CHARACTER PORTRAYALS ON PRlMETIME TELEVISION:
A CONTENT ANALYSIS
by
Susan G. Kahlenberg
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication
Fall 1995
Q 1995 Susan G. Kahlenberg All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my special appreciation to my advisor, Professor
Nancy Signorielli. Her expertise, assistance, and patience enabled me to complete my master's thesis. Moreover, her encouragement and support helped motivate me to pursue a graduate degree.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my other committee members: Professor Douglas McLeod and Professor Elizabeth Perse. Their assistance and enthusiasm, particularly with the data analysis, helped me more than they will ever realize.
I am especially grateful to all my friends and family, who supported me throughout this project, particularly to Jeanie Zmijewski and Sandra Berges
Murray for their help coding; to Scott Caplan and Melinda Johnson for their insight and for listening; and to David and Jill Kahlenberg for sharing their computer knowledge and for giving great advice and pep-talks.
In adltion, I would like to thank Wayne McWilliams, who shared both sad and happy days with me and has inspired me to believe in myself. His love and encouragement has greatly helped shape this thesis.
Finally, this master's thesis 1s deQcated with love to my parents, who ... 111 iv mean so much to me. Through their unconditional love and support they have inspired me to put my dreams into reality. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Gender-role Stereotypes ...... 1 Television: Socialization Agent ...... 2 Concerns of the Women's Movements ...... 3 Stereotypes on Television ...... 4
Occupational Stereotyping ...... 7 Marital and Occupational Stereotyping ...... 8 Power. Dominance. and Authority Stereotyping ...... 9
Importance of Study ...... 10 Purpose ...... 11
TEIEORE'IICAL PERSPECIWE AND LWJilUTURE REVIEW . . 12
Cultivation Theory ...... 12
The Cultural Indicators Project ...... 15
Literature Review ...... 17
Gender ...... 17
Under-representation of Women ...... 18 Character Status ...... 19 Rogram Genre ...... 20 Race ....
Frequency of Mmority Characters ...... 22 Character Status ...... 25 Program Genres ...... 26
Gender and Age ...... 27
Race and Age ...... 29
The Nature of Roles ...... 30 Occupational Roles ...... 31
Indeterminate Occupational Roles ...... 32 Representation of Occupational Positions ...... 33 Representation of Men and Women in Occupational Positions ...... 33
Marital Roles ...... 36
Determining Marital Status ...... 37 Married vs . not Married ...... 37 Marital Status and Race ...... 39 Marital Status and Occupation ...... 39
Power. Dominance. and Authority ...... 42 The Television Industry ...... 45
Innovative Research On Marriage ...... 48
Marital Success ...... 48
Amount of Affective and Problem Solving Communication ...... 52 Sexual Relations with Spouse ...... 52 Religious and Political Beliefs of Spouse ...... 52 Type and Amount of Recreational Time Spent with Spouse ...... 53 Personality of Spouse ...... 53 Length of Marriage ...... 53 Number of Children ...... 54 Number of Ch~ldrenLiving Inside the Home ...... 54 vii
Marital Success and Employment ...... 55
Economic Necessity or Choice ...... 56 Husbands' Attitude ...... 56 Stages in the Life Cycle ...... 56 Part-time vs . Full-time ...... 57 Education ...... 58 Income and Social Class ...... 59 Work Commitment ...... 59 Role Load ...... 60
Conclusion ...... 60 Marital Typology ...... 62
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... 65
Gender ...... 65 Race ...... 66 Age ...... 67 Occupational Roles ...... 68 Marital Roles ...... 69 Marriage and Occupation ...... 70 Power. Dominance. and Authority ...... 71 Marital Success ...... 72 Marital Typology ...... 74 Television Industry ...... 75
METHODS ...... 76
Sample ...... 76 Units of Analyses ...... 77
Program ...... 77
Writer ...... 77 Producer ...... 77 Director ...... 77
Character ...... 77
Gender ...... 78 Race ...... 78 Chronological Age ...... 78 Social Age ...... 79 Occupation ...... 79 Marital Status ...... 79 Dominance ...... 80 Authority ...... 81 Marital Success ...... 82 Dimensions of Marital Success ...... 82 Social Class ...... 83 Income ...... 84 Education ...... 84 Stage in the Life Cycle ...... 84 Number of Children Living at Home ...... 84 Number of Children ...... 84 Number of Years Married to Present Spouse ...... 84 Type of Employment ...... 85 Non-married Female Character is Working in Paid Employment ...... 85 Married Female Character is Working in Paid Employment ...... 85 Marital Typology ...... 85 Traditional Maniage Orientation ...... 86 Traditional Orientation ...... 86
Pre-test ...... 87 Coders Training ...... 87 Reliability Analysis ...... 87 Data Analysis ...... 93
4 RESULTS ...... 94
Descriptive Findings ...... 94
Overview of the Sample ...... 94 Overview of the Characters ...... 94
Major and Supporting Characters ...... 95 Minor Characters ...... 95
Overview of Characters in Relation to Programs ...... 96 Minor Characters ...... 96
Hypotheses and Research Questions ...... 97
Gender ...... 97 Race ...... 102 Age ...... 109 Occupational Roles ...... 1 ...... 123 MaritalRoles ...... 131
Magiage and Occupation ...... 141
Power. Dominance. and Authority ...... 144
Dominance and Authority: with whom ...... 146
Marital Success ...... 152
Research Question Three ...... 153 Research Question Four ...... 155
Marital Typology ...... 155
Relationship Between Marital Type and Marital Success ...... 156
Traditional Images ...... 157 Television Industry ...... 159
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ...... 167
Summary ...... 167 Descriptive Mormation ...... 168
Discussion of Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... 170
Gender ...... 170 Race ...... 171 Age ...... 173 Occupational Roles ...... 175 Marital Roles ...... 178
Marriage and Occupation ...... 180
Power. Dominance. and Authority ...... 181 Marital Success ...... 183 Marital Typology ...... 185 Traditional Images ...... 187 Television Industry ...... 187
Limitations of the Research ...... 188 Directions for Future Research ...... 190
Conclusion ...... 193
APPENDIX A: RECORDING INSTRUMENT FOR CHARACTERS . . 197 APPENDIX B: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES ...... 206 REFERENCES: ...... 209 LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Krippendorff's Alpha for minor character variables ...... 89
3.2 Krippendorfl's Alpha for major and supporting character variables . . 90
4.1 Frequency of males and females on television and in the U.S. population ...... 99
4.2 Frequency of all characters by program type and gender ...... 101
4.3 Frequency of major and supportmg characters by program type and gender ...... 101
4.4 Frequency of minor characters by programtype andgender ...... 102
4.5 Frequency of whites and non-whites on television and in the U.S. population ...... 104
4.6 Race and gender of characters on television and of people in the U. S . population ...... 105
4.7 Frequency of all characters by program type and race ...... 107
4.8 Frequency of major and supporting characters by program type and race ...... 108
4.9 Frequency of minor characters by programtype and race ...... 108
4.10 Age by gender on television and in the U.S. population ...... 112
4.1 1 Age by race on television and in the U.S. population ...... 114
4.12 Anova of chronological age by gender and race for all characters . . 11 7 4.13 Frequency and mean hstribution of chronological age by race and gender for all characters ......
4.14 Anova of chronological age by gender and race for major and supporting characters ......
4.15 Frequency and mean distribution of chronological age by gender and race for major and supporting characters ......
4.16 Anova of chronological age by gender and race for minor characters
4.17 Frequency and mean hstributions of chronological age by gender and race for minor characters ......
4.18 Interaction between chronological age. gender. and race for all characters ......
4.19 Interaction between chronological age. gender. and race for major and supporting characters ......
4.20 Interaction between chronological age. gender. and race for minor characters ......
4.21 Selected occupations on television and in the United States ......
4.22 Professional. white collar. and blue collar occupations for all characters ......
4.23 Trahtional gender-typed occupations for all characters ......
4.24 Professional. whlte collar. blue collar occupations for major and supporting characters ......
4.25 Traditional gender-typed occupations for major and supporting characters ......
4.26 Professional. white collar. blue collar occupations for minor characters ......
4.27 Traditional gender-typed occupations for minor characters ......
4.28 Marital status by gender for all characters ...... xlll
Marital status by gender for major and supporting characters .....
Marital status by gender for minor characters ......
Marital status by race for all characters ......
Marital status by race for major and supporting characters ......
Marital status by race for minor characters ......
Marital status by race for male characters ......
Marital status by race for female characters ......
Occupation by marital status for all female characters ...
Occupation by marital status for major and supporting female characters ......
Occupation by marital status for minor female characters ......
T-tests of dominance and authority by gender for major and supporting characters ......
Anova of dominance by same level work peers and gender of major and supporting characters ......
Interaction between dominance with same level peers and gender of major and supporting characters ......
T-test of dominance with same level peers of the opposite gender by gender of major and supporting characters ......
Anova of authority by boss at work and gender of major and supporting characters ......
Frequency and mean distributions for main effect of authority with bossatwork ......
Anova of authority by same level work peers and gender of major and supporting characters .....: ...... 4.46 Frequency and mean distributions for the main effect of gender . . . 151
4.47 T-tests of marital success by type of employment for married major and supporting characters ...... 153
4.48 Correlations and partial-correlations of marital success and education, stage in the life cycle, and number of years mamed . . . 154
4.49 Frequency distribution of marital type for major and supporting characters ...... 156
4.50 T-test of marital success by marital type for major and supporting characters ...... 157
4.5 1 Frequency distribution of traditional marriage for major and supporting characters ...... 15 8
4.52 T-test of traditional marriage by gender for married major and supporting characters ...... 159
4.53 Frequency distribution of gender for television writers ...... 160
4.54 Frequency distribution of gender for television directors ...... 160
4.55 Program type by gender of television writers ...... 162
4.56 Program type by gender of television directors ...... 162
4.57 Summary of statistical support for hypotheses ...... 163 The purpose of this study was to examine character portrayals of men
and women on prime-time television programming. The basic premise of this
study was that television content and images would be stereotypic and traditional. This study intended to provide information about television
characters to determine the veracity of this premise and to further understand how television, as a socialization agent, possibly duences individuals and
society as expressed by cultivation theory.
This study analyzed basic, demographic information on major,
supporting, and minor characters, such as gender, race, age, occupation, and marital status. This study also reconceptualized and examined dominance and
authority of major and supporting characters in specific interpersonal and workplace contexts. Moreover, this study provided a preliminary framework for studying the marital success and Fitzpatrick's typology of marriage in relation to individual television characters.
A content analysis was conducted analyzing 1,058 major, supporting,
and minor characters. Major and supportmg characters were coded for basic demographic information, dominance, authority, marital success, and type of
xv xvi
marriage. Seventy-five programs were included in the sample, and programs
were coded for the gender of Miters and directors.
Results of the analysis indicated that research questions and hypotheses
were basically supported. Female and male characters were, for the most part, portrayed stereotypically, especially in regards to race, age, occupation, and
marital status. One possibe explanation for the abundance of stereotypical
images was that the majority of television writers and &rectors were males.
Although many research questions and hypotheses examining dominance,
authority, marital success, and marital type were generally not supported, the results inQcated that female and male characters were portrayed dtfferently on prime-time television. Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Gender-role StereotvDes
Before the advent of the women's movement, few people questioned how gender-role stereotypes developed, how they were remforced, how they were maintained, or how they affected men and women in society (Tuchman,
1978). The media's role in creating and perpetuating gender-role stereotypes was not examined. Fictional characters who were portrayed as "typical women" included June Cleaver, Wilma Flintstone, and Carol Brady. Their days were spent loving, nurturing, and caring for their husbands and children, as well as cooking, cleaning, and performing the daily household chores. They provided emotional support for the family while their husbands, Ward, Fred, and Mike went to work outside the home. This gender-role representation was undisputed by society and generally reflected the status quo.
Since the advent of the women's and civil rights movements, gender-roles in the mass media have been extensively analyzed. In the past three decades, researchers have supported the notion that gender-role stereotypes are created, perpetuated, and disseminated by the mass media.
