Validities of the Forced-Choice and Questionnaire Methods in Person­ ality Measurement" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1950)• 15 Carrie Jean Wherry Waters, "Construction and Vali­ dation of a Forced-Choice Over- and Under-Achievement Scale" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio. State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1959). 16Keith Brooks, "The Construction and Testing of a Forced Choice Scale for Measuring Speaking Achievement," Speech Monographs, Volume 24 (March, 1957), pp. 65-73. 17 Sisson, op. cit. 18 J. P. Guilford, Psychometric Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954), p. 275. “ ^ Variety, October 18, 1972, p. 28. 20 The following articles were surveyed for items: Alice Smbree, "Media Images .1: Madison Avenue Brainwashing— The Facts," in Sisterhood is Powerful, ed. by Robin Morgan (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), pp. 175-191. Betty Friedan, "Television and the Feminine Mys­ tique," in Television, ed. by Barry G. Cole (New York: The Free Press, 1970), pp. 267-275. Caroline Bird, "What's Television Doing for 50.9% of Americans?," TV Guide, February 27, 1971, pp. 5-8. Anne Tolstoi Foster, "Is That Really Me? Today's Woman Has a Tough Time Recognizing Herself in Those TV Commercials," TV Guide, June 19, 1971, pp. 18-20. Judith Adler Hennessee and Joan Nicholson, "NOW Says: TV Commercials Insult Women," The New York' Times Magazine, May 28, 1972, pp. 12-17. 21Sisson, op. cit. CHAPTER XV

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Chapter III discussed the methodology Involved in the development of a measuring instrument to assess the images of male and female television characters. This chapter considers the application of that instrument by viewers of prime-time television and the results of that application. Also, the methodology and results of a cross-validation study are presented. Finally, the find­ ings of a procedure to determine the favorableness/ unfavorableness of terms is considered.

Application of the Measuring Instrument by Viewers Of Prime-Time Television Two hundred people responded to the measuring instruments 128 males and 72 females. In an effort to achieve as much sample representativeness as pos­ sible, subjects were drawn from numerous sourcess the employees of several companies (Realty National Corpora­ tion, Citation Life of Ohio, and The Columbus Foundation), students enrolled in The Ohio State University law school and two classes in the Department of Communication (Group

56 57 Discussion and The Communication of Ideas and Attitudes) reservists of the Ohio National Guard, housewives in a Lutheran church circle group, members of the Women's Equity Action League, and evening students of three classes at Franklin University (Retailing, Corporate Finance, and Real Estate Principles). Table 9 indicates the ages of the respondents who . participated in this segment of the study:

TABLE 9 AGE OF RESPONDENTS DESCRIBING TV CHARACTERS Age Groups Number 18-25 years old 100 26—35"'years old 83 36-45 years old 10 46-55 years old 4 56-65 years old — 66+ years old 1 Age not given ■ 2 Total 2UJ7T

While the majority of the respondents were between 18 and 35 years of age, there was much diversity in terms of their educations and occupations. Table 10 indicates that roughly 75 percent of the respondents had some education . beyond high school. About one-fourth of the subjects were college graduates. Table 11 indicates the wide-range of occupations of the respondents. 58 TABLE 10 EDUCATION OF RESPONDENTS DESCRIBING TV CHARACTERS Last Year of School Completed Number 10 years or less 1 11 years - 1 12 years (high school diploma) 40 college freshman year or one year technical or business 25 college sophomore year or two years technical or business 33 college junior year 56 college graduate 31 Master's Degree 8 Work beyond Master's 4 Not given 1 Total

TABLE 11 OCCUPATIONS OF RESPONDENTS DESCRIBING TV CHARACTERS Job Categories Number Officials and managers 11 Professionals 12 Technicians 24 Sales 12 Office and clerical 51 Craftsmen (skilled) 6 Operatives (semi-skilled) and Laborers (unskilled) 7 Service workers 8 Housewives/homemakers 20 Full-time students.or unemployed 46 Not given 3 Total 2tRT

While this researcher cannot claim the kind of rep­ resentativeness a random sample would have produced, this group of 200 Columbus, Ohio, residents provides a more balanced group of coders/interpreters than those of pre­ vious studies in this area. It is felt that their views of what constitutes the media images of males and females will be more complete than the studies where a few moni­ tors coded and interpreted images. Each subject was asked to look over either a list of female television characters (Appendix G) or a list of male television characters (Appendix H), noting those characters he had seen at learnt 5 to 10 times. These lists consist of the continuing characters in the. top- rated shows listed in Table 2, page 12. Continuing char­ acters are those characters who occupy central positions in the program and around whom the story evolves in most cases. The subject was then asked to choose one charac­ ter he felt he knew well.enough to describe. In each group situation, the researcher was careful to insure that about half of the subjects chose male characters and about half chose female characters. As a result, 101 male descriptions and 99 female descriptions were obtained. Table 12 indicates that 18 different female characters were described. Appendix G contained 27 female characters, so no descriptions were obtained for 9 female characters. 60 TABLE 12 FEMALE TV CHARACTERS SELECTED FOR DESCRIPTIONS Number of Characters - Descriptions 1. Edith of "All in the Family" 17 2. Gloria of "All in the Family" 16 3. Olivia of "The Waltons" 4 4. Grandma of "The Waltons" 1 5. Miss Kitty of "Gunsmoke" 5 6.Maude of "Maude" 5 7. Mary of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" 10 8. Rhoda of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" 5 9. Bess of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" 1 io. Phyllis of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" 5 11. Lucy of "Here's Lucy" 4 12. Emily of "The Bob Newhart Show" 3 13. Bridget of "Bridget Loves Bemie" 3 14. Sophie of "Bridget Loves Bemie" 1 15. Consuelo of "Marcus Welby, M.D." 9 16. Shirley of "The Partridge Family” 1 17. Doris of "The Doris Day show” 5 18. Fran of "Ironside" 4 Total 5 7

Edith and Gloria of "All in the Family" had the highest number of descriptions, and this was expected since their program is the top-rated television show. Table 13.shows that their counterparts, Archie and Mike, also received the highest number of descriptions by those respondents describing male characters. Once again, a number of characters were not selected by respondents; 24 male characters were not described. Ideally, there would have been a proportional num­ ber of character descriptions in relation to each show's 61 TABLE 13 MALE TV CHARACTERS SELECTED FOR DESCRIPTIONS Number of Characters Descriptions 1. Archie of "All in the Family" 20 2. Mike of "All in the Family" 10 3. McGarrett of "Hawaii Five-O" 8 4. Ben of "Hawaii Five-O" 1 - 5. Dr. Gannon of "Medical Center" 4 6. John-Boy of "The Waltons" 10 7. Cannon of "Cannon" 8 8. Festus of "Gunsmoke" 1 9. Doc of "Gunsmoke" 3 10. Fred of "Sanford and Son" 8 11. Lamont of "Sanford and Son" 5 12. Arthur of "Maude" 1 13. Lou Grant of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" 9 14. Bob of "The Bob Newhart Show" 2 15. Craig of "Here's Lucy" 1 16. Bemie of "Bridget Loves Bemie" 2 17. Marcus Welby of "Marcus Welby, M.D. " 1 18. Ironside of "Ironside" 6 19. Ed of "Ironside” 1 Total I5T popularity. For example, more descriptions would have been included for the first-ranked show than for the second-ranked show; likewise, more descriptions would be included for the second-ranked show than for the third and so forth. However, this would have been difficult because television shows do not have equal numbers of continuing characters. For instance, "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" has seven continuing characters, while "Cannon" has one continuing character. Too, such a pro­ cedure would have necessitated the discard of much data. 62 After each respondent had Indicated the character he would describe, he was asked to circle the one word in each of 37 triads which he felt was most descriptive of the character selected— see Appendix J. Furthermore, the respondent was instructed that even if none of the words seemed descriptive of the characters, he should circle the one which came closest to describing the character. The questionnaire . data was key-punched onto cards, and chi-squares were confuted for each of the 37 triads with sex as the independent variable. Michigan State University's Nonparametric Statistical Analysis Package (NPAR) , which has been modified for The Ohio State University's l.B.M. 360/75 computer, was used for this analysis. The reader is reminded that each triad contained three elements which have equal preference values in describing real men and women. A non-significant chi- square for a triad indicates that the three elements also equally apply to male and female television characters• Out of 37 triads, only six were non-significant. (Later in this chapter, results of a cross-validation study will be presented which verify the precision of the measuring instrument.) This indicates that male and female charac­ ters were perceived quite differently by the subject viewers. A discussion follows which indicates the specific differences for each triad with a significant chi-square. Table 14 shows that "active” was the element con­ tributing most to the significant chi-square. "Active” was used most often by the respondents to describe female characters• This departure from expected frequency indi­ cated a major difference in the respondents* perceptions of the characters, and it contributed to the very high chi-square of 24.5913 which is significant beyond the .001 level.

TABLE 14 ACTIVE/PROUD/STRONG-WILLED TRIAD Strong- Males Active Proud Willed Observed 20.00 26.00 55.00 Expected 36.86 20.70 43.43 Difference - -16.86 + 5.30 +11.57 Females Observed 53.00 15.00 31.00 Expected 36.13 20.29 42.57 Difference +16.87 - 5.29 -11.57 Chi-square = 24.54913, p = < 0.0000

Table 15 shows that "honest,” as an element more applicable in describing male characters, was the term that contributed most to the chi-square of 9.77865 which was significant beyond the .01 level. 64 TABLE 15 FAITHFUL/SINCERE/HONEST TRIAD Males Faithful Sincere ' Honest Observed 14.00 39.00 ' 48.00 Expected 17.67 45.95 37.37 Difference - 3.67 - 6.95 +10.63 Females Observed 21.00 52.00 26.00 Expected 17.32 45.04 36.63 Difference 4-3.68 + 6.96 -10.63 Chi-square *» 9.77865, p » < 0.0075

Table 16 points out that "loyal1* was the term selected by the respondents as more descriptive of female characters, while "dependable" and, to a lesser extent, "real" have more applicability in describing males. How­ ever, the departure from expected frequency for the term, "loyal," contributed most to this chi-square which was significant beyond the .001 level.

TABLE 16 DEPENDABLE/REAL/LOYAL TRIAD Males Dependable Real Loyal Observed 39.00 46.00 - 16.00 Expected 30.30 42.42 28.28 Difference +8.70 +3.58 -12.28 Females Observed 21.00 38.00 40.00 Expected 29.70 41.58 27.72 Difference - 8.70 - 3.58 +12.28 Chi-square = 16.42928, p =■ < 0.0003 65 Table 17 shows that "confident” was more descrip­ tive of male characters, while "productive” described females more aptly. "Successful” had almost equal appli­ cability in describing male and female characters. How­ ever, ”confident” was the element that contributed most to this significant chi-square.

TABLE 17 SUCCESSFUL/CONFIDENT/PRODUCTIVE TRIAD Males Successful Confident Productive Observed 11.00 74.00 16.00 Expected 11.11 63.13 26.76 Difference - .11 +10.87 -10.76 Females Observed 11.00 51.00 37.00 Expected 10.89 61.88 26.23 Difference + .11 -10.88 +10.77 Chi-square = 12.53402, p ** < 0.0019

Table 18 indicates that "curious" more aptly described female characters, and it was this element that contributed most to the significant chi-square of 14.86662. Table 19 indicates that "assertive" had more appli­ cability in describing males, while "efficient" had more applicability in describing females. "Respected" had almost equal applicability; to a slight extent, it applied more to females than males. However, "assertive" 66 was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square.

TABLE 18 AGGRESSIVE/OUTSPOKEN/CURIOUS TRIAD Kales Aggressive Outspoken curious Observed 26.00 54.00 21.00 Expected 21.21 45.95 33.83 Difference +4.79 + 8.05 -12.83 Females Observed 16.00 37.00 46.00 Expected 20.79 45.04 33.16 Difference - 4.79 - 8.04 +12.84 Chi-square =* 14.86662, p = < 0.0006

TABLE 19 ASSERTIVE/EFFICIENT/RESPECTED TRIAD Kales Assertive Efficient Respected Observed 48.00 21.00 32.00 Expected 39.89 27.77 33.33 Difference + 8.11 - 6.77 - 1.33 Females Observed 31.00 34.00 34.00 Expected 39.10 27.22 32.67 Difference - 8.10 +6.78 +1.33 Chi-square - 6.77224, p = < 0.0338

Table 20 demonstrates that "kind" was more descrip­ tive of female characters; while "mature” and, to some extent, "helpful" were more descriptive of male 67 characters • "Kind" was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square.

TABLE 20 KIND/HELPFUL/MATURE TRIAD Males Kind • Helpful : Mature Observed 29.00 25.00 47.00 Expected 46.96 21.71 32.32 Difference -17.96 + 3.29 +14.68 Females Observed 64.00 18.00 17.00 Expected 46.03 21.28 31.68 Difference +17.97 . - 3.28 -14.68 Chi-square = 28.35689, p = < 0.0000

Table 21 shows that "sympathetic" had greater appli* cability in describing female characters, while "indepen­ dent" and "understanding" applied more to men.

TABLE 21 SYMPATHETIC/INDEPENDENT/UNDERSTANDING TRIAD Males Sympathetic Independent Understanding Observed 15.00 47.00 39.00 Expected 33.33 34.34 33.33 Difference —18.33 +12.66 + 5.67 Females Observed 51.00 21.00 27.00 Expected 32.67 33.66 32.67 Difference +18.33 -12.66 - 5.67 Chi-square = 31.74249, p - < 0.0000 "Sympathetic,■ however, was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square. Table 22 indicates that according to the respond­ ents, "supportive" was more descriptive of female charac­ ters and that this element contributed most to the chi- square of 31.74249 which was significant beyond the .001 level.

TABLE 22 SUPPORTIVE/DOMINANT/JUST TRIAD Males supportive Dominant Just Observed 15.00 47.00 39.00 Expected 33.33 34.34 33.33 Difference -18.33 +12.66 + 5.67 Females Observed 51.00 21.00 27.00 Expected 32.67 33.66 32.67 Difference +18.33 -12.66 -5.67 Chi-square ® 31.74249, p *» < 0.0000

Table 23 points out that "authoritative" had more applicability in describing male characters. It was the element contributing most to the significant chi—square. Table 24 indicates that "wise” had more applicabil­ ity in describing males, and "sensitive" was more descrip­ tive of females. "Open-minded" was used almost equally in describing male and female characters. However, "wise” 69 was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square.

TABLE 23 AMBITIOUS/CONSISTENT/AUTHORITATIVE TRIAD Males Ambitious ' Consistent Authoritative Observed 20.00 35.00 46.00 Expected 24.74 45.45 30.80 Difference - 4.74 -10.45 +15.20 Females Observed 29.00 55.00 15.00 Expected 24.25 44.55 30.19 Difference + 4.75 +10.45 -15.19 Chi-square *= 21.83379, p =* < 0.0000

TABLE 24 OPEN-MINDED/SENSITIVE/WISE TRIAD Males Open-Minded ' Sensitive Wise Observed 33.00 47.00 21.00 Expected 33.84 53.02 14.14 Difference - .84 - 6.02 + 6.86 Females Observed 34.00 58.00 7.00 Expected 33.16 51.97 13.86 Difference + .84 + 6.03 -6.86 Chi-square « 8.14812, p » < 0.0170

Table 25 shows that "personable" more aptly described female characters and that this element con­ tributed most to the significant chi-square. 70 TABLE 25 SELF-FULFILLED/PERSONABLE/LEADER TRIAD Self- Not Males Fulfilled Personable ' Leader Given Observed 37.00 37.00 26.00 1.00 Expected 29.29 52.01 19.19 .50 Difference + 7.71 -15.01 -I- 6.81 + .50 Females Observed 21.00 66.00 12.00 0.00 Expected 28.71 50.98 18.81 • 49 Difference - 7.71 •<■15.02 -6.81 - .50 Chi-square ® 18.71861, p = < 0.0003

Table 26 indicates that "easy-going" was more descriptive of female characters, while "originator” was more descriptive of male characters. "Subjective" was used about equally in describing both males and females, although it had somewhat more applicability in describing

TABLE 26 EASY-GOING/SUBJECTIVE/ORIGINATOR TRIAD Males Easy-Going Subjective originator Observed 45.00 22.00 34.00 Expected 54.03 20.20 26.76 Difference - 9.03 + 1.80 + 7.24 Females Observed 62.00 18.00 19.00 Expected 52.96 19.80 26.23 Difference + 9.04 - 1.80 - 7.23 Chi-square = 7.32694, p » < 0.0256 71 males. However, "easy-going" was the term that contrib­ uted most to the significant chi-square. Table 27 shows that "modern" was more descriptive of female characters and that this element contributed most to the significant Chi-square.

TABLE 27 MODERN/LOGICAL/MATERIALISTIC TRIAD Males Modern Logical Materialistic Observed 20.00 51.00 30.00 Expected 35.35 41.91 23.73 Difference -15.35 + 9.09 + 6.27 Females Observed 50.00 32.00 17.00 Expected 34.65 41.08 23.26 Difference +15.35 - 9.08 - 6.26 Chi-square = 20.78435, p = < 0.0000

Table 28 indicates that "practical" was more descriptive of female characters than of male Characters. This element contributed most to this very high chi- square of 33.81482 which is significant beyond the .001 level. Table 29 demonstrates that "systematic" was more applicable in describing male characters than female characters. 72 TABLE 28 PRACTICAL/SUPERIOR/DECISIVE TRIAD Males Practical Superior Decisive Observed 35.00 17.00 49.00 Expected 55.04 13.63 32.32 Difference -20.04 +3.37 +16.68 Females Observed 74.00 10.00 15.00 Expected 53.95 13.36 31.68 Difference +20.05 - 3.36 -16.68 Chi-square = 33.81482, p = < 0.0000

TABLE 29 OBJECT IVE/SYSTEMATIC/EMPATHETIC TRIAD Ma3-e3 Objective Systematic ' Empathetic Observed 37.00 38.00 26.00 Expected 39.39 28.28 33.33 Difference - 2.39 +9.72 - 7.33 Females Observed 41.00 18.00 40.00 Expected 38.61 27.72 32.67 Difference +2.39 -9.72 +7.33 Chi-square = 10.29870, p « < 0.0058

Table 30 shows that "protective" was more descrip­ tive of males, while "warm” and "compassionate" were more descriptive of .females. However, "protective" was the element that contributed most to the significant chi- square • 73 TABLE 30 HARM/COMPASSIONATE/PROTECTIVE TRIAD Males Warm ' Compassionate Protective Observed 25.00 30.00 46.00 Expected 31.81 36.36 32.82 Difference -6.81 - 6.36 . +13.18 Females Observed 38.00 42.00 19.00 Expected 31.18 35.64 32.17 Difference +6.82 +6.36 -13.17 Chi-square = 15.87949, p «* < 0.0004

Table 31 shows that "dpgmatic" had more applicabil­ ity in describing male characters, while "optimistic” was more descriptive of females. "Impulsive” was used by the respondents almost equally to describe both male and female characters. "Dogmatic,” however, was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square.

TABLE 31 IMPULSIVE/DOGMATIC/OPTIMISTIC TRIAD Males Impulsive Dogmatic Optimistic Observed 41.00 23.00 37.00 Expected 41.91 14.14 , 44.94 Difference - .91 +8.86 - 7.94 Females Observed 42.00 5.00 52.00 Expected 41.08 13.86 44.05 Difference + .92 -8.86 +7.95 Chi-square = 14.09297, p « < 0.0009 74 Table 32 points out that "patient" was signifi­ cantly more descriptive of female characters than of male characters*-

TABLE 32. ADVENTUROUS/DYNAMIC/PATIENT TRIAD Males ' Adventurous ' Dynamic ' Patient Observed 41*00 30.00 30.00 Expected 34*34 27*77 38.88 Difference -I- 6.66 + 2.23 - 8.88 ■ Females Observed 27.00 25.00 47.00 Expected 33.66 27.22 38.11 Difference -6.66 -2.22 +8.89 Chi-square - 7.07085, p - < 0.0291

Table 33 indicates that "intuitive" was signifi­ cantly more descriptive of female than of male characters.

TABLE 33 ARROGANT/INTUITIVE/TOUGH TRIAD Males Arrogant Intuitive Tough Observed 31.00 35.00 35.00 Expected 24.74 52.01 24.24 Difference + 6.26 -17.01 +10.76 Females Observed 18.00 68.00 13.00 Expected 24.25 50.98 23.76 Difference - 6.25 +17.02 -10.76 Chi-square — 24.08752, p = < 0.0000 75 Table 34 indicates that "conceited" was more descriptive of male characters, while "sophisticated" was more descriptive of female characters. "Oaring" appeared to have about equal applicability in describing male and female characters. However, "conceited" was the element that contributed most to the significant chi- square .

TABLE 34 CONCEITED/SOPHISTICATED/DARING TRIAD Males Conceited Sophisticated Daring Observed 36.00 24.00 41.00 Expected 21.32 38.07 41.62 Difference +14.68 -14.07 - .62 Females Observed 6.00 51.00 41.00 Expected 24.68 36.93 40.38 Difference -14.68 +14.07 + .62 Chi-square ** 31.11041, p = < 0.0000

Table 35 shows that "nosey" was more descriptive of female characters, while "egotistic” was more descrip­ tive of male characters. "Narrow-minded" had almost equal applicability in describing male and female charac­ ters. "Nosey," however, was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square. Table 36 indicates that "unorganized" was used significantly more by the respondents to describe female 76 characters than to describe male characters

TABLE 35 NOSEY/EGOTISTIC/NARROW-MINDED TRIAD Narrow- Males Nosey ' Egotistic Minded Observed 35.00 45.00 21.00 Expected 44.44 36.36 20.20 Difference - 9.44 + 8.64 + .80 Females Observed 53.00 27.00 19.00 Expected 43.56 35.64 19.80 Difference + 9.44 - 8.64 - .80 Chi-square = 8.26264, p = < 0.0161

TABLE 36 UNORGANIZED/AMBIVALENT/ERRATIC TRIAD Males Unorganized Ambivalent Erratic Observed 19.00 42.00 39.00 Expected 28.14 39.20 32.66 Difference - 9.14 +2.80 +6.34 Females Observed 37.00 36.00 26.00 Expected 27.86 38.80 32.34 Difference +9.14 - 2.80 - 6.34 Chi-square - 8.84245, p = < 0.0120

Table 37 shows that "bubbly" was more descriptive of female characters, while "selfless" was more descrip­ tive of male characters. "Zany" had almost equal applica­ bility in describing male and female television characters 77 "Bubbly ," however, was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square.