1 Content analyses have repeatedly suggested that men's and women's portrayals in the mass media, and especially television, perpetuate stereotypes and the status quo (Gerbner & Signorielli, 1979; Signorielli, 1982; Tuchman, 1978;
Wober & Gunter, 1988).
Television: Socialization Agent
Television has become one of the primary socialization agents of our society. Traditionally, socialization agents such as the family, religion, and educational institutions created, perpetuated, and distributed the standards, beliefs, and conceptions of how men and women should think, behave, and act.
Even though these institutions are still important in the socialization process, the rise of industrialism, new technologies, and the modem nation state has weakened their role in the process (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli,
1980a).
During the second half of thetwentieth century the mass media became an important component of the socialization process. By the mid
1960s most Americans turned to their televisions for mformation, entertainment, and escape from everyday pressures. By transcendmg baniers of literacy and mobllrty, television became the major story teller to our nation
(Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994). Television, like parents, peers, religion, education, and other institutions, thus cultivates, through its stories, a 3 common worldview, common values, and common perspectives on gender- roles.
Much of what we know about society, we learn from television.
"Television thus has become a key member of the family, the one who tells most of the stories most of the time" (Signorielli, 1981, pp. 98-99). Television is "on" in the average home for over seven hours each day and the average
American person over two years old watches television for approximately four hours each day (Signorielli, 1993a). Television brings us to places we have never been. As Gross and Jeffries-Fox (1978) speculate, how many people have actually been in an operating room, a police station, a jail, a criminal court room, a corporate board room, or a five-star restaurant or hotel? How many people have actually traveled to Europe, the Caribbean, or the far East?
With the push of a button, however, television viewers can transport visually to other venues to experience the courtroom drama of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, or walk through the mansions of millionaires, as presented in Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
Concerns of the Women's Movements
Since the 1950s researchers have been concerned with the potential power of television. Partially fueled by the women's and civil rights movements, researchers have examined images of men and women in the media as well as how these images might be contributing to ongoing stereotypes.
The women's movement, in particular, has challenged the male- dominated nature of our society and its major institutions, especially the mass media. Advocates of the women's movement were concerned with television's content and the role it played in the transmission of sexist ideas, stereotypes, and roles (Janus, 1977; Steeves, 1987). Studies found that television under- represented women, presented women in negative and stereotypical roles, and confined female characters to themes dealing primarily with home, marriage, and the family (Busby, 1975; Signorielli, 1989).
Stereotv~eson Television
Stereotypes are widely held generalizations about a class of people
(Tubbs & Moss, 1994) and are woven deeply into the fabric of television programming (Gunter, 1986). Television is an especially potent mechanism for the transmission of gender and racial stereotypes (Janus, 1977). Gerbner and
Signorielli (1979), for example, claimed that, on television,
dominant social groups tend to be over-represented and over- endowed not only absolutely but even in relation to their numbers in the real population. Minorities are defined by having less than their proportionate share of values and resources. In the world of television drama this means less usefulness and fewer opportunities. Underrepresentation means restricted scope of action, stereotyped roles, diminished life chances, and underevaluation ranging from relative neglect to symbolic annihilation. (p. 4-5) 5 Studies of television content have found that white men, the dominant social group in society, are over-represented, while minorities and women are under-represented (Greenberg, 1986; U. S. Commission on Civil
Rights, 1979). White males also have more opportunities and more favorable images on television. For instance, white males tend to be cast in prestigious occupations while females and minorities are unlikely to be portrayed in prestigious, professional occupations (Northcott, Seggar, & Hinton, 1975; U. S.
Commission on Civil fights, 1979). In addition, studies have consistently shown that men are dominant and authoritative while females, particularly non- white females, are submissive, passive, and repeatedly controlled by men
(Seggar, Hafen, Hannonen-Gladden, 1981 ).
Rakow (1986) commented that the symbolic production and distribution of popular culture images, includmg television content, is controlled for and by men. This explains why stereotypes on television continually favor men and often devalue women. Even though the stereotypes of women in the media may not be realistic, they serve a purpose: to legitimate men's dominant role in society and to rdorce the status quo.
Thus, content analyses of television consistently find that when compared to men, women are (I) under-represented in number, (2) portrayed in marital, domestic, or parental roles much more than professional or career- oriented roles, and (3) restricted to behavioral sequences that portray them as 6 powerless, dependent, and lacking authority and competence (Busby, 1975;
Gunter, 1986; Gunter & Wober, 1982; Signorielli (Tedesco), 1974; Wober &
Gunter, 1988). In other words, television content has displayed high levels of
gender stereotyping that favors men and devalues women (Downs, 1981).
Kalisch and Kalisch (1984) suggest that the problem of gender
stereotyping has received more attention than racial or ethnic stereotyping on television because:
(1) the rise of the women's movement has coincided with the burgeoning interest in the mass media; and (2) sexual [gender] stereotyping, even in its more degrading forms, has (at least until recently) been regarded as less blatantly offensive than racial or ethnic stereotyping and has therefore persisted on television while the other stereotypes have disappeared into the netherworld of "bad taste." (p. 535)
Societal beliefs about gender-roles have changed positively in the
past two decades. As people have become aware of women's suborhation
and devaluation in society, women's roles have changed, becoming more
positive. Nevertheless, television's images of women have not reflected
society's changes (Busby, 1985).
This is not to say that 'liberated' or nontraditional women do not appear on television; it is just that these images are not found consistently...most of the research examining nonstereotyped roles has focused upon a small number of programs. (Signorielli, 1993b, p. 231)
In other words, research continues to find that television still confines women
to traditional and stereotypic portrayals (McNeil, 1975; Signorielli, 1993b). Occu~ationalStereotvpinq
Most Americans spend approximately 40 hours a week at work.
Moreover, our society is extremely concerned with the work status of its members--children are typically asked "what they want to be when they grow up." Furthermore, when meeting new people, adults commonly ask "what they do for a living". Given the magnitude and importance of television's role in our society, its portrayal of women and men in occupational roles can have significant social consequences.
Past stuhes have shown that men and women have been presented in a limited range of professional and occupational spheres on television
(Gunter, 1986; Siguorielli, 1993a; Tuchman, 1978). Television's 'symbolic annihilation' of women may thus indirectly influence women's future career or job choices (Tuchman, 1978). Continuous exposure to gender-role stereotypes on television may lead pre-adolescent and adolescent women to perceive certain occupations, such as doctors, lawyers, and police officers, as the domains of men and not consider them as possible occupations for themselves.
There is a considerable body of research on gender stereotypes.
Few content analyses, however, have extensively examined occupational roles in relation to gender-role stereotypes. This research is necessary because more and more women are entering the work force. If' occupational roles of men and 8 women on television are out-of-date, "the media may be preparing youngsters-- prls in particular--for a world that no longer exists" (Tuchman, 1978, p. 6).
Marital and Occwational Stereotyping
Women have traditionally worked inside the home as homemakers, mothers, and wives. Today, many women also have jobs and careers outside the home. According to Statistical Abstracts of the United States (1994), more than half of the women in this country work outside of the home. Moreover, many of them are married and have young children or are single parents. Thus in reality, marriage, raising families (with or without a partner), and outside employment are interrelated phenomena.
On television, however, the worlds of marriage and occupation are distinctly separate. Married women on television typically have been portrayed with reduced options, women working outside the home, particularly mothers and wives, are usually cast negatively and narrowly (Signonelli, 1982). For instance, Manes and Melynk (1974) found that wives working outside the home, especially in traditional male occupations, had less successful marriages than housewves or women working in traditional female occupations.
Our knowledge in this area, however, is limted and needs to be updated. For instance, does contemporary television programming limit the number of occupational opportunities available to married women on television? Are married women in professional or white collar jobs continually 9 presented with unsuccessful marriages? Does the successful working woman character pay a price for non-conformity (to traditional roles) by having problems in their personal relationships with men? What occupational opportunities are commonly available for s--gle, married, and dlvorced women and men? What type of marriages do characters have on television (traditional, separate, independent)? How does their marital type influence their marital satisfaction in relation to employment both inside and outside the home?
The answers to these questions will help us determine what occupational and marital images television contributes to the socialization process. This is important to ascertain because if television consistently portrays the majority of married women in traditional female occupations (and few married women in traditional male occupations) adolescent women's ultimate career choices may suffer, particularly those young women who hope to combine a career with marriage.
Power. Dominance, and Authoritv Stereowing
Television programming has also been criticized for stereotypically portraying men as dominant and women as suborbate (Gunter, 1986). The:
analysis of the demographics of men and women and of behavioural sequences involving interactions between male and female characters have indicated that television could possibly cultivate the belief that men are naturally more competent and more powerful than women. (Gunter, 1986, p. 13) 10 There are very few studies of power, dominance, and authority on television. In fact, previous research stuhes focused on power, dominance, and authority have operationalized and conceptualized these concepts in many drfferent ways. Some studies have made reference to portrayals of power and dominance yet did not measure power directly. Furthennore, relatively few studies have compared the portrayals of power, authority, and dominance in specific contexts such as marriage, work, and interpersonal relationships.
This research is necessary because in actual reality both men and women are competent leaders with dominance and authority in many contexts.
Thus, this study will determine patterns of dominance and authority among and between male and female characters. For instance, does television programming, as previous studies indicated, still portray women as powerless and lacking authority? Are images of men and women in relation to power inaccurate, and do they portray to television viewers an unrealistic world?
Im~ortanceof Studv
Television, as a socialization agent, teaches people about their world through media characterizations. However, its "lessons" and imagery may not be reflective of the real world, and some viewers, especially heavy television viewers and young children, may not chstinguish between symbolic and social reality (Signorielli, 1991b). Thus, it is crucial that we understand television's "symbolic" world so that future research studies can accurately 11
ascertain how media socialization affects and rnfluences adults', adolescents',
and especially hldren's beliefs about "social" reality.
Purpose
The purpose of this content analysis was to examine character portrayals of women and men on television. Specifically, this study extended our knowledge of character portrayals in relation to variables such as gender, race, age, occupation, marital status, marital success, type of mamage, as well
as dominance and authority.
The next chapter discusses the theoretical framework of this study,
cultivation theory, which allows us to make claims about the socialization
effects of television on social members. It then reviews previous research to provide a framework for the specific research questions and hypotheses tested in this study. Chapter 2
TEEORETICAL PERSPECI'IVE AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Cultivation Theory
This research was conducted in the tradition of cultivation theory, which considers television to be "the primary common source of socialization and everyday information (mostly in the form of entertainment) of otherwise heterogeneous populations" (Gerbner et al., 1994, p. 18).
Television, as the cultural arm of American society, shapes meaning and reality for meQa users (Severin & Tankard, 1992). Television plays an invisible, a taken-for-granted, and a ritualistic role in our everyday lives. The term cultivation means "the specific independent (though not isolated) contribution that a particular consistent and compelling symbolic stream makes to the complex process of socialization and enculturalization" (Gerbner, 1990, p. 249). In other words, the different images, messages, and information distributed by television play a fundamental and salient role in the socialization
(acquiring of values) of individuals in the United States (Gerbner, 1990;
Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1986; Gross & Morgan, 1985). 13 The original impetus for this theoretical framework "stemmed from dissatisfaction with the narrowly conceived tactical emphasis of post-World
War I1 communications research, incapable of addressing broader problems of culture" (Gerbner, 1990, p. 249). After World War 11, many different theoretical doctrines and models, such as the magic bullet theory, the two-step flow theory, and the selective exposure theory, were developed to explain direct or indirect media effects on an individual, society, or a culture.
Cultivation theorists, however, believe concentrating on direct and indirect effects, individual differences, and specific programs "misses the main point of television: the absorption of divergent currents into a stable and common mainstream" (Gerbner et al., 1986, p. 20). Furthermore, by focusing on television in terms of trahtional effects research, one overlooks television's role as the common story teller of our society (Gerbner et al., 1986).
Cultivation theory argues that to understand the effects of television on attitudes, beliefs, and conduct, we must study television as a collective symbolic environment of messages that has an underlying pattern or formulaic structure. Common themes cut across all programs, and these themes present an aggregate and conventional image that maintains the patriarchal status quo.