TABLE 37 • * , * _ •+ r SELFLESS/BUBBLY/ZANY TRIAD Males Selfless • * Bubbly ’ zany Observed 45.00 31.00 25.00 Expected 34.84 41.91 24.24 Difference +10.16 -10.91 + .76 Females Observed 24.00 52.00 23.00 Expected 34.15 41.08 23.76 Difference -10.15 +10.92 - .76 Chi-square = 11.76907, p = < 0.0028

Table 38 points out that "nonsensical" departed from the expected frequency by +20.70 in its applicability in describing female characters. This large departure

TABLE 38 LOUD-MOUTHED/NONSENSICAL/SELFISH TRIAD ‘ Males ■ Loud-Mouthed Nonsensical Selfish Observed 65.00 19.00 16.00 Expected 49.25 39.70 11.06 Difference +15.75 —20.70 + 4.94 Females Observed 33.00 60.00 6.00 Expected 48.75 39.30 10.94 Difference -15.75 +20.70 - 4.94 Chi-square = 36.26875, p = < 0.0000 78 contributed most to the very high chi-square of 36.26875 which Is significant beyond the .001 level Table 39 indicates that "unemotional" was signifi­ cantly more descriptive of male characters them of female .characters* ■ ■

TABLE 39 ' IRRATIONAL/TRXTE/UNEMOTIONAL TRIAD Males Irrational Trite unemotional Observed 33.00 30.00 38.00 Expected 42.42 32.32 26.26 Difference 9.42 - 2.32 +11.74 Females Observed 51.00 34.00 14.00 Expected 41.58 31.68 25. 74 Difference + 9.42 + 2.32 11.74 Chi-square * 15.16558, p *= < 0.0005

Table 40 indicates that "frivolous" was signifi­ cantly more descriptive of female characters than of male characters• Table 41 shows that "scatter-brained" was more applicable in describing female characters* "Simple" and/ to some extent, "gullible,” were more descriptive of male characters. However, "scatter-brained" was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square. TABLE 40 FRIVOLOUS/DULL/PASSIVE TRIAD Males Frivolous DUll Passive

Observed 4 5 . 0 0 1 3 . 0 0 4 3. 00 Expected 5 8 . 5 8 8. 5 8 3 3 . 8 3 Difference - 1 3 . 5 8 + 4 . 4 2 + 9 . 1 7 Females

Observed 7 1 .00 4.00 2 4 . 0 0 Expected 5 7 . 4 2 8 . 4 1 3 3 . 1 6 Difference - M 3 .58 - 4 . 4 1 - 9 . 1 6

Chi-square = 15.96194, p = < 0.0003

TABLE 41 SCATTER-BRAINED/SIMPLE/GULLIBLE TRIAD Scatter- Males Brained Simple Gullible

Observed 1 4 . 0 0 54.00 33.00 Expected 2 7 . 7 7 42.92 3 0 . 3 0 Difference - 1 3 . 7 7 M l . 08 + 2 .70 Females

Observed 41.00 31.00 2 7 . 0 0 Expected 27.22 4 2 . 0 7 2 9 . 7 0 Difference M 3 . 7 8 - 1 1 . 0 7 -2.70 Chi-square - 20.06007, p = < 0.0000

Table 42 demonstrates that "naive" was signifi­ cantly more descriptive of female characters than of male characters. Table 43 indicates that "submissive" was signifi­ cantly more applicable in describing female characters than male characters. 80 TABLE 42 YES-MAN/SHALLOW/NAIVE TRIAD Males Yes-Man ' Shallow Naive Observed 21.00 36.00 44.00 Expected 17.67 27.77 55.55 Difference +3.33 ..'.+ 8.23 -11.55 Females Observed 14.00 19.00 66.00 Expected 17.32 27.22 54.45 Difference - 3.32 - 8.22 411.55 Chi-square =* 11.03565, p “ < 0.0040

TABLE 43 SUBSERVIENT/SUBMISSIVE/INFERIOR TRIAD Males Subservient Submissive inferior Observed 36.00 45.00 19.00 Expected 31.16 55.28 13.57 Difference + 4.84 -10.28 +5.43 Females Observed 26.00 65.00 8.00 Expected 30.84 54.72 13.43 Difference - 4.84 +10.28 - 5.43 Chi-square *= 9.72596, p = < 0.0077

Table 44 indicates that "withdrawn” was more descriptive of male characters, while "dumb" and, to a lesser degree, "incompetent," were more descriptive of female characters. However, "withdrawn" was the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square. 81 TABLE 44 DUMB/WXTHDRAWN/XNCOMPETENT TRIAD Hales Dumb ' Withdrawn Incompetent Observed 18.00 64.00 18.00 Expected 25.25 53.54 21.21 Difference 7.25 +10.46 3.21 Females Observed 32.00 42.00 24.00 Expected 24.75 52.46 20.79 Difference + 7.25 -10.46 + 3.21 Chi-square a 9.32393, p • < 0.0094

To summarize the preceding 31 triad tables, Table 45 indicates which elements applied most to female char­ acters and which applied most to male characters. As the table indicates, 11 elements were used significantly more to describe males, while 20 elements were used signifi­ cantly more to describe females.

Cross-Validation Study It is natural to question if this measuring instru­ ment measures what it purports to measure. In all, 31 of 37 triads were found to be significant at the .05 level or better, and this is a rather high proportion (84 per­ cent) . It was decided that the validity of the instru­ ment had to be checked. For cross-validation purposes, the researcher took the forced-choice instrument used to describe television 82 TABLE 45 ELEMENTS THAT CONTRIBUTED MOST TO THE SIGNIFICANT CHI-SQUARES More Applicable to Male More Applicable to Female ' Television Characters ’ • ' Television Characters honest active assertive curious confident loyal authoritative kind wise sympathetic systematic supportive protective personable dogmatic easy-going conceited modern unemotional practical withdrawn patient intuitive nosey unorganized bubbly nonsensical frivolous scatter-brained naive submissive characters and asked a different group of subjects to use it to describe real people. The rationale being that if a great number of triads were significant in describing real people, then the instrument really did not work. Appendix K is a copy of the questionnaire given to 54 subjects drawn from two classes at Franklin University. The reader will note that the instructions numbered one and two are identical to the instructions given in the forms where respondents were asked to indicate the appli­ cability of certain elements in describing real people on 83 a five-point scale (Appendices D and E) - Subjects were asked in the instruction numbered three to check the one word in each group of three words which was most descrip­ tive of the person being thought off the triads were the same as those used by previous respondents to describe television characters. Only five of the 37 triads proved to be significant at the .05 level or better. This is in sharp contrast to the 31 significant triads which were found when the instrument was used to describe television characters. Table 46 indicates that "persistent" was more descriptive of real males, while "responsible" was more descriptive of real females. "Hard-working" had equal applicability in describing real males and females. This triad was not found to be significant in describing tele­ vision characters, according to the earlier study.

TABLE 46 HARD-WORKING/RESPONSIBLE/PERSISTENT TRIAD Males Hard-Working Responsible Persistent Observed 10.00 4.00 16.00 Expected 10.00 7.78 12.22 Difference 0.00 - 3.78 +3.78 Females Observed 8.00 10.00 6.00 Expected 8.00 6.22 9.78 Difference 0.00 +3.78 - 3.78 Chi-square = 6.75584, p = < 0.0341 84 , Table 47 shows that "aggressive" was more descrip­ tive of real males than of real females. "Aggressive* was also found to be significantly more applicable to real males in the applicability study reported in Table 7; this data cross-validates this other study. This triad was significant in describing television characters as well; however, the element that contributed most to the significant chi-square was "curious," not "aggressive" (see Table 18).

TABLE 47 AGGRESSIVE/OUTSPOKEN/CURIOUS TRIAD Males Aggressive Outspoken Curious Observed 14.00 13.00 3.00 Expected 10.00 13.89 6.11 Difference +4.00 - .89 - 3.11 Females Observed 4.00 12.00 8.00 Expected 8.00 11.11 ,• 4.89 Difference - 4.00 + .89 +3.11 Chi-square = 7.29163, p = < 0.0261

Table 48 shows that "impulsive” was more descrip­ tive of real women, while "dogmatic" was more descriptive of real males• . "Optimistic" had almost equal applicabil­ ity in describing real males and females. This triad was also significant in describing television characters (Table 31); however, "dogmatic"--not "impulsive"— was 85 the element that contributed most to the significant chi- square .

TABLE 48 IMPULSIVE/DOGMATIC/OPTIMISTIC TRIAD Males impulsive • Dogmatic ' Optimistic Observed 6.00 10.00 14.00 Expected 9.44 6.67 13.89 Difference - 3.44 +3.33 + .11 Females Observed 11.00 2.00 11.00 Expected 7.56 5.33 11.11 Difference +3.44 - 3.33 - .11 Chi-square = 6.57847, p = < 0.0373

Table 49 indicates that "egotistic” was more descriptive of real males than of real females. This cross-validates earlier data (Table 7) which indicated

TABLE 49 NOSEY/EGOTISTIC/NARROW-MINDED TRIAD Males Nosey Egotistic Narrow-Minded Observed 4.00 22.00 3.00 Expected 8.21 17.51 3.28 Difference , - 4.21 +4.49 - .28 Females Observed 11.00 10.00 3.00 Expected 6.79 14.49 2.72 Difference +4.21 - 4.49 + .28 Chi-square = 7.36-47, p = <0.0252 86 that "egotistic” had greater applicability in describing real males than in describing reed, females. Table 49 also shows that "nosey” was more descriptive of real females, while "narrow-minded" had almost equal applica­ bility in describing reed, males and females. This triad was also significant in describing television characters (Table 35) r but "nosey"— not "egotistic"— was the element contributing roost to the significant chi-square. Table 50 indicates that "bubbly" was more descrip­ tive of real females than of real males. This cross- validates earlier data (Table 7) which indicated that "bubbly" had greater applicability in describing females than in describing males. This triad was also signifi­ cant in describing television characters (Table 37); "bubbly" is a congruent image for real females and female television Characters.