Due to commercial constraints, television cultivates a common worldview, common values, and common gender stereotypes through a relatively restrictive set of programs, images, and messages to a heterogeneous auhence. 14
Studies conducted in the tradition of cultivation theory continually show that television content has little diversity and has frequently recurring features (Gerbner et al., 1994; Morgan, Shanahan, & Harris, 1990).
Furthermore, with television sets "on" in the average home for more than seven hours each day, there can be little overall selectivity for heavy viewers. The more television people watch, the less selective they tend to be (Morgan &
Signorielli, 1990). This implies that people who are regular and heavy viewers of television watch more programs, many or most of which have the same latent features, storylines, and characterizations (Gerbner et al., 1986, 1994).
Therefore, when studying television, cultivation theorists focus on the total pattern of television programming instead of individual programs or genres
(Morgan & Signorielli, 1985). This repetitive system of stories, over long-term exposure, is what ultimately influences cultural attitudes, beliefs, and conduct
(DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989; Gerbner et al., 1986, 1990; Gross & Morgan,
1985; Morgan & Signorielli, 1990).
Therefore, cultivation theory argues that technological advances like the remote control, video cassette recorders (VCRs), and cable do not necessarily broaden heavy television viewers' exposure to uferent types of programs (Gerbner et al., 1986, 1994). For instance, Dobrow (1990) claims that for heavy television viewers VCR use simply "intensifies existing viewing patterns, providmg increased exposure to and extending the cultivation of 15 mainstream messages even further" (p. 72). Thus, video cassette recorders only give these people the impression that they have more selectivity, power, and control over their program viewing; it does not diversify television viewing or cultivate speciahzed, diverse, and varied program viewing (Dobrow, 1990).
Cultivation theory also "embodies the belief that television drama can be taken and studied as a reflection and manifestation of the culture that it may also help to shape and maintain" (Gross & Morgan, 1985, p. 225). It examines how television's dynamic symbolic reality affects the attitudes, behaviors, and conduct of moderate and heavy television viewers.
The Cultural Indicators Proi ect
The most well known research relating to cultivation theory has been conducted as part of the Cultural Indicators Project and has examined the impact of television viewing on people's attitudes and beliefs about violence
(DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). The Cultural Indicators Project, however, is broadly based and has also investigated the extent to which television viewing is related to attitudes and behaviors concerning gender roles, minorities, age and aging, the family, marriage, religion, politics, occupational portrayals, and other topics (Gerbner et al., 1994).
In other words, the Cultural Indicators Project stuhes how television content portrays numerous topics and looks for relationships between the amount of television viewing and those beliefs and attitudes about social 16 reality that reflect television's content. The Cultural Indicators design involves a three-pronged research paradigm. The first prong, Institutional Process
Analysis "is designed to investigate the formulation of policies directing the massive flow of media messages" (Gerbner et al., 1994, p. 22). This research, however, is quite cbfficult to implement and fund and consequently is the least developed (Gerbner, 1973). Most studies conducted under the tradtion of
Cultural Indcators do not focus upon this portion of the paradigm.
The second prong, Message System Analysis, consists of yearly content analyses of prime-time and weekend-daytime television programming.
Since 1967-68 week-long samples of network prime-time and weekend-daytime television have been subject to rigorous and detailed content analysis to determine the total system of messages to which total communities are exposed
(Gerbner et al., 1994). The results of these studies are representative of what heterogeneous audiences absorb over periods of time; they do not necessarily resemble any individual's selective exposure or attention to particular programs
(Gerbner, 1973). Message System Analysis data represent the everyday symbolic reality to which mass publics are exposed. The analysis is used to formulate questions for the third prong, Cultivation Analysis.
Cultivation Analysis, the last prong of the paradigm, "tries to assess television's contribution to viewers' beliefs, behaviors, and values based on the delineation of the central and critical facts of life in the world of television" (Gross & Morgan, 1985, p. 226). Based on the findmgs from systematic
content analyses, researchers formulate questions about the world. These
questions are part of surveys conducted with national and regional probability
samples as well as convenience samples. Cultivation Analysis has found that in many different areas heavy viewers give answers that are closer to the way the world is portrayed on television than to actual social reality, even when other factors are held constant (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, Jackson-
Beeck, 1979; Gerbner et al., 1986; Severin & Tankard, 1992). In other words,
"the more time one spends 'living' in the world of television, the more likely one is to report perceptions of social reality that can be traced to (or are congruent with television's most persistent representations of life and society"
(Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980b, p. 15).
Literature Review
This study focused on the second prong of this paradigm: Message
System Analysis. As the following literature review suggests, variables such as age, race, occupation, marital status, dominance, and authority were examined in relation to men's and women's portrayals on television.
Gender
Research on the presentation of gender in television programming is characterized by three principle features. First, when compared to males, 19 Moreover, the frequency of male and female characters on
television was not proportionate to their shares in the actual U.S. population
(Gerbner & Signorielli, 1979; Signorielli, 1984; Greenberg, Simmons, Hogan,
& Atkin, 1980b). For example, Gerbner and Signorielli (1979) compared the
frequency of men and women in television and the U.S. population. On
television, men outnumbered women by more than three-to-one. However, in
the U. S. population, the ratio was one-to-one. Thus, in television dramas,
women were under-represented when compared to their percentages in the real
world population.
Character Status. Many content analyses of television programming
classified characters by their status in a major or minor role. These stu&es have consistently reported that there were relatively few women cast in major roles on television (Dominick, 1979; Gerbner, 1972, 1993; Gerbner, Gross,
Signorielli, & Morgan, 1980d; Gerbner & Signorielli, 1979; McNeil, 1975;
Signorielli, 1984; Signorielli (Tedesco), 1974).
For example, Dominick's (1 979) content analysis of 1,3 14 prime- time television programs aired between 1953 and 1977 found that the number
of female characters in major or 'starring' roles remained stable during this period. "Since 1956, women have accounted for about 25% to 35% of all
starring roles, and this percentage has seldom deviated. On the average, for the
25 years 3 out of 10 starring roles were filled by females" @. 408). 2 0
Also, Signorielli (1 984) found that of the major characters, 29.1% were female and 70.8% were male. Moreover, Gerbner (1993) determined that the female-male distribution of the major characters in prime-time network programming between 1982 and 1992 was 35.1% female and 64.9% male. In fact, study after study has shown that women were in less significant roles than men in prime-time television programming.
Program Genre. By comparison, women are more likely to be found in certain genres of programs than others (Greenberg, 1982; Wober &
Gunter, 1988). Typically, women have higher visibility in situation comehes, family dramas, and soap operas than action adventure programs.
Greenberg et al. (1980b) found large proportions of female characters in situation comedies and family dramas broadcast between 1975 and
1978. Katzman (1972), Miller and Reeves (1976), and Miles (1975) also found that there were more female characters in situation comehes and family dramas than action programs. Numerically, Davis and Davis (1985) claimed that women on television were frequently portrayed in situation comehes and dramas. In contrast to these findings, Signorielli found that men outnumbered women by two-to-one in situation comedies (1984) and in family dramas
(1989). Thus, there are discrepancies in the literature regarding women's representation in situation comedies and family dramas aired during prime-time. 2 1
A ~ferentimage is found in the daytime serial dramas (soaps).
"Numerically, women in televised fiction seem to get the best deal in soap operas" (Wober & Gunter, 1988, p. 92-3). In addition, Downing (1974) and
Katzman (1972) both reported that soap operas were populated almost equally by female and male characters.
Men dominate in crime and action adventure programs. Davis and
Davis (1985) found that women had low visibility in these shows. For instance, Katzman (1972) and Miles (1975) determined that men outnumbered women five-to-one in action-adventure shows. Also, Signorielli (1984) reported that the characters in action programs were 77.4% male and 22.4% female.
Greenberg et al. (1980b), however, found that the proportion of female characters in adventure programs increased from 15% in 1976-77 to
28% in 1977-78 and the proportion of female characters in crime programs increased from 23% in 1975-76 to 29% in 1977-78. Nevertheless, despite these increases, in 1977-8, men outnumbered women by more than three-to-one in crime and adventure shows.
Race
Television programming has also stereotyped characters by race
Studies of minority portrayals on television have found that: (1) minority characters were typically under-represented on television, (2) minority characters were less likely to be represented in major roles than white characters, and (3) minority characters' portrayals were usually confined to genres of programs such as situation comedies and dramas.
Frequencyof Minoritv Characters. Most of the literature on minority portrayals focuses on African-American characters, and particularly the frequency of their portrayals.
There has been considerable concern about the absence of black characters on television. In the 1950s and early 1960s, most of the characters on television were white. Accordmg to Whitney Young, the executive director of the National Urban League in 1969:
three or five years ago, there was a television show on one of the stations, I won't name the network, but it presented a scene from 125th St. Station with nothing but white people in it. Now I don't know how many of you know 125th Street in Harlem. But it takes real genius to shoot a scene from 125th Street in Harlem and have nothing but white people in it. (Roberts, 1970- 71, p. 45)
Young claimed that television programming intentionally presented a distorted and unrealistic view of race.
By the mid 1970s, more black characters were portrayed in television programming, and television content was providmg a somewhat more representative picture of race. Nevertheless, when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population, blacks on television were still largely outnumbered by whites (Poindexter & Stroman, 1981). 23
For instance, O1Kellyand Bloomquist (1976) found that in prime- time 92.6% of the characters were white and 7.4% were non-white (includmg blacks, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans). Moreover, a content analysis of prime-time television programming (Northcott, Seggar, and Hinton, 1975) concluded that "in 1971 the white to black ratio was 10.6:l; in 1973 it was
16.9: 1" (p. 742). Therefore, white characters significantly outnumbered black and other minority characters.
To date, blacks have the highest visibility on television when compared to other minorities such as Asian-Americans and Native Americans
(Gerbner, 1993; Gerbner & Signorielli, 1979; Greenberg, 1986; Seggar, 1977;
Seggar et al., 1981; Signorielli, 1984).
For instance, Gerbner and Signorielli (1979) found that from 1970 to 1976, on prime-time programs, white characters (86.0%) outnumbered non- white characters (14.0%). Moreover, non-white characters consisted of:
African-Americans (8.2%), Hispanics (2.9%), Asian-Americans (2.5%), and
Native Americans (.4%). In fact, when compared to their proportions in the
U.S. population, all non-white characters were under-represented in this sample of prime-time programs. Nevertheless, in each sample period analyzed, blacks consistently made up the largest proportion of minority characters while Native
Americans made up the smallest proportion. The overall proportion of llhspanic and Oriental characters fluctuated from sample to sample. For 24 instance, in 1970, 2.5% were fispanic and 1.4% were Oriental. However, in
1973, 2.0% were fispanic and 2.8% were Oriental.
Overall, on prime-time television, black characters were the only
minorities who appeared in significant numbers (Graves, 1993). With a few
exceptions, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Latino Americans were almost invisible (Geiogamah & Pavel, 1993; Gerbner, 1993; Hamamoto, 1993;
Subervi-Velez & Colsant, 1993).
When compared to the U.S. population, television under-represents
minorities (Gerbner & Signorielli, 1969; Seggar, 1975; Seggar & Wheeler,
1973). Gerbner and Signorielli (1979) determined that both black and white
men were over-represented when compared to their numbers in the U.S. population statistics. In contrast, black and white women were significantly
under-represented in television's population. For instance, black women
composed 9.6% of the U.S. population but only 3.6% of television's population.
Thus, women were under-represented by 6.0%. Moreover, Signorielli (1984) found that when compared to the U.S. population, whites, blacks, and American
Indians in prime-time programs were under-represented, but that Asian Pacific
characters were over-represented by approximately 1%.
There was, however, a discrepancy in the literature comparing the total number of white and black characters percentages on television with numbers in the U.S. population. Greenberg et al. (1980b) found that the 2 5 frequency of black and white characters on television was somewhat proportionate to their shares in the U.S. population. In their 1977-78 sample,
86% of the characters were white and 10% were black: white characters were over-represented by 3% while the proportion of black characters was identical to the 1970 U.S. census report. This study, however, did not analyze the percentages of male and female characters by race (see Gerbner & Signorielli,
1979). Therefore, this study may not illustrate that race on television was represented in proportionate shares to the U.S. population.
Character Status. For the most part, in television programming, minority characters are less likely to be portrayed in major and supporting roles
(Gerbner & Signorielli, 1979; Hinton et al., 1974; Lemon, 1977; Seggar et al.,
198 1; Signorielli, 1984). Hinton et al. (1 974) found that 39% of whites and
24% of blacks were portrayed in major and supporting roles. h contrast, 61 % of whites and 76% of blacks were portrayed in minor and bit part roles.
Therefore, television programming discriminated against minority characters by presenting them in fewer significant roles.
Studies by Gerbner and Signorielli (1 979) and Signorielli (1984) also compared the role significance of white, black, and other minority characters on prime-time television programming. In these studies, white characters were shown significantly more often in major roles. For instance,
Gerbner and Signorielli (1979) found that the majority of major characters were 26 whites (87.5%), followed by blacks (8.5%), Hispanics (2.5%), Asian-Americans
(1.3%), and Native Americans (.2%).
Seggar et al. (1981) also compared the role significance of white, black, and other characters in 1975 and 1980. For the most part, in major, supporting, minor, and bit parts, the percentage of white characters' portrayals increased from 1975 to 1980 while the percentage of black and other characters' portrayals decreased from 1975 to 1980. Black male characters portrayals in minor and bit parts, however, increased from 1975 to 1980, as d~d other female characters portrayals in supporting roles.
One content analysis found that more non-white characters were portrayed in both major and supporting roles than white characters (Seggar,
1977). This study found that 8.8% of other characters, 6.2% of blacks, and
5.5% of whites were portrayed in major roles. However, no recent study has indicated that non-white characters have more role significance than white characters.
Program Genres. Minority characters were not only confined to certain character roles, they were also confined to certain genres of programs.
In general, the majority of minority characters were portrayed in situation comedies (Baptists-Femandez & Greenberg, 1980; Greenberg et al., 1980b,
1980c; Reid, 1979). For instance, Baptista-Fernandez and Greenberg (1980) examined
Hferent genres of programs to determine whether there were racial ~ferences in character portrayals. They found that the majority of black characters were portrayed in situation comedies. Even though each program genre had some black characters, nearly half of the black characters in their sample were found in situation comedies. In contrast to these findings, Lemon (1977) reported that relatively few black characters were portrayed in situation comedies. For the most part, minority characters had low visibility in crime shows, action- adventures, news stories, children's programs, family dramas, and Saturday moming cartoons (Baptista-Femandez & Greenberg, 1980; Greenberg et al.
1980b; Lemon, 1977; O1Kelly & Bloomquist, 1976).
Relatively few content analyses compared the representation of white and non-white characters in genres of programs. The majority of studies reviewed either focused on all program genres or specifically focused on one program genre such as dramas (Gerbner & Signorielli, 1979; Northcott et al.,
1975; Roberts, 1970-1; Seggar et al., 1981) or comedies (Reid, 1979).
Gender and Ane
According to Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli (1980c), "age is [was] clearly a strong determiner of representation in the television population" (Gerbner et al., 1980c; 1980d). Content analyses of prime-time television programming have indicated that in contrast to the real world 2 8 population, both young and old people on television were consistently under- represented while people between the ages of 25 and 45 were over-represented
(Gerbner et al., 1980c; Gerbner & Signorielli, 1982; Northcott, 1975; Robinson
& Skill, 1994; Signorielli, 1983).
For instance, a content analysis by Gerbner et al. (1980~)found that individuals under 20 made up 1 1% of television's population, yet numbered one-third of the real population. Moreover, individuals over 65 only made up
2.2% of television's population, even though they made up 11% of the real world population. In addition, whereas one-half of television's population was between the ages of 25 and 45, only one-fourth of the real population fit into this age group.
Therefore, men and women of certain ages on television are rarely found in equal proportions to their shares in the actual population. Young and old individuals were under-represented while middle aged individuals were over-represented.
Many content analyses of prime-time programming have also found that women were portrayed as younger than men (Aronoff, 1973; Gerbner &
Signorielli, 1982; Kubey, 1980; Signorielli, 1983). Kubey (1980), for example, claimed that the average age of all female characters in television programming was estimated as ten years younger than male characters. 29
According to Davis and Davis (1985), "women are more likely to be seen on television if they are in their 20's, and to be seen less frequently with each succeeding decade. The situation Mfers with males, most of whom are seen in the general age span of 35 to 49" (p. 45-46). Similarly, Gerbner et al. (1980d) and Gerbner and Signorielli (1982) found that on prime-time television programming female characters were concentrated between 25 and 34 while male characters were concentrated between 35 and 44.
Race and Age. The age distribution for minority characters was also not proportionate to their shares in the U.S. population. Prime-time television has presented most non-white characters as young and few non-white characters as old. Robinson and Skill's (1994) analysis of 1,446 characters found that only 2.4% were elderly (65+). Moreover, approximately 88% of them were white, 11.8% were black, and none were Hispanic. In contrast,
Signorielli (1983) found that approximately 24.1% of the non-white men and
27.1% of the non-white women were under the age of 25. These percentages of older and younger non-white characters were not proportionate to their actual shares in the population. Television's population actually under- represented elder minority characters and over-represented younger minority characters.
Non-white characters were typically portrayed as slightly younger than white characters. One study found the majority of non-white male 30 characters (50.3%) to be between the ages of 25 and 40 (Gerbner & Signorielli,
1979). In addition, one-half of the non-white female characters (50.9%) were between the ages of 20 and 35.
Similarly, more non-white characters, especially non-white females were younger than 20 (Gerbner et al., 1980c, 1980d; Gerbner & Signorielli,
1982; Signorielli, 1983). For instance, Gerbner and Signorielli (1 979) found that 7.9% of white males and 13.9% of white females compared to 17.2% of non-white males and 24.4% of non-white females were younger than 20.
The Nature of Roles
As the above literature suggests, television characters are often misrepresented accordmg to gender, race, and age. Thus, the overabundance of stereotypical and traditional content in the media regardmg gender, race, and age can have negative implications for viewers, especially children. For instance, young children may actually believe that there are more men than women living in the United States since this message is "taught" to them in everyday prime-time programming.
It is also important to study character's roles on television.
Previous research inQcates that characters of ddferent genders, races, and ages were also gender-role stereotyped in relation to (1) occupational roles, and (2) social roles, such as marital status (Wober & Gunter, 1988). As stated previously, if television's images of work and the home are inaccurate, 3 1 television may be preparing children for a world that does not exist. For instance, through media socialization, young boys may believe that most nurses, secretaries, and teachers are females while young girls may believe that most women are married and not working in professional occupations, when in actuality these are simply stereotypes perpetuated by the media.
Occwational Roles
Gender-role stereotyping of occupational roles in prime-time television has been studied for more than twenty years. The women's and civil rights movements were largely responsible for focusing research on the portrayal of occupational roles on television (Women on Words and Images,
1975; United Methodist Women's Television Monitoring Project, 1976; U. S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 1979). These movements wanted to determine whether women's and minorities' occupations on television were representative of their roles in U.S. labor force.
Researchers concerned themselves with the occupational images of women on television because occupational roles are central to the storyline of many television programs (Signorielli, 1993a). Moreover, television viewers, especially pre-adolescent and adolescent women's impressions of appropriate occupational roles may be ~nfluencedby television portrayals (Wober &
Gunter, 1988). Thus, we need to determine if character portrayals on television are realistic. 32
The studes typically examine four issues: first, more female characters than male characters cannot be labeled by occupational role.
Second, when compared to the distribution of the labor force in census categories, highly prestigious occupations were over-represented while less prestigious occupations were under-represented or virtually ignored (DeFleur,
1964; Signorielli, 1993a). Third, TV men and women were confined to certain occupational roles; men were over-represented in tradtional male occupations while women were over-represented in traditional female occupations. Fourth, more men were portrayed in professional and white collar jobs than women.
Indeterminate Occupational Roles. Many female characters could not be categorized in a specific occupation (Liebert, Sprafkin, & Davidson,
1982; McNeil, 1975; Seggar, 1975; Signorielli, 1989) Accorhg to Liebert et al. (1982), through the 1980s, between 30% and 40% of female characters compared to less than 20% of male characters had no known occupation.
Thus, television content suggested to viewers that the world of work was not important for women.
A recent content analysis by Vande Berg and Strekfuss (1993), however, found that more female characters were being portrayed in occupational roles--16% of female characters had no occupational role compared to 12% of male characters. 33
Reoresentation of Occuvational Positions. Throughout the years, studies have consistently found that professional and white collar occupations were over-represented while some blue collar occupations were under- represented (DeFleur, 1964; Dominick,l979; Greenberg, 1980b, 1982; Head,
1954; Signorielli, 1993b)
It is not a coincidence that most program types placed a high emphasis on professional and white collar occupations. Television's portrayal of occupational roles is governed by dramatic considerations rather than educational ones. Consequently, only those jobs that serve a dramatic function in a story are portrayed. Moreover, these portrayals are often stereotyped in terms of the types of characters who are cast in these roles (Jeffries-Fox &
Signorielli, 1979, p. 21). Typically, occupational portrayals of law enforcement officers, doctors, or lawyers (professional and white collar) are more exciting, suspenseful, and interesting than portrayals of laborers or farmers (blue collar workers). Even though television functions as an information and a socialization agent, one of its most important functions is to entertain.
Therefore, in order to entertain its audience, television programming over- represents the more adventurous or exciting occupations to capture and maintain audience interest.
Representationof Men and Women in Occwational Positions.
Since the 1960s, content analyses have found that on television men are 34 typically found in traditional male, professional, and white collar occupations
such as doctors, lawyers, judges, and managers. In contrast, women are
confined to a narrow range of traditional occupational roles--secretaries, nurses, teachers, and household workers. Therefore, men tend to be employed in more prestigious occupations than women (DeFleur, 1964; Dominick, 1979;
Greenberg, 1982; Haskell, 1979; Jeffries-Fox & Signorielli, 1979; Kanigua,
Scott, & Gade, 1974; McNeil, 1975; Miller & Reeves, 1976; Seggar, 1975;
Signorielli (Tedesco), 1974; Signorielli, 1989, 1993a; Smythe, 1954; Vande
Berg & Strekfuss, 1993).
For instance, Kanigua, Scott, and Gade (1974) found that the type of work performed by women characters in the early 1970s was gender-role
stereotyped. Of the 43 women characters examined, 13 were full-time homemakers, 4 were employed in traditional male-dominated fields like the natural sciences or medicine, and 26 were employed in traditional female occupations; 8 were secretaries, 7 were nurses, and 4 were teachers.
McNeil (1975) found that more than half of the males in prime-time fictional programs were employed as law enforcement personnel, owners and managers of businesses, doctors, dentists, and mental health professionals. For the most part, no men were employed in traditional female occupations; there was one male clerical worker and no male nurses in this sample. Women, on the other hand, were typically cast in stereotypical female occupations such as 3 5 nurses, clerical workers, and academic personnel. No female characters were corporate executives, government officials, or lawyers. Only one female character was employed as a doctor, dentist, or mental health professional.
Thus, females were rarely portrayed in traditional male, professional, or white collar occupations.
In study after study, relatively few female characters were portrayed in professional, white collar, or traditionally male occupations (Haskell, 1979;
Miller & Reeves, 1976; Seggar, 1975; Signorielli (Tedesco), 1974). Jeffries-
Fox and Signorielli (1979) examined six traditionally male occupations (doctor, psyduatrist, paramedx, judge, lawyer, and police) on prime-time television.
As anticipated, more than 90% of the characters in each occupation were men.
There was more than a three-to-one ratio of male to female characters for each occupation. Surprisingly, when compared to census figures, these gender- related portrayals on television mirrored the actual distribution of men and women in the labor force.
More recent content analyses also support previous findmgs that occupational portrayals on prime-time are gender-role stereotyped. For instance, Vande Berg and Strekfuss (1993), in programming broadcast in the early 19801s,found that men appeared more often than women in the occupations of manager, service, and military. Females were seen far more frequently than males in household occupations. However, there was an equal 3 6 representation of men and women in professional occupations; 20% of both male and female characters were portrayed in professional occupations.