TABLE 50 SELFLESS/BUBBLY/ZANY TRIAD Males Selfless Bubbly Zany Observed 15.00 5.00 10.00 Expected 12.78 10.00 7.22 Difference +2.22 -5.00 +2.78 Females Observed 8.00 13.00 3.00 Expected 10.22 8.00 5.78 Difference -2.22 +5.00 -2.78 Chi-square — 8.89841, p = < 0.0117 . 8 7 In summary, it would be expected that chance alone might produce three to four significant chi-squares out of the 37 triads. Therefore, the five significant chi- squares in this cross-validation study may or may not represent real differences. However, the point is this: the number of significant chi-squares in the cross- validation study is such a departure from the number of chi-squares in the television characters study as to indicate that major differences exist in the images held of real people and the images held of fictional televi­ sion characters•

Favorableness/Unfavorableness of Elements It is one thing to demonstrate that the images of one group are different from the images of another group, but it is another matter to draw any conclusions concern­ ing which body of images is more favorable. Therefore, a procedure was employed to get at this notion of favor­ ableness/unfavorableness in images. The reader will recall that Table 45 listed those \ elements which were found to be significantly more appli­ cable to male television characters and those elements which were found to be significantly more applicable to female television characters. The researcher combined these two lists and alphabetized the elements into a list 88 of 31 words. Appendix L contains this list of elements together with Instructions. Fifty-one subjects from two classes of an under­ graduate course In the Department of Communication at The Ohio State University were asked to place a minus (-) sign next to the five (5) tralt-adjectlves of 31 which they considered most unfavorable to use in describing people. Likewise, subjects were asked to place a plus (+) sign next to the five (5) trait-adjectives of 31 which they considered most favorable to use in describing people. The remaining 21 words were to be unmarked (left neutral). The theory behind this nomination technique is that people can more validly indicate extremes, but the middle- ground is more difficult to rate. It would be an unreli­ able and probably invalid process for subjects to rank 31 trait-adjectives from most favorable to least favorable. Additionally, the nomination technique was easier to administer. The data from each subject's questionnaire was key­ punched onto I.B.M. cards by indicating a three for each word given a plus (+), a two for each word left blank, and a one for each word given a minus (-). A mean score for each trait-adjective was computed, and then the scores were divided into two samples. Eleven of the 89 elements which were more applicable to female characters formed one sample, and the remaining 20 elements which were more applicable to males formed the second sample. A Mann-Whitney U Test was then administered to these data which yielded a 0 score of 95.50 which has a probability of occurring by chance alone of 0.2745. Such a finding Is non-significant and indicates that there was no significant difference, in terms of favorableness/ unfavorableness, between the overall image of female characters and the overall Image of male characters. CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

There can be little doubt that television is a * , ■’ ubiquitous medium in the United States* It is estimated that 64,800,000 homes in America have television sets and that total television viewing per home per day is six hours and 20 minutes*1 And it was found, as early as the late 1950s, that the typical child spent as much time watching television during the first 16 years of life as he did attending school.2 While researchers have had difficulty in assessing the impact^of such a pervasive medium, Wilbur Schramm has offered an impelling argument against underestimating the contributions to social behavior which the mass media make s • • • If we are willing to concede, that for most of us the mass media function as the pri­ mary link with a large proportion of the "environment," and that changes in this envi­ ronment are. occurring at a rapidly increasing rate, then it is difficult to believe that mass communications do not exert a strong influence on social behavior.3 Likewise, Melvin DeFleur stated in his book, Theories' of' Mass' Communication, that mass communications 91 engender social consequences by creating and/or shaping our Impressions of various aspects of the environment through selective presentation: V . . the media are said to provide a 'defi­ nition of the situation' which the actor believes to be real. This definition pro­ vides guides for action which appear to be approved and supported by society. Therefore, conduct is indirectly shaped by exposure to communications.4 Underlying the present research has been the con­ tention that while television drama is one of a myriad of forces influencing ideas and perceptions of males and females, it is an influence not to be underrated. And while this research has not sought to indicate causal links between the images held of real males and females and those images of males and females presented in drama­ tic programming, it has focused on answering five ’ ^ related questions. It seems appropriate that, prior to discussing these questions and findings, a few general limitations of the study should be mentioned. Over 600 people were involved in six different exercises in this study. For four of these six exercises, an effort was made to get as representative a sample as possible. It was the minimal desire of the author that the samples go beyond the college student population. Subjects from various educational levels, occupations, 92 age groups, and sexes were sought, but random samples were not possible. Another limitation to be considered is that this study centered around 140 elements or non-physical images of males and females. Obviously, 140 images cannot cover the total spectrum of human behavior. It should also be noted that this study did not examine the male and female roles of television charac­ ters , as has the bulk of research in this area. Rather, this study has considered how television males and females (and real males and females) are perceived, irrespective of their roles. This point should be kept in mind as this study's findings are compared to the findings of other researchers in this area. Furthermore, the reader is reminded that the find­ ings contained herein deal only with a part of television — not television as a whole. What may be true of male and female characters during prime-time television drama may not be true for characters in soap operas, advertise­ ments , movies, and other media forms. Each of the five questions, around which this study centered, follows with a discussion of the findings and conclusions. CD' How do the images of males in real' life' differ frow thia images of females ln~ real life? How are' the images similar? As the reader will recall, based on the data con­ tained in 176 questionnaires, it was found that only seven elements out of 140 were perceived significantly more applicable by the respondents to describe males than to describe females: aggressive, arrogant, cpnceited, daring, egotistic, modem, and yes-man. Only three ele­ ments were found to be significantly more applicable to females than to males: outspoken, bubbly, and dependent. (For more detail on these findings, see Table 7.) It was also stated that chance alone would have produced seven to eight significant elements and that these ten signifi­ cant elements may or may not represent real differences. Likewise, for real males and females, no significant dif­ ferences were found in terms of 130 images. This finding compelled attention. To examine these similarities in imagery, the author rank-ordered the preference values, that were equal to or greater than 3.000, of each element or image by sex. Appendix M consists of 78 different elements or images. Of these images, 57 are the same for males and females. Of the remaining elements, 9 different elements applied only to females, while 12 applied only to males• 94 Therefore, 73 percent: of the elements or Images with mean applicabilities. equal to or greater than 3.000 were used to describe both, males and females. In other words, for those images having high applicability in describing males and females r 73 percent were the same for both males and females. The point is this s the low incidence of signifi- 4 cant elements related to sex distinction seems to dispute some of the widely-held generalizations concerning male images and female images. It is not uncommon to hear someone say that women are emotional, illogical, and eas­ ily flustered; while men are unemotional, logical, and calm. Yet this study indicated that many of these stere­ otypes about males and females did not hold up when spe­ cific persons were described by the respondents. An analogous situation may further illustrate this point. Consider the case of male-female drivers. It is not uncommon to hear someone complain about how poorly women drive, yet statistics indicate that women are safer drivers than men. Despite reliable information to the contrary, many people continue with the image of females as poor drivers. It is interesting to wonder if subjects were asked to rate specific male and female drivers they knew as to skill in driving, if one sex would be rated as significantly better drivers. The findings" of this segment of the study suggest additional inquiries into the nature of.generalizations and stereotypes. Suggestions for further research will be indicated later. In summary, in terms of 140 non-physical images used in this study, real males and females were perceived similarly for 130 of these images. Only ten significant differences in imagery were found* The author believes this finding is extremely important because it indicates that the images of males and females in real life are perceived much more alike than different, though the reverse is the notion widely held by many persons. (2) How do the images of males in prime-time tele­ vision drama differ from the images of females in prime­ time television drama and vice versa? How are the images similar? From the 200 forced-choice rating instrument ques­ tionnaires , it was learned that the following eleven . images were significantly more applicable in describing male television characters than in describing female characters: honest, assertive, confident, authoritative, wise, systematic* protective, dogmatic, conceited, unemo­ tional, and withdrawn. Twenty images were found to be significantly more applicable to female television char­ acters: active, curious, loyal, kind, sympathetic. ‘ .;■■■ . 96 supportive, personable, easy-going, modem, practical, patient, intuitive, nosey, unorganized, bubbly, non­ sensical, frivolous, scatter-brained, naive, and sub­ missive. Out of 37 forced-choice triads, 31 were signifi­ cants 11 for males and 20 for females. For only six triads did male and female television characters share common images: hard-working/responsible/persistent, percept!ve/matter-of-fact/competent, s table/intellectual/ rational, domestic/fulfilled/flexible, nervous/insecure/ compliant, and dependent/yielding/sexy. A cross-validation study was conducted to verify the precision of the measuring instrument. It was found that when the instrument was used to describe real people instead of television characters, only five of the 37 triads proved to be significant at the .05 level or bet­ ter. This was in sharp contrast to the 31 of 37 triads found to be significant when the instrument was used to describe television characters. These data indicate that a wide gap exists in the images held of real people and the images held of television characters. The instrument appears to measure what it purports to measure. It is interesting to note the divergent images between male and female television characters. While real males and females were perceived, for the most part, 97 as being similar, .this was not the case rin the world of television male and female characters. For example, "scatter-brained" in real life was not significantly related to sex distinction. Yet, it was significantly more applicable to female television characters them to male characters. SuOh differences are a distortion of reality. If audiences view these distorted images with­ out being aware of their possible inqpact, they may be motivated and conditioned unconsciously as much as or more than they are by what they learn consciously. This finding indicates the need for a study to explore whether the distorted images of male and female television char­ acters contribute to the formation of stereotypes and generalizations about real males and females. In summary, these data indicated that the televi­ sion images of male characters and female, characters were perceived as being more different than alike by the respondents. Also, the television images held of male and female characters are not similar to the images held of real males and females. (3) How do the images of male television characters differ from the images of males in real life? The fact that 11 of the 37 triads, which were com­ posed of elements of equal preference value in describing real males and females, were found to be significant in describing male television characters Indicated differ­ ences In the images of male television characters, as opposed to the Images of real males. Table 51 highlights these differences and .also / indicates that only one element was significantly more applicable In describing both real males and male televi sion characters (conceited) than in describing real females and female television characters.

TABLE 51 COMPARISONS OF IMAGES PERCEIVED MORE APPLICABLE TO REAL MALES THAN TO REAL FEMALES AND THE IMAGES PERCEIVED MORE APPLICABLE TO MALE TELEVISION CHARACTERS THAN FEMALE TELEVISION CHARACTERS More Descriptive More Descriptive of Male Of Real Males'* Te levis ion Characters* * Aggressive Assertive Arrogant Authoritative Conceited ------Conceited Daring Confident Egotistic Dogmatic Modem Honest Yes-man Protective Systematic Unemotional Wise Withdrawn ♦Taken from Table 7. ♦♦Taken from Table 45. 99 (.4)' How' do the Images of female television charac­ ters differ' from ’this Images of females' in real life? Twenty of the 37 triads, which were composed of elements of equal preference values in describing real males and females, were found to be significant in describing female television characters. This indicated major differences between the images of female television

• - characters and the images of real females. Table 52 highlights these differences and also shows that only one element was significantly more appli­ cable in describing both real females and female televi­ sion characters (bubbly) than in describing reed, males and male television characters. The images of female television characters departed more from reality them, did the images of male television characters. But for both male television characters and female television characters, there was a great departure in imagery when compared to real males and real females. While television writers might argue that exaggeration in character portrayals is necessary to sustain interest and that to create characters fashioned after.real people would be boring to watch, the fact remains that these distorted images are contributing to the viewer's "defi­ nition of the situation," as referred to by DeFleur, and to his or her impression of the environment. And if this 100 "definition of the situation" causes the viewer to develop a false, distorted image of real males and females, then such groups as the National Organization for Women do have a strong argument against the stations which fail to air programs "in the public interest."