Signorielli (1989) also found that men and women were equally likely to be professionals and white collar workers. For instance, 18.6% of the males and 18.3% of the females were professionals; 12.1% of the males and
12.6% of the females were white collar workers. In addition, Signorielli
(1993a) found that "patterns of over and underrepresentation are not as extreme as those found when comparing the television world with the U. S. labor force within the sexes" (p. 321). In other words, the male-female distribution in television and in the U. S. labor force was proportionate for some occupations such as lawyers, scientists, entertainers, secretaries, and private investigators.
Women, however, were still under-represented in traditional male occupations, especially as professionals.
Marital Roles
Television has traditionally presented a dichotomy between the world of work and marriage. On television, the world of work has been dominated by men while the world of marriage and family has been dominated by women. Studies of women in television programs have consistently revealed that women were typically presented in a marital, home, or family context (Gerbner et al., 1980a; Head, 1954; Signorielli, 1982; 1991a; Smythe,
1954). 3 7
There are three distinct trends in the literature on marital status and the portrayals of men and women on television: first, more men could not be classified by marital status. Second, women were more likely than men to be portrayed as married or formerly married. Third, the majority of men who could be coded for marital status were single or not married.
Determining Marital Status. Television programming definitely places a greater emphasis on establishing the marital status of female characters
(Gunter, 1986). Women rarely cannot be classified by marital status in television programming. Busby (1975) stated that the marital status of women was more crucial, based on the fact that 85% of the women and only 73% of the men had an identifiable status. McNeil (1975) found that 11 % of the women, compared to 46% of the men had an indeterminate marital status.
Also, an analysis of major characters in prime-time network drama from 1975 to 1979 found that 12.1% of the women and 33.3% of the men could not be coded for marital status (Signorielli, 1982).
Married vs. Not Married. Content analyses have further concluded that women were typically portrayed as married in television programming when compared to men. In other words, on television there is not always a husband presented for every depresented. For instance,
Signorielli(Tedesco)(1974) found that "more than half the females were 3 8 married, compared with less than one-third of the males" (p. 120).
Furthermore, the majority of the males, or 61.5%, were not married whereas approximately 45% of the females were not married.
McNeil (1975) analyzed prime-time television programming and also found that marriage was more central to a woman's character's role than to a man's. "Among characters whose marital status could be identified, a higher percent of females were married and a lower percentage single..." (McNeil,
1975, p. 262). Seggar (1975) also found similar results.
Until the 1980s, research did not thoroughly examine marital status as portrayed on television. Stuhes simply determined whether or not characters were married. Signorielli (1982, 1989) used a more discriminative cohg system and determined whether characters were single, married, formerly married, or had some combination of the statuses.
Signorielli (1989) determined that "marital status is a good example of how men and women have been presented ddferently and yet stably in prime-time network dramatic programming" (p. 348). There were two distinct trends in her studies of men and women's marital status on television: first, more women than men were classified as married or formerly married
(Signorielli, 1982, 1989, 199Ia). For instance, 26% of the women compared with 29% of the men were portrayed as married while 13.2% of the women compared with 8.3% of the men were portrayed as formerly married 39
(Signorielli, 1982). Second, the majority of male characters were portrayed as single rather than married or formerly married. Specifically, "among men in major roles, 43% were not married, 16% were married, and 8% were formerly married" (Signorielli, 1989, p. 350).
Marital Status and Race. Signorielli (1982, 1991a) found that television programming places a greater emphasis on establishing the marital status of non-white male and female characters. More than one-third of the white males, compared to 18.3% of the non-white males had an indeterminate marital status (Signorielli, 1982). Therefore, more non-white males were identified as married, single, and formerly married. Moreover, Signorielli
(1991a) found that 34.3% of non-white women compared to 20.7% of white women were married. Consequently, white females were more likely to be single than non-white women (Signorielli, 1982, 1991a).
Marital Status and Occupation. There are many content analyses that examined the presentation of men and women in occupational and marital roles. However, relatively few studies examined the interrelationship between them.
In the twentieth century, there were relatively few events that significantly affected the institution of marriage as the movement of women into the work force (Adegoke, 1987). Accordmg to Silberstein (1992): in the span of a single generation, the family in which both parents [or spouses] work outside the home has gone from being the exception to being the rule. In 1985, both husband and wife worked in 64% of married couple families with children under 18, and half of the mothers with children under 3 were in the workforce... (p. 1).
Instead of being confined to the home, women in the United States began to combine marriage, homemaking, and raising children with jobs and careers outside the home.
Television's content, however, &d not accurately redefine the relationship between employment and marriage. On prime-time television, men and women were presented very stereotypically and trahtionally in regards to occupational and marital roles (Signorielli, 1982). In the 1970s, television programming perpetuated the myth of separate worlds for men and women-- men dominated the work sphere, regardless of marital status, while married women dominated the home sphere, and often did not work outside the home.
Signorielli (1982) also determined that gender was an important prehctor of how a character's marital and occupational roles were portrayed.
For the most part, male characters were portrayed as employed, regardless of their marital status. For example, of the employed male characters, 69.9% were single, 75.7% were married, and 81.3% were formerly married.
Moreover, relatively few men, regardless of their marital status, were likely to be shown performing homemaking activities 41
Expanding this analysis to data collected between 1975 and 1985,
Signorielli (1989) found that among major characters in prime-time network
dramatic programs, less than one-third of the married women and half of the
single and formerly married women were portrayed as employed outside the home. Of the male characters, three-fourths had an occupational role outside
the home, no matter what their marital status. Thus, there was a noticeable
double standard in relation to occupational and marital roles of men and
women on television. Moreover,
women rarely successfully combine marriage and employment outside the home. Only one quarter of the women who are employed outside the home are also married or have been married. Overall, between 1975 and 1985, marriage and working outside the home did not "go together" for female characters.... (Signorielli, 1991a, p. 133).
Thus, married women on television were confined to themes dealing with
family, marriage, and romance. They rarely ventured outside of the home into the world of work. By comparison, there was an "open door policy" for men both at home and at work. Male characters were not restricted in their portrayals.
Consequently, on television, marital status has been a predictor of women's occupational roles. For the most part, married women were less likely to be employed and more likely to be homemakers and mothers. Single and formerly married women were more likely to be employed, especially in traditional male occupations. 42
Finally, the presentation of men and women in relation to marriage and employment has not changed significantly since the 1960s, even though more women have entered the U.S. labor force. Despite the fact that women now mix marriage, homemaking, and raising children with careers, television portrayals are trachtional, stereotypic, and inaccurate (Signorielli, 1993a). The world of television has not keep up with societal changes of women in regards to marriage and employment (Signorielli, 1989).
Unfortunately, these stereotypical images of marital and occupational roles on television may have either direct or inchrect rarmfications on the socialization process, especially for children, adolescents, and average to heavy television viewers. Through long-term exposure to television, viewers may actually believe that television's world is representative and realistic, which can ultimately negate the social progress that women in the United
States have made in the last thirty years.
Power. Dominance and Authoritv
Since the 1960s, television programming has presented men and women with Mferent amounts of power, dominance, and authority, both in the workplace and in interpersonal relationships (Gunter, 1986). For the most part, men are more likely than women to be associated with power, authority, and dominance (Barbatsis, Wong, & Herek, 1983; Greenberg, Richards, &
Henderson, 1980a; Henderson, Greenberg, & Atkin, 1980; Jeffrey & Durkin, 43
1982; Lemon, 1974; McNeil, 1975; Seggar, 1975; Tedesco, 1974; Turow, 1974;
Vande Berg & Strekfuss, 1992; Wober & Gunter, 1988).
For instance, Turow (1974) examined patterns of advice giving/receiving and order givinglreceiving among television characters in
dramatic prime-time and day-time programs. He found that on prime-time television, men gave 70% of the directives while women gave 30% of the
directives. Thus, men were more likely to give advice and orders rather than to
receive advice and orders.
Henderson et al. (1980) and Greenberg et al. (1980a) also found
that male characters gave more orders than females: males were responsible for
giving 80% of the orders to both male and female characters. Furthermore,
orders from males were more likely to be followed than orders originating from
females.
Similarly, Barbatsis, Wong, and Herek (1983) determined that the
most pervasive message in interpersonal interactions on prime-time was an
assertion of dominance. In general, male characters (63%) sent more messages than female characters (37%). Similarly, male characters (59%) were more likely to receive messages than female characters (41%).
When compared to male workers, female workers were suborhate and portrayed with little authority and prestige. For instance, approximately
49% of the female characters were supervised by a male character whereas 44 only 1% of the male characters were supervised by a female character (McNeil,
1975). Also, women were usually portrayed in a lower hierarchical position than men with little authority; in only one instance was a female character portrayed in a higher hierarchical position than a male character (Vande Berg
& Strekfuss, 1992).
Some studies simply measured the overall dominance or power of male and female characters and concluded that male characters had more power/dominance, even though females were rated positively on this trait
(Lemon, 1974; Seggar, 1975; Signorielli (Tedesco), 1974). One study, however, found that on average, male and female characters were equal in dominance more than 55% of the time (Lemon, 1974).
Unfortunately, the terms power, authority, and dominance were defined and operationalized in several different ways, depending on the research study and, in fact, several stuhes used these three terms interchangeably. Despite this problem, it was evident that television consistently conveys men and women according to traditional gender-role stereotypes. Unfortunately, through media sociahzation, some people may actually believe that there are few women who have dominance and authority over men in the United States.
This study ascertained whether male or female characters had more dominance and authority in both interpersonal and work contexts. This study 4 5
also provided precise definitions for dominance and authority; these two
concepts were not used interchangeably. In addition, this study determined
whether men had more dominance/authority in interactions with other men or
women, and whether women had more dorqi~~ancelauthoritywith other women
or men. In other words, was gender an important determinant in whether or
not a character had authority or dominance?
The Television Industry
It is evident from the above review of the literature that the
portrayal of men and women on television has been stereotypic. Although
there are some counter-stereotypic portrayals on television, the majority of
television's gender-role portrayals maintain the status quo (Signorielli, 199 1b).
One possible explanation for the abundance of stereotypic portrayals on
television may be the small proportion of women writers, producers, and
directors working in the television industry.
Accordmg to U.S. Department of Labor statistics (1994), only
37.3% of all the employees in the radio and television broadcasting industry
were women. This estimation included employees at both low and high power
levels Moreover, Sheuer, Pard, and Witbeck (1984) compiled a list of all producers and writers in the television industry and found that 15.2% of the producers and 11.3% of the writers were women. In addition, only 3.3% of the
directors for TV movies, specials, and series were women. 46
Thus, though affirmative action programs have opened some doors for women, hiring throughout the television industry has tended to reflect sexual patterns in U.S. society (Turow, 1984). For whatever reasons, there has
continually been a low representation of women as directors, writers, and producers in the television industry (Morgan, 1979).
Since the majority of the positions of power and dominance in the television industry are occupied by men, television's images of women are predominantly men's images of women (Rakow, 1986; Smith, 1978). Thus, as
stated by Smith (1978):
there is a gap between where we [women] are and the means we [women] have to express and act. It means that the concerns, interests, experiences in forming 'our' culture are those of men in positions of dominance whose perspectives are built on the silence of women. (p. 282)
In other words, because women have been excluded from creating and shaping television content, it does not reflect their voices--it simply validates and reflects the patriarchal structure of both the television industry and of society
If the power structure of the television industry is predominantly male, this may explain why images of women on television are stereotypic.
For instance, when compared to a female writer, it may be more difficult for a male writer to understand the thoughts and experiences of women since he must rely on his observations of and &scussions with women. Therefore, his 47 scripts may have more stereotypical portrayals of women than scripts written by females.
Since television is an important tool in the socialization process, we must examine the gender structure of the television industry and try to determine why television content and images are stereotypical. To date, relatively little research has examined the percentages of females producing, writing, and directing prime-time television programs. The bulk of literature on the structure of the media industry has concentrated on other mass media such as novels, magazines, and newspapers. Therefore, this study sought to determine the percentage of female writers, producers, and directors creating television content. Are still an under-representabon of women in powerful positions in the television industry?