TABLE 52 COMPARISONS OF IMAGES PERCEIVED MORE APPLICABLE TO REAL FEMALES THAN TO REAL MALES AND THE IMAGES PERCEIVED MORE APPLICABLE TO FEMALE TELEVISION CHARACTERS THAN MALE TELEVISION CHARACTERS More Descriptive More Descriptive of Female of Real Females* Television Characters** Active Bubbly - ■ Bubbly Dependent Curious Outspoken Easy-Going Frivolous - -Intuitive Kind Loyal M o d e m Naive Nonsensical Nosey Patient Personable Practical Scatter-Brained Submissive Supportive . Sympathetic Unorganized *Taken from Table 7. **Taken from Table 45. 1 0 1 C5)' Which: sex has this more favorable television images--males or females? This research, indicated that, among the respondents surveyed, no significant difference was found in the favorableness/unfavorableness of images for male and female television characters in prime-time television dramas. Table 53 indicates the mean score in terms of favorSbleness/unfavorableness for each of 31 elements found to be significant in describing male and female television characters. The higher the mean score, the more favorable the element in describing the character. Table 53 shows that "honest" had the highest mean (2.84), while "conceited" had the lowest mean (1.16); both elements were significantly more applicable in describing male Characters. It should be noted, however, that for each group there were fairly even distributions of means within the range of means. Neither group was top-heavy with low-mean elements or high-mean elements. The Mann-Whitney U statistic did not indicate a significant difference among the two sets of means in terms of favorableness/unfavorableness for the sexes. This is a surprising finding in view of the abundant criticism that women are not treated as favorably as men in television. For example, during the final week of 1 0 2 TABLE 53 FAVORABLENESS/UNFAVORABLENESS OF ELEMENTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT IN DESCRIBING TELEVISION CHARACTERS More Applicable to More Applicable to ■ Males’ * Mean • • ’ Female's' v ; Mean honest 2.84 kind ••• . ^ 2.59 confident 2.39 patient 2.45 wise 2.29 active 2.39 assertive 2.00 personable 2.33 systematic 2.00 loyal 2.29 protective 2.00 sympathetic 2.27 authoritative 1.80 easy-going 2.25 withdrawn 1.78 practical 2.20 unemotional 1.53 curious 2.10 dogmatic 1.51 intuitive 2.10 conceited 1.16 supportive 2.10 . modern 1.96 bubbly 1.94 naive 1.78 frivolous 1.76 submissive 1.75 unorganized 1.75 nonsensical 1.69 scatter-brained 1.59 nosey 1.39

citing this manuscript, an article appeared in TV Guide which stated: Prime-time women continued to be portrayed [after a January f 1973 pilot, built around a female lead, was rejectedj as they had been through the years: at best as professional auxiliaries, at worst as self-denigrating, if amusing idiots in the tradition of' Lucille Ball. If television's reigning first ladies approach reality, it is only to toy with it in the accepted comedic convention.5 This quote is typical of the criticism that television presents unfavorable images of females. However, the 103 present stvjdy does not confirm this position when female characters are compared to male characters. It may be that both, male and female characters are presented unfavorably and that the treatment of male characters has' been overlooked. Or, perhaps, it may be possible to explain this finding in another way. In Chapter I, it was mentioned that many persons are not aware of television imagery and that part of the importance of this study would be in its ability to alert persons to the notion of imagery. It may be that many of the subjects who participated in the study were not aware of the images of characters beamed at them, nor were they aware of any possible stereotypes. It may be that the lack of a significant difference in terms of favorable­ ness/unfavorableness is the result of an unsensitized audience who did not perceive the images. Of course, such an "explanation” needs to be tested, and this has implications for further research which will be discussed later.

Implications for Those' with Special.Interests in the"Area of Television Imagery In light of the findings of this study, the author believes it is fitting to address those who have special interests in the area of television imagery. 104 For broadcasters, particularly those Involved in petitions to deny, care should be exercised in the inter­ pretation of the study's findings* While it was found - that there was no significant difference in the: treatment of males and females in terms of favorableness/ unfavorableness, a possible explanation (the "unsensi- tized" audience) for this finding was also presented* Furthermore, this finding deals only with prime-time tel­ evision drama— not the whole of television* It may be that other types of programming present a different situ­ ation* For example, in a 1970 address before the New York Chapter of American Women in Radio and Television, F.C.C* Commissioner Nicholas Johnson** called television "the single largest purveyor of prejudice and contempt toward women*"^ Commissioner Johnson cited commercials with "gremlins" in the kitchen to sell detergents and knights on white horses to sell cleansers as examples of such "prejudice and contempt" aimed at women* In addi- . tion to advertising, it may be that in other segments of television a significant difference in terms of favorableness/unfavorableness does exist in the images of males and females. For feminists and feminist organizations, such as the National Organization for Women, it should be made clear that this research does not refute the findings of other researchers in the area because the focus of this research has been different. This research has examined hew persons are portrayed in television programs rather than' what they are portrayed as doing. While the issue of favorableness/unfavorableness in the treatnient of males and females will no doubtcontinue to be debated, it has been documented by numerous studies that, by and large, women are not the leading characters in television programs, that their roles are auxiliary, and that a lim­ ited range of roles are occupied by women. Television shows women as housewives, mothers and girl friends; it casts working women in secondary occupations (nurses rather than doctors), in subprofessional jobs (secre­ taries rather than lawyers), and in predomi­ nantly female professions (stewardesses and teachers) . 8 Furthermore, this study has shown that the images of male and female characters are very different from the images of males and females in the real world. Certainly, tele­ vision does not reflect the full-range of possibilities, in terms of roles or personality traits, available to women in real life. The F.C.C. has held until now that controversial Q issues are not raised by entertainment programming and that such programming, therefore, is not subject to requirements imposed by the fairness doctrine: It is simply not an appropriate appli­ cation of the fairness doctrine to say that an entertainment program— whether it be Shakespeare or an action-adventure show— raises a controversial issue if it contains a violent scene and has a significant audi­ ence of children. Were we to adopt your con­ struction that the depiction of a violent scene is a discussion of one side of a con­ troversial issue of public importance, the number of controversial issues presented on entertainment shows would be virtually end­ less (e.g., a scene with a high-powered car; or one showing a person taking an alcoholic drink or cigarette;, depicting women in a soft, feminine or light romantic role) .3 However, because of the NOW petitions, as well as the numerous articles analyzing television stereotypes, the Commission is being asked to reconsider this position. Whether fairness requirements should be extended to entertainment programming remains to be seen, but perhaps this study will indicate the importance of male and female images in entertainment programming to the Commis­ sion as they grapple with the issue. For television viewers in general, and this includes viewers in other countries who look at the images of American males and females through television, this study has indicated that the images of. males and females transmitted daily are not a mirrored reflection of real people. If these images are not satisfactory to viewers, then they can question the images rather than imitate what they see on television. Many viewers. 107 however, do not realize that what they see is not a clear

r.',- picture of this country's people. It is hoped that an outcome of this study will be that more people, who may have never thought of the notion of imagery before, will be alerted to it and its possible effects.

Implications for Further Research While this study has focused on the images of males and females during prime-time television drama, it would be interesting to examine the afternoon soap operas and some children's shows, using the same instrument, to determine the images of males and females in these pro­ grams. Is the distortion greater? Are there significant differences in terms of favorableness/unfavorableness? Of course, there is almost no limit to what could be studied to assess male and female television images— commercials, television movies, news programs, quiz shows, and variety programs to name a few. While much research in this area has examined the roles of television characters, there are still questions to be answered concerning male and female roles on tele­ vision. For example: Is the image of mothers on televi­ sion different from the image of fathers? How does the image of working women on television differ from the image of housewives? Is the image of working men different from-the image of working women on television? The preceding are only a sampling of the many questions which could be asked in such an additional; study of tele­ vision character roles. Identification of overall images or role images, however, does not address itself to a more central ques­ tions how do these images influence behavior? Studies of causality and effects are extremely difficult to design, implement and test. Furthermore, such studies are usually longitudinal in nature by necessity. Never­ theless, studies in this area are needed to go beyond the point of conjecture about what television images do to people. Another implication for further research is in the area of stereotypes and generalizations. This study indicated that the images of real males and females were not significantly different for 130 of 140 non-physical images. If subjects were asked to indicate the applica­ bility of these same 140 elements in describing males and females generally (not a specific person as was done in this study), it would be interesting to see if more images were significantly different. A final area of inquiry might focus on sensitivity to television imagery* The author speculated earlier that a possible explanation for the surprising finding 109 of no significant: difference in the favorableness/ unfavorableness of images of male and female television characters might be that the subjects simply were, not aware of the images and possible stereotypes beamed at them. A way to check this would be by using the measur­ ing instrument again with two groups and then determining again the favorableness/unfavorableness of images. How-

* ever, prior to administration of the instrument, one group would be taught about media imagery. Such teaching . would not focus necessarily on male and female images 7 but rather through example and illustration, it would show how television communicates through style and."feel,* as well as through content. Of course, the second group would not receive prior training about imagery. If the sensitized group's data indicated a significant differ­ ence in terms of favorableness/unfavorableness, then it would appear that learning about imagery is necessary before the images are consciously perceived. *1973 Broadcasting Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: Broadcasting Publications,- Inc., 1973), p . , 12. 2Wilbur Schramm, Jack Lyle and Edwin B. Parker,: TelevlBion' in the Lives or our Children (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963)• *Wilbur Schramm and Donald F. Roberts, eds. / The Process and Effects of Mass Communication (Urbana: Uni- versity of Illinois Press, 1972), p. 520.' ^Melvin L. DeFleur, Theories of Mass Communication (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 19^0), p. 130. c Leonard Gross, "Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man?,"* TV Guide, August 11, 1973, pp. 6-7. £ Though Nicholas Johnson's F.C.C. term expired June 30, 1973, at the time of this writing he is still remaining on the Commission, while President Nixon pon­ ders the choice of his successor. 7George Gent, "F.C.C. Aide Denies Double Standard,” New York Times, March 3, 1970, p. 83. 0 Nancy E. Stanley, "Federal Communications Law and Women's Rights: Women in the Wasteland Fight Back," Hastings Law Journal, Volume 23, Number 1 (November, id 7i) ,P.5in------^Letter to'George D. Corey, 37 FCC 2d 641, 644, 25 RR 2d 437, 440 (1972). APPENDIX A

FEMALE TELEVISION CHARACTERS (29)

Edith (Jean Stapleton) of "All In the Family" Gloria (Sally Struthers) of "All in the Family" Bridget (Meredith Baxter) of "Bridget Loves Bemie" Lucy (Lucille Ball) of "Here's Lucy" Miss Kitty (Amanda Blake) of "Gunsmoke" Mary (Mary Tyler Moore) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Rhoda (Valerie Harper) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Maude (Beatrice Arthur) of "Maude" Carole (Adrienne Barbeau) of "Maude" Doris (Doris Day) of "The Doris Day Show" Emily (Suzanne Pleshette) of "The Bob Newhart Show" Shirley (Shirley Jones) of "The Partridge Family Laurie (Susan Dey) of "The Partridge Family" Jenny (Hope Lange) of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" Jill (Kate Jackson) of "The Rookies" Anne (Shelley Fabares) of "Little People" Liz (Denise Nicholas) of "Room'222" Alice (Karen Valentine) of "Room 222" Millie (Reva Rose) of "Temperatures Rising"