Moreover, this study sought to determine whether female writers, producers, and directors were concentrated in one particular program genre.
For instance, are the majority of female producing, directing, and writing situation comedies, dramas, crime shows, or science fiction program?
The next section probes the interpersonal communication literature to provide a framework for discussing the marital success and types of marriages of television characters. 4 8 Innovative Research on Marriage
Different aspects of the marital relationship have been extensively explored in the study of interpersonal communication literature. Relatively few researchers, however, have studed whether concepts such as marital success and the types of marriages can be discussed in relation to marriages on television.
For the most part, characters on prime-time television do not reveal intimate details or feelings about their marriage. Nevertheless, because many programs center around the home, family, and marriage, it was anticipated that
TV characters might provide enough dialogue about their marriage to discuss:
(1) which characters have successful marriages on television and (2) which type of marriages are typically portrayed on television.
Marital Success
The marital satisfaction of television characters has not been extensively explored in mass communication research. In fact, to date, only two research studies have examined marital satisfaction in television relationships (Manes & Melnyk, 1974; Weigel & Loomis, 1981). The concept of marital satisfaction, however, has been examined extensively in the interpersonal communication literature, especially in relation to employment
(see Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, 1979; Hicks & Platt, 1970; Laws, 1971; Lewis &
Spanier, 1979; Mller, 1976; Samter, 1985; Spanier & Cole, 1976). This body 49 of literature was examined to shed further light on the interrelationship between marital satisfaction and marital portrayals on television.
There are, however, numerous methodological and theoretical
in the study of marital satisfaction (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983). The most fundamental weakness in the marital success literature is the
conceptualization and operationalization of the criterion state (Laws, 1971).
That is, this literature uses concepts such as adjustment, quality, satisfaction,
and happiness to describe marital success but does not clanfy their meaning.
Instead, each study typically chooses one general concept to encompass this
entire range of terms. Consequently, terms are often used incorrectly and interchangeably to describe the same concept (Laws, 197 1; Lewis & Spanier,
1979; Spanier & Cole, 1976).
Second, two Mferent and independent measuring techniques have been used to assess marital success: (1) objective, demographic data and (2) subjective self-reports of marital spouses. Objective data focuses on marital stability, the more quantitative dimensions of the marital relationship--"the formal or informal status of a marriage as intact or nonintact" (Lewis &
Spanier, 1979, p. 269). In general, raters assign an individual or a couple
(dependmg on the unit of analysis) to a category of married, separated, or divorced (Samter, 1985). Those individuals categorized as divorced or separated were considered to have a nonintact or unsuccessful marriage. 50
The research on marital stability often focuses on demographic variables (age, race, gender, education, employment, income, and social status) that both Qrectly and indirectly affect marital status. Recent stuQes, however, have concluded that demographic characteristics are not powerful correlates of marital satisfaction (Yogev & Brett, 1985; Sarnter, 1985). For instance, Hicks
and Platt (1970) argued that demographic variables such as income, education,
and status levels rarely explain more than one-third of the variance in marital
stability stuQes.
Most research on marital success has been grounded in the
subjective self-reports of spouses. Accordmg to Miller (1976), "this research proceeded on the assumption that an important quality of the marital relationship could be as well assessed by asking married people directly how
satisfied they were with their marriage, as by calculating a global score based on some combination of marriage characteristics" @. 643). Marital satisfaction, happiness, quality, and adjustment thus represent qualitative dimensions and evaluations of the marital relationship and are measured with rating scales.
Self-report data, however, cannot be used to examine marital satisfaction in television marriages because coders cannot ark television
characters whether they are satisfied in their marriage. Moreover, to have accurate and reliable data, coders cannot use subjective indices when determining the marital success of television characters. Instead, coders must 5 1 use a recording instrument that quantdies objective evaluations of marital
success in television relationships. To date, no such instnunentation exists;
researchers in the past have measured marital success by whether or not the
marriage was functioning (Manes & Melynk, 1974; Weigel & Loomis, 1981).
Third, marital satisfaction is considered to be both a uni-
dimensional and multi-hmensional phenomena. Most studies inQcated that the
level of marital success, whether focusing on an inchidual, a couple, or a
group of individuals, is usually affected by many Mferent variables (Lewis &
Spanier, 1976; Miller, 1976). Relatively few stuQes, however, have
concomitantly agreed which variables affect marital success. In fact, no
research study to date has answered the question, "which variable has the most
mfluence on marital satisfaction."
A review of marital success literature has found that there is a positive andlor negative correlation between marital satisfaction and many variables such as affective and problem solving communication, sexual relations, religious and political beliefs, type and amount of recreational time, personality traits, length of marriage, and number of children living inside or outside the home (Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Corrales, 1975; Glenn & Weaver,
1978; Hicks & Platt, 1970; Laws, 1971; Miller, 1976; Renee, 1970; Snyder,
1979). 5 2
Amount of Affective and Problem Solving Communication
Received From Svouse. Snyder (1979) determined that measures of a couple's affective and problem solving communication were consistently strong predictors of marital satisfaction. In fact, these measures accounted for more than half of the total variance in a couple's satisfaction with their marriage
(Snyder, 1979). Thus, they may predict the level of marital satisfaction of television characters.
Sexual Relations with Spouse. Blood and Wolfe (1960) found that sex was one area of disagreements in urban marriages while Snyder (1979) found that a couple's satisfaction with their sexual relationship was a relatively good predictor of marital satisfaction. Thus, the amount and quality of sexual relations and sexual activity between television characters may be an important prehctor of marital satisfaction.
Religious and Political Beliefs of Svouse. Blood and Wolfe (1960) found that Mferences in religious and political attitudes and backgrounds sometimes cause marital tension and dissatisfaction: religion and political disagreements were the cause of 4% of the marital conflict in this study.
Blood and Wolfe (1960) further determined that religious
Mferences were a source of strain that affected marital satisfaction. For 53 instance, they determined that couples with the same religious background had more marital satisfaction than couples with different religious backgrounds.
Twe and Amount of Recreational Time Spent with Spouse. The subject of recreation has been indicated to be a large source of &sagreement and conflict between husbands and wives. For instance, 30% of all disagreements in urban marriages were over the quality and amount of recreation time spent with spouse (Blood & Wolfe, 1960).
Snyder (1979) also found that the amount and quality of leisure time spent together by a couple was a good predictor of marital satisfaction. In fact, this variable, along with affective and problem solving communication, accounted for more than half of the total variance in a couple's satisfaction with their marriage (Snyder, 1979). Therefore, it was anticipated that this variable could also be used to measure the marital satisfaction of television characters.
Personalitv of Svouse. Approximately 28% of all dsagreements in urban marriages were over personal habit or personality Mferences (Blood &
Wolfe, 1960). Therefore, this may be an issue that can weakened a marriage and reduce the marital satisfaction of television characters.
Len& of Maniaae. There was a dscrepancy in the literature regarding marital satisfaction and the number of years married. Whereas some studies suggested that the longer couples were married, the lower their marital 54 satisfaction tended to be, others stated that marital satisfaction increased during the later years of a marriage (Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Glenn & Weaver; Laws,
1971; Miller, 1976). Nevertheless, there was a strong correlation between marital satisfaction and length of marriage.
Number of Children. As the number of children in a maniage increased, marital satisfaction was affected. Studies found a positive, a negative, and no correlation between marital satisfaction and the number of children (Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Chadwick, Albrecht, & Kunz, 1976; Hicks &
Platt, 1970; Laws, 1971; Renee, 1970; Miller, 1976). One study even reported that childless couples had more marital satisfaction than couples with children
(Renee, 1970).
Number of Children Living Inside the Home. Blood and Wolfe
(1960) found that marital satisfaction was lowest when there were no children presently living at home while marital satisfaction was highest when 3 children were presently living at home.
In contrast, Renee (1 970), Miller (1 976), and Glenn and Weaver
(1978) found that marital satisfaction was hghest when no children were living at home. In fact, the presence of children under 6 was considered detrimental to the marital satisfaction of white wives (Glenn & Weaver, 1978). Moreover, one study found that the density or spacing of children (average interval 55
between births) in terms of years had an additional impact on marital
satisfaction but these findmgs have not been widely supported (Miller, 1976).
Children thus have a profound effect on marital satisfaction,
whether they are living or not living at home, even though it is not clear I whether they had a positive or negative effect on marital relationships. The I number of children then should be a good predictor of marital satisfaction in television marriages.
Marital Success and Emulovment
There is a lack of definitive evidence concerning the effects of men
1 and women working inside and outside the home on marital satisfaction.
I I Studies have indicated that men and women's marital satisfaction is positively, IE negatively, or not affected by their employment status (Adegoke, 1987; Blood, I 1963; Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Feinauer & Evans, 1989; Hofferth & Moore, ! 1979; Housekneckt & Macke, 1981; Nye, 1963; Staines, Pleck, Shepard, & I O'Conner, 1978; Wright, 1978). I As the following review indicates, the following variables were all I 1 positively or negatively correlated with employment and marital satisfaction: I whether women worked outside of the home because of necessity or by choice, I I the husband's attitude toward his wife working, stage in the life cycle, part-time e and full-time employment, education, income and social class, work 56 commitment, and role commitment. It is expected that some, if not all of these variables can be used to ascertain marital satisfaction in television relationships.
Economic Necessitv or Choice. Orden and Bradburn (1969) found that both husbands and wives experienced less marital happiness when wives participated in the work force out of economic necessity. In other words, husbands and wives experienced more marital happiness when wives entered the work force out of choice. Thus, marital satisfaction was correlated with
wves' reasons for entering the work force.
Husbands' Attitude. When women worked outside the home, marital satisfaction was higher when their husbands approved of them working outside the home than when husbands &sapproved. Marital satisfaction was
also low when wives d~dnot work outside the home but the husband approved of them working outside the home (Nye, 1963, 1974). Thus, a husband's
attitude toward his wife working may affect marital satisfaction in television relationships.
Stages in the Life Cvcle. Blood and Wolfe (1960) found that marital satisfaction was highest when couples had no children (honeymoon stage) and when couples had pre-school children @re-school stage). Laws
(1971) found that marital satisfaction actually decreased when women had 5 7 school age children and then increased during the empty nest phase (no children living at home).
Blood and Wolfe (1960), however, determined that marital satisfaction was lowest when couples were the retired stage (no children living at home) and the unlaunched stage (adult children living at home).
Moreover, Spanier, Lewis, and Cole (1975) reviewed a study that found a curvilinear relationship between marital satisfaction and stage of the family life cycle.
Orden and Bradbum (1969) found that regardless of their stage in the llfe cycle, husbands' and wives' reported less marital satisfaction when wives worked because of economic necessity. However, when pre-school children were in the home, husbands and wives reported more marital satisfaction when women chose to stay at home. Staines et al. (178) found that couples reported lower marital satisfaction when the wives were working and children were in the pre-school stage. By comparison, marital satisfaction was high when grade school children were in the home and women chose to enter the work force (Orden & Bradburn, 1969) and when couples were in the retired stage (Staines et al., 1978).
Part-time vs. Full-time. Orden and Bradbum (1969) discovered that both husbands and wives experienced more marital satisfaction when women worked part-time in the labor market by choice. Marital satisfaction was 5 8 lowest when women worked full-time in the labor force because of necessity.
In addition, husbands actually experienced more marital satisfaction when their wives worked inside the home or part-time outside the home (Nye, 1974.).
Similarly, Nye (1963) found that women employed part-time had more marital satisfaction than women employed full-time or inside the home.
Education. The education level of women appeared to be an important predctor of marital success (Hofferth & Moore, 1979; Nye, 1974;
Orden & Bradburn, 1969; Staines et al., 1978). Among women who did not go to college, housewives had more marital satisfaction than those women who worked outside the home. For instance, Nye (1974) found that women with only a grade school education, regardless of employment, had less marital satisfaction than women with high school or college educations (Nye, 1974).
Hofferth & Moore (1979), however, found that of women with junior high school educations, housewives had more marital satisfaction than women who worked outside the home.
Among women with college educations, there was no ddference in marital satisfaction between housewives and those who worked outside the home. Also, regardless of employment, women with more education had more marital satisfaction (Nye, 1974; Staines et al., 1978). 59 Income and Social Class. The effect of family income (social class) in relation to workinglnon-working wives and marital satisfaction was not clear in the literature because the terms income and social class have been used interchangeably. From the context of several studies, it was not always clear whether researchers were primarily concerned with income level or social status.
Nevertheless, employed women had low marital satisfaction when their husbands' income was low or at the poverty level. Housewives of husbands with low and high income reported the highest marital satisfaction
(Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Nye, 1974).
In contrast, Wright (1978) determined that among the working class, women employed outside the home had more marital satisfaction than housewives. In addition, among the middle class, there was no Mference in marital satisfaction between housewives and women working outside the home.
Work Commitment. Safilios-Rothschild (1970) determined that women working outside the home with a high work commitment were more satisfied with their marriages than non-working women. There was no uference in the degree of marital satisfaction for (1) working women with a low work commitment and non-working women or (2) by all working and non- working women when working commitment was not determined. Thus work 6 0 commitment was a prebctor of marital satisfaction and may be a good predctor of marital satisfaction among television characters.
Role Load. Role load measures how much help wives want from their husbands around the house and with child care. Staines et al. (1978)
determined that a high role load of dual wives (wives and husbands both
working) negatively affected marital satisfaction. Therefore, role load was
correlated with employment and marital satisfaction and may be a prehctor of
marital satisfaction among television characters.
Conclusion
Marital satisfaction is a multi-dimensional phenomena that is
Influenced by many different factors. Consequently, marital satisfaction in
television relationships may be affected by many of these same variables.
For instance, Manes and Melynk (1974 p+2 d (1970) determined that
(1981) explored the relationship between marital satisfaction and employment
in television relationships using objective criteria. Marital satisfa&on was women working outside the home with a high work commitment were more defined as whenever the marriage appeared to be functioning or continuing, no satisfied with their marriages than non-working women. There was no matter how tentatively. In other words, a marriage was coded as successful ~ferencein the degree of mari) and Weigel and Loomis unless one partner attempted to murder the other or if the marriage ended in
separation or divorce. Specifically, these two stuh es explored whether marital
satisfaction was positively or negatively affected by employment. 6 1
Manes and Melynk (1974) and Weigel and Loomis (1981) found that employment was an important correlate of marital satisfaction and that the marital success of female characters was highest when they worked in the home and lowest when they were employed outside the home. Weigel and
Loomis (1981), however, found on television a significant decrease in the percentage of unsuccessfully married women in the work force between 1972 and 1978 and a significant increase in the percentage of unsuccessfully married women employed inside the home. Nevertheless, women employed in traditional female occupations such as schoolteachers, nurses, and social workers, had more successful marriages than women employed in traditional male occupations.
This thesis explored this topic to determine whether male and female characters employed in (1) professional occupations, (2) white collar jobs, (3) blue collar jobs, (4) trahtional female occupations, and (5) traditional male occupations had successful or unsuccessful marriages in relation to the 19 variables hscussed above. In addition, this study also examined whether television's portrayal of men's and women's marital success is drfferent; in other words, were there gender ddferences in the portrayals of employment and marital success. Finally, were there relationships between variables such as stage in the life cycle, income, education, or husband's attitudes and marital satisfaction and employment? Marital.
Fitzpatrick's marital typology classifies individuals as tradtional, independent, or separate. Traditionals hold conventional ideological values and gender-role orientations about their relationship. For instance, the wrfe may change her last name, and marital infidelity is not acceptable. Traditionals exhibit high interdependence in their marriage. They underscore togetherness or companionship, prefer a regular time schedule, and have low levels of support for autonomous physical space. Their communication patterns are non- assertive, but traditional~engage in rather than avoid marital conflict.
Independents hold non-conventional ideological values and gender- role orientations about relationships. They believe that relationships should not constrain an individual's freedom. The experienced autonomy in this relationship is negotiated. Even though the independent maintains separate space and has a difficult time maintaining a regular daily time schedule, they remain psychologically close to their spouse and experience high levels of companionship, sharing, and expressivity in their marriage. Independents do not avoid marital conflict and have assertive communication patterns in their marriage.
Separates vacillate in their beliefs about mamage and gender-role orientation. The separate endorses conventional ideological values yet has low interdependence. Separates try to maintain some autonomy through their use of 63 differentiated space and psychological &stance. They have significandy less
companionship and sharing in their marriage. On the other hand, separates
indcate interdependence by keeping a regular daily schedule. They ultimately
avoid marital conflict, even though they have a persuasive and assertive
communication pattern (Fitzpatrick, 1988, 1990; Fitzpatrick & Best, 1979;
Fitzpatrick, Fey, Segrin, & Schiff, 1993; Fitzpatrick, Vance, & Witteman, 1984;
Perse, Pavitt, & Burggraf, 1990; Williamson & Fitzpatrick, 1985).
Accordmg to Fitzpatrick et al. (1993) "if both spouses agree
independently on their relational schemata, they are categorized as"pure'! types
(i.e., Traditional, Independent, or Separate), whereas husbands and wives who
diverge in terms of their mental model of marriage are classified as "mixed"
couple types" (p. 105).
To date, this marital typology has predicted the nature of
communication that occurs between spouses during conflict situations and
casual conversations or interactions (Fitzpatrick et al., 1984). Also, this
relational typological approach has allowed researchers to "predict patterns of relational control in couples (Best, 1979; Williamson & Fitzpatrick, 1985) as well as patterns of conversational involvement, affect, and self-disclosure
(Fitzpatrick, 1988)" (Fitzpatrick, 1991, p. 213).
In 199 1, Fitzpatrick conducted a six month search to determine if media portrayals of marital relationships reflected her typology of marital 64 status. Fitzpatrick found that most conversations between husbands and wives on television, particularly in situation comedies, were about marriage and family life, not about their specific marriage. In other words, much of the marital dialogue on television did not provide enough information to class^ couples accordmg to her typology of marriage. However, Fitzpatrick (1991) did indicate that she could isolate examples of traditional, separate, independent, pure, and mixed couples among television characters.
This study attempted to use this typology to examine communication patterns in marital relationships on television as well as to gain insight about gender-role stereotypes on television. Does television still portray tradtional images of men and women in relation to marriage? Based on previous research examining gender-roles in marriage, one would expect to find more examples of traditional individuals on television (Busby, 1975).
Furthermore, this study determined whether traditional individuals have more satisfying marriages, as inbcated in previous studies (Manes &
Melynk, 1974; W eigel & Loomis, 1981). In other words, what marital type
(traditional, independent, or separate) had the most satisfying marriage on television?
In conclusion, this innovative research on marriage is important. ~f average to heavy television viewers utilize television as a tool in the socialization process, as cultivation theory suggests, then television viewing 6 5 may have a drect or indirect effect on interpersonal marital relationships. The amount of television viewing could be a predctor of marital success in
American marriages. For instance, average to heavy television viewers may be more likely to use television as a source of information on marriage.
Moreover, television viewing could possibly contribute to people having conventional (or non-conventional) beliefs about the marital relationship.
Whether these assumptions have any truth value, however, cannot be ascertained until we thoroughly examine the portrayal of marital relationships on television.
Research Questions and Hvvotheses
The next section provides a rationale for and states the specdic research questions and hypotheses that were tested in this study.
Gender
Content analyses have continually suggested that television disseminates unfavorable portrayals of women. For the most part, female characters have been under-represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population (Greenberg et al., 1980b), outnumbered by a ratio of three- to-one by male characters (Gerbner et al. 1979), and portrayed with less role significance than male characters (Gerbner et al., 1980d). Moreover, female 66 characters have been confined to certain program types whereas male characters have been represented in a broad range of program types.
Further research is needed to update the basic demography and portrayals of men and women on television. When compared to male
characters, do female characters still suffer "symbolic annihilation" on prime- time television (Tuchman, 1978)? Have images of women on contemporary prime-time television programming improved? Finally, are women still under- represented in frequency, major roles, and certain program types? The following hypotheses will be tested:
H, The number of female characters on television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population.
BI, There are more male characters than female characters in all prime-time dramatic television programming.
H, There are more male characters than female characters in action adventure, crime, and horror programs.
H, Situation comedies will have an even distribution of male and female characters.
Race
When compared to their proportions in the U.S. population, are non- white characters, especially Native Americans and Asian Americans, still under-represented on television? Are non-white characters still dominated by more than a three-to-one ratio by white characters (Northcott et al., 1975;
Seggar, 1977)? Do male characters, regardless of race, significantly outnumber 6 7 female characters on television? In addition, do white characters still dominate major roles and certain program genres (Baptists-Femandez & Greenberg,
1980; Hinton et al., 1975)?
H, The number of non-white characters on television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population.
H, The number of non-white male and female characters on television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population.
H, There are more white male characters than white female characters on television.
There are more non-white male characters than non-white female characters on television.
I& More non-white characters are portrayed in situation comedies than in any other program type on television. ke
For the most part, television programming has been aimed at those in the prime spendmg years, between 18 and 49; very young and old adults have been virtually ignored on television, even though they constitute a large portion of the United States population (Davis & Davis, 1985; Gerbner et al.,
1980c; Northcott, 1975).
By comparison, individuals in the 25 to 50 age bracket have been over-represented on television. The lower half of this portion, ages 25 to 37.4, is predominantly female while the upper half of this portion, ages 37.5 to 50, is predominantly male (Gerbner et al., 1980d; Signorielli, 1983). Does contemporary television programming still represent or "slice up" the general population in this manner? In other words, are male characters, regardless of race, still portrayed as older than female characters?
q, Female and male characters under 20 are under-represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population.
HI, Female and male characters over 65 are under-represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population.
HI, White and non-white characters under 20 are under- represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population.
HI, White and non-white characters over 65 are under- represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population.
HI, Female characters are younger than male characters.
HI, White characters are older than non-white characters.
H,, White male characters are older than non-white male characters.
HI, White female characters are older than non-white female characters.
Occupational Roles
Television has not presented realistic and accurate depictions of people at work. Previous studies indicate that television programs over- represent the number of workers in professional and white collar jobs and under-represented the number of workers in blue-collar jobs (Greenberg,
1980b). Research also shows that male characters dominate the world of work; they are over-represented in traditional male, professional, and white collar occupations. In contrast, women are either not represented in specific occupational roles or are confined to typical female occupations and excluded from traditional male, professional, and white collar occupations.
Does television programming still portray an unrealistic view of the world of work? Was contemporary prime-time television programming less stereotypic in its portrayals of men and women at work?
HI, On television, professionals are over-represented when compared to their numbers in the actual U.S. labor force.
HI, On television, white collar workers are over-represented when compared to their numbers in the actual U.S. labor force.
&, On television, blue collar workers are under-represented when compared to their numbers in the actual U.S. labor force.
&, More female than male characters cannot be classified for a specific occupation.
&,, On television, more men are portrayed in professional occupations than women.
H, On television, more men are portrayed in white collar occupations than women.
& The majority of men on television are portrayed in traditional male occupations whereas the majority of women are portrayed in tradtional female occupations.
Marital Roles
Like occupational roles, marital roles have also been central in television programming. However, whereas men dominated in the world of 70 work, women dominated the world of marriage. Men were more likely to have indeterminate marital roles (McNeil, 1975) or to be portrayed as single
(Signorielli, 1989). In contrast, more females were portrayed as married.
Moreover, more non-white characters, regardless of gender, were portrayed as mamed (Signorielli, 1982). Are characters of drfferent genders and races still stereotyped by marital status on television? In other words, does prime-time television programming still disseminate traditional images of characters in regards to marriage?
q, More male characters than female characters cannot be classified by marital role.
&, On television, more women than men are portrayed as married.
&, The majority of male characters on television are single.
q, More non-white than white characters are portrayed as married.
& More non-white males than white males are portrayed as married.
H,, More non-white females than white females are portrayed as married.