111 Carol (Florence Henderson) of "The Brady. Bunch” Alice (Ann B. Davis) of "The Brady Bunch" Dixie (Julie London) of "EmergencyI" Julie (Peggy Lipton) of "Mod Squad” Barbara (Jane Actman) of "The Paul Lynde Show" ; Martha (Elizabeth Allen) of "The Paul Lynde Show" Sandy (Sandy Duncan) of "The Sandy Duncan Show" Hot Lips (Loretta Swit) of "M*A*S*H" Peggy (Joan Blondell) of "Banyon" Elizabeth (Kami Cotier) of "The Waltons" APPENDIX B

HALE TELEVISION CHARACTERS (6 8 )

Archie (Carroll O'Connor) of "All In the Family" , Mike (Rob Reiner) of "All in the Family" Marcus Welby (Robert Young) of "Marcus Welby, M.D." Klley (James Brolin) of "Marcus welby, M.D," Bemie (David Bimey) of "Bridget: Loves Bemie" Fred (Father, Redd Foxx) of "Sanford & Son" Lamont (Desmond Wilson) of "Sanford & Son" Malloy (Martin Milner) of "Adam-12" Reed (Kent McCord) of "Adam-12" Cannon (William Conrad) of "Cannon" Harry (Gale Gordon) of "Here's Lucy" Matt (James Amessj of "Gunsmoke" Festus (Ken Curtis) of "Gunsmoke" Doc (Milbum Stone) of "Gunsmoke" Erskine (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) of "The FBI" Ward (Philip Abbott) of "The FBI" Lou Grant (Edward Asner) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show Ted Baxter (Ted Knight) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Murray (Gavin MacLeod) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"

113 Walter (Bill Macy) of "Maude” McGarrett (Jack Lord) of "Hawaii Five-0" Danny (James MacArthur) of "Hawaii Five-O" Cy (John Dehner) of "The Doris Day Show" Dr. Gannon (Chad Everett) of "Medical Center" Dr. Lochner (James Daly) of "Medical Center" Bob (Bob Newhart) of "The Bob Newhart Show" Keith (David Cassidy) of "The Partridge Family" Danny (Danny Bonaduce) of "The Partridge Family" Dick (Dick Van Dyke) of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" Mike Danko (Sam Melville) of "The Rookies" Jamison (Brian Keith) of "Little People" Phelps (Peter Graves) of "Mission: Impossible" Barney (Greg Morris) of "Mission: Impossible" Willy (Peter Lupus) of "Mission: Impossible" Mannix (Mike Conners) of "Mannix" Pete (Lloyd Haynes) of "Room 222” Campanelli (James Whitmore) of "Temperatures Rising" Noland (Cleavon Little) of "Temperatures Rising" Ben (Lome Greene) of "Bonanza" Joe (Michael Landon) of "Bonanza" Jamie (Mitch Vogel) of "Bonanza" Candy (David Canary) of "Bonanza" Mike (Robert Reed) of "The Brady Bunch" John-Boy (Richard Thomas) of "The Waltons" Gage (Randolph Mantooth) of "Emergency!" DeSoto (Kevin Tighe) of "Emergency!" Captain Greer (Tige Andrews) of "Hod Squad* Pete (Michael Cole) of "Mod Squad” Line (Clarence Williams III) of "Mod Squad” Paul (Paul Lynda) of "The Paul Lynde Show" Howie (John Calvin) of "The Paul Lynde Show" 4 Felix (Tony Randall) of "The Odd Couple" Oscar (Jack Klugman) of "The Odd Couple” Stone (Karl Malden) of "Streets of San Francisco" Keller (Michael Douglas) of "Streets of San Francisco” Quinn (Tom Bosley) of "The Sandy Duncan Show” Hawkeye ‘(Alan Alda) of "M*A*S*H" Trapper John (Wayne Rogers) of "M*A*S*H" Marshall (Arthur Hill) of "Owen Marshall" Jess (Lee Majors) of "Owen Marshall" Rhodes (Gary Collins) of "Sixth Sense” Banyon (Robert Forster) of "Banyon” McNeil (Richard Jaeckel) of "Banyon” Dr, Cohen (Robert Walden) of "The Bold Ones” Dr. Hunter (Dayid Hartman) of "The Bold Ones" Curry (Ben Murphy) of "Alias Smith and Jones” .Heyes (Roger Davis) of "Alias Smith and Jones" APPENDIX C

TV CHARACTER DESCRIPTIONS

This research Is concerned with audience perceptions of television characters. Would you please choose one (1) television character from the attached list you feel you can describe. Then, in paragraph form or by listing adjectived and/or phrases, describe the character. Do not include physical descriptions (e.g., handsome, pretty, tall, short); rather describe the character*s personality (e.g., smart, dishonest, honest, and the like). Be sure to describe the character portrayed in the pro­ gram and not the actor or actress. The names of actors and actresses are included only in an effort to help you correctly identify a character.

Character chosen: Description:

Use the back of this sheet if necessary 116 APPENDIX D

DESCRIPTIONS OF PEOPLE— Form A

Name...... Age...... Last: year of school completed' ‘ ' Occupation'...... Your sex: male, female

Instructions: 1. . Choose a person you think you know well enough to describe. Do not choose: - a member of your immediate family - someone with whom you have had or are having a romantic relationship - a fictional character (from novels, movies, TV) - a child (the person chosen should be 18 years old or older) 2. The person you choose may be someone you approve of or someone you disapprove of. 3. Indicate the sex of the person you have selected to describe: male, _____ female 4. The following is a scale of approval/disapproval: A B C D E approve ■ disapprove Indicate by circling the point above which best describes how you feel about the person you have chosen to describe. 117 118 For each, term below, Indicate its applicability in describing the person you are thinking about. For exam­ ple, if the term is "silly” and the person you are think­ ing about is not silly at all, then, your answer would be A. On the other hand, if "silly" were a term that did describe the person being thought of, your answer might be D or E. Scale of applicability : A. very little or no applicabil- ■ . ity ac all B. slightly applicable C. moderately applicable D. very applicable E. completely or almost com­ pletely applicable Please write the letter next to each word which best describes its applicability. If any word in the list is one you do not understand or one whose meaning is only partially understood, skip it and leave the space blank.

1. active 13. confident 2 . adventurous 14. consistent 3. alert 15. daring 4. aggressive 16. decisive 5. ambitious 17. hard-working 00 H 6 . arrogant • dominant 7. articulate .... 1 9 # dynamic 8 . assertive 2 0 . egotistic to H 9. authori tative • efficient H o

• bold 2 2 . easy-going 1 1 . competent 23. forward 1 2 . conceited 24. independent 119 Scale of applicability: A. yery little or no applicabil­ ity at all B.. slightly applicable C. moderately applicable D. very applicable E. completely or almost com­ pletely applicable

25. * intellectual 44. impulsive 26. bubbly *••• 45. submissive 27. compassionate ‘ 46. subservient 28. compliant • 47. inferior 29. optimistic 48. insecure 30 . dependent 49. intuitive 31. domestic 50. irrational 32. dull 51. real 33. dumb 52 . shy 34. emotional 53. warm 35. empathetic 54. perceptive 36. erratic 55. ambivalent . 37. excitable 56. kind 38. faithful 57. sophis ticated 39. follower 58. modern 40. frivolous 59. sexy 41. gullible 60. funny 42. hypochondriac 61. quick 43. illogical • 62. just 12 0 Scale 'of applicability: A; very little or no applicabil­ ity at all

1 • ■ rt . I B. slightly applicable ' . c. moderately applicable D. very applicable •• "■■■■ E* completely or almost com­ pletely applicable

J63. loyal 67. flexible

64. personable 68. selfish ' JS5. responsible 69, successful 66. dependable 70 mature APPENDIX E * "• -s DESCRIPTIONS OF PEOPLE— Form B

' ' ' ' ■ ' . . ’ v ' * ' *** ******* + * * * ’ *'' ' * *' • Age' Last year of school completed_ Occupation-...... Your sex: ' ' ' ' male/ ‘ ‘ ' female • • ■ - * ' ">

Instructions: 1. Choose a person you think you know well enough to describe. Do not choose: - a member of your immediate family - someone with whom you have had or are having a romantic relationship - a fictional character (from novels, movies, TV) - a child (the person chosen should be 18 years old or older) 2. The person you choose may be someone you approve of . or someone you disapprove of. 3. Indicate the sex of the person you have selected to describe: male, ______female 4. The following is a scale of approval/disapproval: A B C D E approve ------disapprove Indicate by circling the point above which best describes how you feel about the person you have chosen to describe. For each term below, indicate its applicability in describing the person you are thinking about. For exam­ ple, if the term is "silly" and the person you are think­ ing about is not silly at all, then your answer would be A. On the other hand, if "silly" were a term that did 1 describe the person being thought of, your answer mi<£it be D or E. Scale of applicability : A. very little or no applicabil­ ity at all B. slightly applicable C. moderately applicable D. very applicable E • completely or almost com­ pletely applicable Please write the letter next to each word which best describes its applicability. If any word in the list is one you do not understand or one whose meaning is only partially understood, skip it and leave the space blank.

1. knowledgeable 13. self-fulfilled 2. leader 14. self-respecting 3. logical 15. stable 4. matter-of-fact 16. strong-willed 5. objective 17. superior 6. outspoken 18. systematic 7. persistent 19. tough 8. practical 20. unemotional 9. productive 21. wise 10. protective 22. witty 11. proud 23. worldly 12. rational 24. naive 123 Scale of applicability: A. very little or no applicabil­ ity at all B. slightly applicable C. moderately applicable - D. very applicable E. completely or almost com­ pletely applicable

_25. . narrow-minded _43. supportive _26. nervous _44. sympathetic _27. neurotic _45. trite _28. nonsensical _46. unambitious _29. nurturant _47. unders tanding _30 • passive _48. unorganized _31. patient _49• yielding _32. scatter-brained _50. withdrawn _33. selfless 51. fulfilled _34. sensitive J52. interesting _35. sentimental J53. dogmatic _36. shallow J54. deceptive _37. simple _55. helpful _38. sincere J56. loud-mouthed _39. soft/gentle J57. zany _40. subjective 58. prejudiced _41. inarticulate 59. defensive 42. incompetent 60. curious 124 Scale of applicability: A. very little or no applicabil* ity at all B. slightly applicable C. moderately applicable D. very applicable E. completely or almost com­ pletely applicable

j61. nosey 66. honest _62. conformist _67. hindrance 63. materialistic j68. idealistic _64 . yes-man 69. respected 65• open-minded 70. originator APPENDIX F

SEMANTICS STUDY flistructionas Three o£ the, four words In each of the fol- lowing groups have been judged to be equal along a certain dimension. One word in each group doesn't belong. Please circle the one (1) word in each group which is most unlike or different from the others. 1 • dumb 2. subservient hypochondriac submissive withdrawn inarticulate incompetent inferior 3. illogical 4. unambitious yes-man scatter-brained shallow simple naive gullible 5. frivolous 6. irrational dull trite neurotic unemotional passive hindrance 7. shy 8. selfless loud-mouthed bubbly nonsensical zany selfish deceptive 9. unorganized 10. dependent ambivalent conceited erratic yielding follower sexy 11. nervous 12. daring insecure nosey sophis ticated egotistic compliant narrow-minded

125 126 13. arrogant 14. domestic intuitive fulfilled conformist flexible tough nurturant 15. prejudiced 16• impulsive adventurous soft/gentle dynamic dogmatic patient optimistic 17. warm 18. objective idealistic systematic compassionate funny protective empathetic 19. . practical 20. m o d e m superior logical decisive materialistic emotional sentimental 21. easy-going 22. selfrfulfilled subjective personable originator leader excitable worldly 23. bold 24. stable open-minded intellectual sensitive defensive wise rational 25. ambitious 26. quick witty supportive consistent dominant authoritative just 27. sympathetic 28. articulate independent kind understanding helpful forward mature 29. assertive 30• perceptive efficient matter-of-fact respected competent interesting aggressive 31. successful 32. curious outspoken dependable confident real productive loyal 33. faithful 34. hard-working self-respecting responsible sincere persistent honest alert 35. active knowledgeable proud strong-willed APPENDIX G

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Please look carefully over the attached list of tele­ vision characters and shows.

2. Note those characters and shows you have seen at least 5-10 times or more.

3. Then choose one (1) character you feeil you know well enough to describe.

4. In the exercise which follows, be sure to describe the character protrayed in the program and not’ the actor or actress. The names of actors and actresses are included only in an effort to help you correctly identify a character.

128 APPENDIX H

FEMALE .TV, CHARACTERS

Edith (Jean Stapleton) of "All In the Family" Gloria (Sally Struthers) of "All In the Family” Olivia (Michael Learned) of "The Waltons" Grandma (Ellen Corby) of "The Waltons" Mary Ellen (Judy Norton) of "The Waltons" Wilcox (Audrey Totter) of "Medical Center" Miss Kitty (Amanda Blake) of "Gunsmoke” Maude (Beatrice Arthur) of "Maude" Carole (Adrienne Barbeau) of "Maude" Mary (Mary Tyler Moore) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Fhoda (Valerie Harper) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Phyllis (Cloris Leachman) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Bess (Lisa Gerritsen) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Lucy (Lucille Ball) of "Here's Lucy" Kim (Lucie Amaz) of "Here's Lucy" Mary Jane (Mary Jane Croft) of "Here's Lucy" Emily (Suzanne Pleshette) of "The Bob Newhart Show" Carol (Marcia Wallace) of "The Bob Newhart Show" Bridget (Meredith Baxter) of "Bridget Loves Bernie"

129 Amy (Audra Lind ley) of "Bridget Loves Bemie" Sophie (Bibi Osterwald) of "Bridget Loves Bernie Consuelo (Elena Verdugo) of "Marcus Welby, M.D." Shirley (Shirley Jones) of "The Partridge Family Laurie (Susan Dey) of "The Partridge Family" Doris (Doris Day) of "The Doris Day Show” Fran (Elizabeth Baur) of "Ironside" Betty (Lee Meriwether) of "Bamaby Jones" APPENDIX I

MALE TV CHARACTERS

Archie (Carroll O'Connor) of "All in the Family" Mike (Rob Reiner) of "All in the Family" McGarrett (Jack Lord) of "Hawaii Five-O" Danny (James MacArthur) of "Hawaii Five-0" Ben (A1 Harrington) of "Hawaii Five-O" Chin Ho (Kam Fong) of "Hawaii Five-O" Che Fong (Harry Endo) of "Hawaii Five-O" Dr. Gannon (Chad Everett) of "Medical Center" Dr. Lockner (James Daly) of "Medical Center" John (Ralph Waite) of "The Waltons" John-Boy (Richard Thomas) of "The Waltons" Grandpa (Will Geer) of "The Waltons" Cannon (William Conrad) of "Cannon" Matt (James Amess) of "Gunsmoke" Festus (Ken Curtis) of "Gunsmoke" Doc (Milbum Stone) of "Gunsmoke" Newly (Buck Taylor) of "Gunsmoke" Burke (Ted Jordan) of "Gunsmoke" Fred (Redd Foxx) of "Sanford and Son" Lamont (Desmond Wilson) of "Sanford and Son" 131 Walter (Bill Macy) of "Maude" Arthur (Conrad Bain) of "Maude" Lou Grant (Edvard Asner) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Ted Baxter (Ted Knight) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Murray (Gavin MacLeod) of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" Bob (Bob Newhart) of "The Bob Newhart Show" Jerry (Peter Bonerz) of "The Bob Newhart Show" Howard (Bill Daily) of "The Bob Newhart Show" Harry (Gale Gordon) of "Here1s Lucy" Craig (Desi A m a z Jr.) of "Here's Lucy" Beraie (David Bimey) of "Bridget Loves Bemie" Sam (Harold J. Stone) of "Bridget Loves Bemie" Moe (Ned Glass) of "Bridget Loves Bemie" Walt (David Doyle) of "Bridget Loves Bemie" Marcus Welby (Robert Young) of "Marcus Welby, M.D." Kiley (James Brolin) of "Marcus Welby, M.D.” Keith (David Cassidy) of "The Partridge Family" Reuben (Dave Madden) of "Hie Partridge Family" Cy (John Dehner) of "The Doris Day Show" Bamaby (Buddy Ebsen) of "Bamaby Jones" Ironside (Raymond Burr) of "Ironside" Ed (Don Galloway) of "Ironside" Mark (Don Mitchell) of "Ironside" APPENDIX J

MEASURING INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS THE IMAGES OF MALE AND FEMALE TELEVISION CHARACTERS

Note: It is not mandatory to include your name, but it is very important that the demographic data— age, educa­ tion, occupation, and sex— be completely filled in. Name;...... Age__ ...... Last year of school completed ’•...... Occupation ...... ' .. Your sex: male/ female Character selected to describe......

Sex of character: male/ ~ ' female

INSTRUCTIONS: Circle the one (1) word in each of the following groups of words which is most descriptive of the character you have selected. Even if none of the words seems descriptive of the character, circle the one (1) word which comes closest to describing the character.

1• active 2• hard-working proud responsible strong-willed persistent 3. faithful 4• dependable sincere real honest loyal

133 5. successful 6. aggressive confident outspoken productive curious 7. perceptive 8. " assertive matter-of-fact efficient , competent respected 9. kind 10. sympathetic helpful •independent mature understanding 11. supportive 12. ambitious dominant consistent just authoritative 13. stable 14. open-minded intellectual sensitive rational wise 15. self-fulfilled 16. easy-going personable subjective leader originator 17. modem 18. practical logical superior materialistic decisive 19. objective 20. warm systematic compassionate empathetic protective 21. impulsive 22. adventurous dogmatic dynamic optimistic patient 23. domestic 24. arrogant fulfilled intuitive flexible tough 25. conceited 26. nosey sophisticated egotistic daring narrow-minded 27. nervous 28. dependent insecure yielding compliant sexy 29. unorganized 30. selfless ambivalent bubbly erratic .zany

31. loud-mouthed 32. irrational nonsensical ■ trite selfish unemotional

\ * £’’. ■ :;."V 33. frivolous 34. scatter-brained dull simple passive gullible

35. yes-man 36• subservient shallow submissive naive inferior , 37. dumb withdrawn incompetent APPENDIX K

CROSS-VALIDATION STUDY

Name ' ' ' ■••••■...... Age...... Last, year of school completed ‘ Occupation...... Your sex: male# female

Instructions: 1. Choose a person you think you know well enough, to describe. Do not choose: - a member of your immediate family - someone with whom you have had or are having a romantic relationship - a fictional character (from novels, movies, TV) - a child (the person chosen should be 18 years old or older) 2. Indicate the sex of the person you have selected to describe: male/ female 3. Circle the one (1) word in each of the following groups of words which is most descriptive of the per­ son you have selected. Even if none of the words seems descriptive of the.person, circle the one (1) word which comes closest to describing the person.

1. active 2. hard-working proud responsible strong-willed persistent 136 3. faitkful 4. dependable sincere '■ reatl honest: loyal 5. successful 6. aggressive confident outspoken productive curious 7. perceptive 8. assertive * matter-of-fact efficient competent respected 9. kind 10• sympathetic helpful independent mature understanding 11• supportive 12• ambitious dominant consistent just authoritative 13. stable 14. open-minded intellectual sensitive rational wise 15. self-fulfilled 16• easy-going personable subjective leader originator 17. m o d e m 18• practical logical superior materialistic decisive 19. objective 20. warm systematic compassionate empathetlc protective 21. impuls ive 22. adventurous dogmatic dynamic optimistic patient 23. domestic 24. arrogant fulfilled intuitive flexible tough 25. conceited 26. nosey sophisticated egotistic daring n ar row-minde d 138

1 • ■ ■ ■ *’•>'. : • 27. nervous 28. dependent insecure yielding compliant ■ sexy 29. unorganized 30. selfless ambivalent * bubbly . erratic 'zany ■ 31. loud-mouthed .32. irrational nonsensical trite selfish unemotional 33. frivolous, 34. scatter-brained dull simple passive gullible 35 • yes-man 36• subservient : .shallow submissive naive inferior 37. dumb withdrawn incompetent APPENDIX L

FAVORABLENESS/UNFAVORABLENESS STUDY

t * i Instructions; For the following words, please (1) Place a - (minus) sign next to the five (5) words which are the most unfavorable to use in describing people. (2) Place a + (plus) sign next to the five (5) words which are the most favorable to use in describing people.

1. active 15. m o d e m 2. assertive 16. naive 3. authoritative 17. nonsensical 00 4. bubbly N • nosey 5. conceited 19.. patient CM o 6. confident • personable 7. curious 21. practical 8. dogmatic 22. protective 9. easy-going 23. scatter-brained 10. frivolous 24. submissive

XX * honest 25. supportive 12. intuitive 26. sympathetic H to * kind 27. systematic to CO 14. loyal • unemotional 139 140

29. unorganized 31. withdrawn 30• wise APPENDIX M

RANK-ORDERED PREFERENCE VALUES BY SEX OF THOSE ELEMENTS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 3.000

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability Element for Females Element ’ for Males

1. outspoken 3.848 strong-willed 3.939 2. persistent 3.844 aggressive 3.857 3. faithful 3.815 proud 3.788 4. honest 3.758 active 3.786 5. strong-willed 3.758 alert 3.750 6. knowledgeable 3.758 sincere 3.667 7. real 3.760 knowledgeable 3.667 8. proud 3.697 assertive 3.652 9. hard-working 3.679 self-respecting 3.636 10. loyal 3.667 responsible 3.607 11. responsible 3.630 curious 3.576 12. competent 3.607 matter-of-fact 3.576 13. kind 3.593 forward 3.571 14. dependable 3.593 ♦ambitious 3.536 15. productive 3.576 quick 3.536 16. alert 3.571 hard-working 3.536 17. active 3.536 perceptive 3.536 18. self-respecting 3.516 confident 3.536 19. sincere 3.515 dependable 3.500 20. curious 3.515 authoritative 3.464

♦Elements with a mean applicability equal to or greater than 3.000 which do not apply to both sexes. APPENDIX M— continued

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability Element for Females Element for Males 21. successful 3.500 ♦bold 3.464 22. respected 3.500 persistent 3.455 23. sympathetic 3.485 honest 3.455 24. helpful 3.485 productive 3.455 25. interesting 3.485 loyal 3.444 26. mature 3.444 successful 3.429 27. efficient 3.429 ♦modem 3.429 28. confident 3.429 dominant 3.393 29. just 3.423 interesting 3.364 30. supportive 3.419 efficient 3.357 31. *excitable 3.407 real 3.346 32. articulate 3.400 understanding 3.333 33. witty 3.364 independent 3.321 34. ♦emotional 3.333 mature 3.321 35. defensive 3.333 competent 3.321 36. understanding 3.333 faithful 3.320 37. perceptive 3.333 respected 3.303 38. consistent 3.321 articulate 3.286 39. independent 3.321 helpful 3.273 40. open-minded 3.303 ♦materialistic 3.242 41. matter-of-fact 3.303 self-fulfilled 3.242 42. rational 3.303 worldly 3.219 43. intellectual 3.286 ♦egotistic 3.214 44. ♦subjective 3.281 just 3.214 45. stable 3.281 leader 3.212

♦Elements with a mean applicability equal to or greater than 3.000 which 142 do not apply to both sexes. APPENDIX M— continued

Mean Mean Applicability Applicability Element for Femali Element ‘ for Males

46. sensitive 3.273 ♦logical 3.182 47. dominant 3.214 . easy-going 3.179 48. wise 3.212 ♦arrogant 3.179 49. *warm 3.192 consistent 3.179 50. ♦superior 3.188 supportive 3.156 51. ♦empathetic 3.174 wise 3.152 52. personable 3.148 sympathetic 3.152 53. ♦compassionate 3.143 rational 3.152 54. originator 3.121 ♦decisive 3.148 55. assertive 3.115 personable 3.148 56. forward 3.111 kind 3.143 57. ♦systematic 3.094 witty 3.121 58. worldly 3.094 intellectual 3.107 59. sentimental 3.091 originator 3.094 60. leader 3.091 ♦practical 3.091 61. authoritative • 3.071 outspoken 3.091 62. aggressive 3.071 defensive 3.091 63. ♦dogmatic 3.034 stable 3.091 64. self-fulfilled 3.031 sensitive 3.091 65. easy-going 3.000 sentimental 3.063 66. quick 3.000 open-minded 3.061 67. ♦dynamic 3.037 68. ♦adventurous 3.036 69. ♦impulsive 3.000

♦Elements with a mean applicability equal to or greater than 3.000 which do not apply to both sexes. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Books De Fleur, Melvin L. Theories of Mass Communication. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1970. Embree, Alice. "Media Images I: Madison Avenue Brain­ washing— The Facts." Sisterhood' is powerful. Edited by Kobin Morgan. New Yorks Vintage Books, 1970. Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. Woman1 s Places' ‘ Options' and * Limits' in’ Professional Careers. Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, l9l71. Fore, William F. Image and Impact's' How Man' Comes Through in the Mass Media. New Yorks Friendship Press, 1970. Friedan, Betty. "Television and the Feminine Mystique." Television. Edited by Barry G. Cole. New York: The Free Press, 1970. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954. Hobson, Sheila Smith. "Women and Television." Sister­ hood is Powerful. Edited by Robin Morgan. New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Horowitz, Mardi Jon. Image Formation and Cognition. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Mannes, Marya. "Should Women Only Be Seen and Not Heard?" Television. Edited by Barry G. Cole. New York: The Free Press, 1970. Mead, Margaret, and Kaplan, Francis, eds. American Women. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965. Schramm, Wilbur; Lyle, Jack; and Parker, Edwin B. Tele- ■ vision' in' the- Lives of Our Children. Stanford: Stanford university Press, 1963. 144 145 Schramm, Wilbur, and Roberts, Donald F., eds. ' The Process' and* Effects' of Mass' Communication. Urbanas University of Illinois Press, 19*72. “

II. ' Journals' and Scholarly Research Bell, Richard Henry. NA Study of the Image of the Ameri­ can Character As Presented in Selected Network Tel­ evision DramasUnpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961. Courtney, Alice E. , and Lockeretz, Sarah Wemick. "A Woman's Place: An Analysis of the Roles Portrayed by Women in Magazine Advertisements •" ’ Journal of Marketing Research, VIII (February, 19 71), 92-95. De Fleur, Melvin. "Occupational Roles as Portrayed on Television." ' Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVIII (Spring, 1964), 54-74. Dominick, Joseph R., and Rauch, Gail E. "Hie Image of Women in Network TV Commercials." Journal of Broadcasting, XVI, 3 (Summer, 1972), 259-265. Head, Sydney. "Content Analysis of Television Drama Programs." Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Televi­ sion,! IX, 2 (Winter, 1954) , 175=154. ------Katzman, Natan. "Television Soap Operas: What's Been Going On Anyway?" Public Opinion Quarterly, XXXVI,2 (Summer, 1972), 200-212. Seggar, John F., and Wheeler, Penny. "World of Work on TV: Ethnic and Sex Representation in TV Drama." Journal of Broadcasting, XVII, 2 (Spring, 1970), Soi-21'4'.------Sisson, E. D. "Forced-Choice— The New Army Rating." Personnel Psychology, I (1948), 365-381. Stanley, Nancy E. "Federal Communications Law and Women's Rights: Women in the Wasteland Fight Back.” Hastings' Law Journal, XXIII, 1 (November, 1971), 15-53. Stone, Vernon; Geisler, Jill; and Dell, Barbara. "Atti­ tudes Toward Television Newswomen." Paper presented 146 at the Association for Education in Journalism Annual Convention, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, August 23, 1972. Travers, R. M. W. "A critical review of the validity and rationale of the forced-choice technique." ’ Psycho­ logical Bulletin, XLVIII (1951), 62-70.

III. ' Periodicals "Are TV Commercials Insulting to Women?" * Good Housekeep­ ing, May, 1971, pp. 68, 70, 72. Beaufort, John. "Ad Lib?" ' Christian Science' Monitor. July 3, 1971, p. 6. Bird, Caroline. "What's Television Doing for 50.9% of Americans?” ' TV Guide, February 27, 1971, pp. 5-8. Carmody, John. "WRC-TV vs. NOW: Of License Renewal and Discrimination.” The Washington' Post, September 1, 1972, p. B2. Foster, Anne Tolstoi. "Is That Really Me? Today's Woman Has A Tough Time Recognizing Herself in Those TV Commercials." TV Guide, June 19, 1971, pp. 18-20. Gent, George. "Women's Group Challenges WABC-TV;'s Renewal.” New York Times, May 2, 1972, p. 87. ______. "F.C.C. Aide Denies Double Standard." New York Times, March 3, 1970, p. 83. Gerhner, George. "Communication and Social Environment." Scientific American, 227 (September,- 1972) , pp. 153-

Gross, Leonard. "Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man?" TV Guide, August 11, 1973, pp. 6-7. Haskett, Thomas R. Letter to the Editor. New York Times Magazine, June 18, 1972, p. 4. Hennessee, Judith Adler, and Nicholson, Joan. "NOW Says: TV Commercials Insult Women.” New York Times Magazine. May 28, 1972, pp. 12-17• > 147 Kohler# Pam Sebastian. "Objectivity Ends at the Hemline." ' The Quill# 60 (October# 1972) , pp. 25-27. Komisar# Lucy. "How to Make Trouble: Turning Off the Tube." ' Ms'. Magazine, August, 1972# pp. 4-7. Kovacs # Midge • "Women: Correcting the Myths." * New York Times, August 26# 1972, p. 25. Leonard, John. "The Subversive Mary Tyler Moores Women's Role on TV." Life# December 18, 1970# p. 8. "NBC Defends Policies in Female Rights." ' Broadcasting# December 4, 1972, pp. 38# 40. Smith, Frances S. "Ecumenical Group Reflects on Woman's Image in the Media." Christian' Century# August 25, 1971, pp. 1002, 1004. "Women Seek Denial of WRC-TV Renewal." Broadcasting, September 4, 1972, p. 22.

IV. Special Materials Akamatsu, Muriel. Freedom of information Center Report No. 289. Liberating the Media:' News. Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri School of Journalism, September, 1972. • Freedom of Information Center Report No. 290. Liberating the Media: Advertising. Columbia, MO.: University of Missouri School of Journalism# September, 1972. Broadcasting Publications, Inc. 1973 Broadcasting Year­ book. Washington, D.C.: Broadcasting Publica­ tions , Inc.# 1973. In re American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Opposition of American Broadcasting Companies# Inc. to "Peti­ tion to Deny" of National Organization for Women, F.C.C. File No. BRCT-221, 1973, p. 69. In re National Broadcasting Co., Inc., Opposition of National Broadcasting Company, Inc. to "Petition to Deny," F.C.C. File No. BRCT-7, 1972, p. 8. 148 Letter from Margaret K. Bruce, Assistant Director, Di vi­ sion of Human High ta, and Chief, Section on the Status of Women o the United Nations, together with a copy of re Solution 1 (XXIV), December 4, 1972. National Organization for Women. NOW FCC Task' Force Kit. This kit includes NOW's explanation of women's basic legal arguments against broadcasters, pamphlets from the F.C.C. arid Citizens' Communications Center, and a monitoring package which includes samples of monitoring forms used in previous NOW monitoring projects. It is available from the National Organ­ ization for Women! 1957 East 73rd Street, Chicago, Illinois 60649. Women' in the Wasteland Fight' Back': ' A' Study of the Image of Womel Portrayed in' TV Programming, This 200-page rep'c rt was submitted in the petition to deny license r< newal filed against WRC-TV, Washington, D.C., on August 31, 1972, by the National Organizal ion for Women. The report is available from WRC 1-Women's Coalition, c/o NCA-NOW, 1736 R Street, N.V ., Washington, D.C. 20009. U.S. Bureau of Census, united States Summary of General Population Ch aract eristicsJ Washingtons U.S. Bureau of Census, 19 70. World Young Women's Chrd| stian Association. As Others See Us: A World YWCA Programme Bulletin on the Image of Women in the Me|ss Media. This booklet is avail­ able from World YWCA, 37 Quai Wilson, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland, 1972. World Council of Churches Consultation on the Image of Media. Vienna. Austria, June 14-Women xn the Mass Media. Vienna. Austria, June 14-Women 19, Id71. Confere nee proceedings are available from: Frances S. Smith, Editor, English-language EPS, World Council of Churches, Department of Com­ munication, 150, Rpute de Ferney, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.