Marria~eand Occwation
Signorielli (1982, 1989) determined that marital status was a strong predictor of women's occupational roles. Manied women were more likely to be restricted to trahtional female occupations. Relatively few married women 7 1 were depicted in traditional male, professional, or white collar occupations.
More single and formerly married women were depicted in these roles than married women.
How have men and women's marital and occupational roles changed on contemporary prime-time television? Is the marital status for women working in traditional male occupations different than for those women working in traditional female occupations? Does television confine women to certain occupations depending on their marital status?
H,, More married women will be depicted in traditional female occupations whereas more single or hvorced women will be depicted in traditional male occupations.
Power. Dominance. and Authority
In general, content analyses found that male characters exhibit more dominance and authority than female characters (Seggar, 1975; McNeil, 1975).
Barbatsis et al. (1983) found that male characters sent more dominant messages than females in interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, Greenberg et al.
(1980a), Henderson et al. (1980), and Turow (1974) determined that male characters gave more orders or directives than females; however, more authority orders were given than peer orders.
Though there were no hscrepancies in the literature, the study of dominance and authority needs to be further investigated. For instance, do men or women have more dominance in both interpersonal and workplace contexts? Do men or women have more authority in the workplace? Do men and women have more dominance and authority with characters of the same gender, opposite gender, or both genders?
H,, Men are more dominant than women in both interpersonal and work contexts.
H, Men have more authority than women in work contexts.
RQ, What level of dominance do male and female characters have with (a) individuals of the same gender, (b) individuals of the opposite gender, and (c) individuals of the same and opposite gender?
RQ, What level of authority do male and female characters have with (a) individuals of the same gender, (b) individuals of the opposite gender, and (c) individuals of the same and opposite gender?
Marital Success
Manes and Melynk (1974) and Weigel and Loomis (1974) determined that married women employed in traditional male occupations had less successful marriages than married women employed in traditional female occupations. However, no other research to date has extensively analyzed marital success on television. Therefore, does contemporary prime-time television programming limit the marital success of women working outside the home, especially those women employed in traditional male, professional, and white collar occupations?
H, TV women in female occupations have more successful marriages than TV women in male occupations. H,, TV women in professional and white collar occupations have less successful marriages than TV women in blue collar occupations.
The interpersonal communication literature inQcated that certain variables were positively or negatively correlated with marital satisfaction. It is expected that each of these variables will be related to the marital satisfaction of television characters
RQ,, Is educational level positively or negatively related to the marital satisfaction of characters?
RQ,, stage in the llfe cycle. RQ,, duration of marriage. RQ,, social class. RQ, number of children. RQ, number of children living at home. RQ,, part-time or full-time employment. RQ, husband's attitudes of their wives working outside the home. RQ, the problem solving communication of spouses. RQ,, the amount of affective communication received from spouses. RQ, the problem solving communication of spouses. RQ,, the work commitment of spouses. RQ, the sexual relations with spouses. RQ, the religious beliefs of spouses. RQ, the political beliefs of spouses. RQ,, the type and amount of recreational time spent with spouses. RQ, the role load of spouses. R& the personality traits of spouses.
RQ, Was marital success on television a multi-dimensional phenomena?
H,, Marital success was higher when women worked by choice and with their husbands' approval than when women worked because of eumomic necessity and without their husbands' approval. 74
Marital Tv~ology
Fitzpatrick's typology of marriage is designed to determine how couple's communicated. This typology is then used to analyze and learn about communication patterns of individual characters on television. For instance, are characters of different marital types (i.e., traditional, independent, separate) portrayed differently on television?
RQ, Do television characters classified as "traditional" marital types have more successful marriages than characters classified as "independent" or "separate"?
In the past, television has presented gender-role stereotypes of men and women that have conformed to the status quo. In other words, images have been conventional or traditional, especially images of marriage. Though images of non-tradtional or liberated men and women do exist on television, they have.been few and far between (Signorielli, 1993b). When compared to previous findmgs, were their more liberated and non-traditional images of men and women and of the marital relationship on contemporary prime-time television programming?
H,, On television, there are more traditional marriages than separate or independent marriages.
H,, On television, characters are more likely to have tradtional marriages than non-traditional marriages.
RQ, On television, do men or women have more traditional marriages? RQ, On television, are men or women presented as more traktional?
Television Industrv
Previous research has indicated that positions of power in the television industry, such as producers, writers, and directors, are dominated by males. Thus, male experiences and ideas are shaping television content. This study attempts to answer two important questions: first, is there a low representation of female writers, producers, and directors in the television industry? Second, are women writing, producing, and directing a variety of program types for prime-time programming?
H,, In general, there will be more male writers, producers, and directors than female writers, producers, and directors.
RQ, What program type has the largest number of female writers, producers, and directors?
RQ, What program type has the largest number of male writers, producers, and directors?
The following chapter describes the methods and recording instrument used to collect data from prime-time television programs. Chapter 3 METHODS
This content analysis examined character portrayals of men and
women to answer and test the research questions and hypotheses outlined in
chapter 2. The recordmg instnunent (see Appendix A) was designed to gather
data needed to answer these research questions, test the hypotheses, and to provide further donnation on how contemporary prime-time television programming portrays men and women, particularly in occupational and marital
contexts.
Sam~le
Data were collected on a weeklong sample of prime-time network television dramatic programming. The sample period ran from September 19,
1994 through September 25, 1994 (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and October 10 through October 17, 1994 (FOX). Dramatic programs included all programs
i with a story Line--reality programs, news, variety, and dormative programs were not included. 77
Unit of Analvses
Program
There were two units of analysis. The first unit of analysis was the program. Coders analyzed programs on 4 networks: ABC, NBC, CBS, and
FOX. Program length varied from a half-hour to two hours.
Programs were categorized in three formats: cartoon, TV play, and feature film/TV movielmini-series. Program types included the following genres: crime, westemlaction adventure, drama, science fictionhorror, and situation comedy.
Writer. Coders recorded whether the writer or writers of each program were male, female, or both male and female.
Producer. Coders recorded whether the producer or producers of each program were male, female or both male and female.
Director. Coders also recorded whether the director or directors of each program were male, female, or both male and female.
Character
The second unit of analysis was the character. Data were collected for major, supporting, and minor characters. A major character was defined as someone with a role essential to the plot. A supporting character was defined 7 8
as someone with a role essential to the development of the major character
role. A minor character was defined as someone with a secondary role to the plot.
The variables included in the recording instrument fell in three
distinct areas: demographics, marriage and dominance/authority. Demographics
(gender, race, age, marital status, occupation, social class, income, education,
stage in the life cycle, number of children living inside and outside the home,
number of years married to present spouse, and type of employment), and
information on mamage (level of marital satisfaction and type of marriage) and
dominance/authority were isolated for major and supporting characters. Only
the basic demographics (gender, race, age, marital status, and occupation) were
isolated for minor characters.
Gender. Gender was measured by a four point category coding
scheme: cannot code, male, female, and other.
Race. Race was measured by a six point category coding scheme:
cannot code, Caucasian, African-American, Asian-American, Native American,
and other.
Chronoloaical Age. The coder recorded the chronological age as
known or estimated from 01 to 99 years old for each character. 79
Social Aae. Social age of each character was assessed by a five point category codmg scheme: cannot code, child/adolescent, young adult (late teens to mid thirties), settled adult (family, established in career), and older adult (elderly).
Occupation. Each character's occupation was determined in several steps. First, coders described, in as much detail as possible, each character's occupation and any other descriptive information related to their occupation.
Visual cues such as the background, setting, specific clothing or uniforms, special equipment, tools, materials, andlor interactions with other people were used as guides to determining the specific occupation. Second, using this descriptive information, occupations were assigned to one of 68 categories.
Finally, during data analysis, occupations were recoded into two &stinct, mutually exclusive category schemes--(a) traditional gender-typed occupations; trahtional male occupation, traditional female occupation, neutral, other
(unemployed, student, homemaker), or unknown, and (b) professional, white collar job, blue collar job, other, or unknown (see Append~xB).
Marital Status. The marital status of each character was measured by a 10 point category codmg scheme: cannot code, single (no reference to having been married), impendmg marriage (engaged), presently married, separated, formerly but no longer married (hvorced, widowed), remarried, 80 mixed, cohabitating (living with someone of the opposite sex), and involved in a homosexual or lesbian relationship.
Dominance. Dominance was defined as to have control or influence over people and resources. A person with dominance could lead, restrain, and organize the behavior of others (Lemon, 1978). More specifically, dominant was defined as control over people (give orders or directive, permission, and advice). Dominated was defined as controlled by people
(received orders or directive, permission, and advice). Neither dominant nor dominated was defined as controlled by andlor control of other people (both gives and receives orders or hrectives, permission, and advice).
Each character's level of dominance was measured in eight chfferent interpersonal and workplace contexts: in marriage, with friends, with adult family members, with children family members, with boss and peers at work
(higher level), with peers at work (same level), with peers at work (lower level), and other. Within these specific contexts, dominance was measured by a six point scale (cannot code, dominated, somewhat dominated, neither dominated nor dominant, somewhat dominant, and dominant). Besldes measuring the level of dominance in each specific context, coders inhcated whether these interpersonal or workplace interactions occurred with individuals of the same gender, individuals of the opposite gender, or individuals of both the same and opposite gender. 8 1
Authoritv. Authority was defined as having control over one's own work process (autonomy) and the work process of others (Wolf & Fligstein,
1979). More specifically, a person with authority can hire or fire others,
~nfluenceor set the pay rate of others, and supervise the work of others.
Certain characteristics of authority can include receiving titles of respect from others, a higher income than other workers, and more perquisites than other workers. A person with no authority cannot hire or fire others, influence or set the pay rate of others, and supervise the work of others. Certain characteristics of no authority can include giving titles of respect to others, receiving a lower income that other workers, and receiving fewer perquisites than other workers.
Each character's level of authority was measured in four cldferent workplace contexts: with superiors (boss or co-workers on a higher level), with co-workers (individuals on the same level), with subordmates (co-workers on a lower level), and other. Within these specific contexts, authority was measured by a six point scale (cannot code, no authority, little authority, equal authority, some authority, and high authority). Besides measuring the amount of authority in each specific context, coders indcated whether these workplace interactions occurred with individuals of the same gender, individuals of the opposite gender, or individuals of both the same and opposite gender (mixed).
Coders also examined each presently married, separated, formerly married, and remarried character on the measure of marital success. It was 82 defined as the outcome of a marital relationship. Marital success represented the adjustment, satisfaction, happiness, communication, co~ct/rolestrain, and emotions experienced by married individuals and reflected the dynamic, ongoing characteristics of an interacting and functioning marriage.
Coders were to identify objective behaviors indicating marital success based on extraneous factors in the program as well as by verbal and non-verbal cues given by characters. Also, coders were to use the definition of marital success as well as the interaction(s) between each character and their signrficant other to determine the level of marital success. For instance, neither successfd/unsuccessfd reflects that a marriage was adequately functioning and was not leading toward marital dissolution.
Marital Success. First, coders rated the marital success of each character by the following question: How satisfied does the character seem with their present marriage? Marital success was measured by a 6 point scale
(cannot code, very unsatisfied, somewhat unsatisfied, neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, somewhat satisfied, and very satisfied).
Dimensions of Marital Success. Coders rated dimensions of marital success by the following question: How satisfied does the character appear with the ? (1) amount of affective communication leceived from spouse: amount of affection and understanding expressed by spouse.
(2) problem solving communication with spouse: ability of spouse to resolve disagreements or problems in marriage.
(3) wolk commitment of spouse: how committed spouse is to their job.
(4) sexual relations with spouse: sexual relations, sexual activity.
(5) leligious md political beliefs of spouse.
(6) quality and amount of lecleational time spent with spouse.
(7) role load of spouse: how much help each spouse wanted from the other spouse around the house and with child care.
(8) personality baits of spouse: personal habits and temperamental quirks (back-seat-driving type of criticisms). It does not deal with serious issues such as drinking and marital mfidelity.
Satisfaction was measured by a 6 point scale, and the categories were cannot code, very unsatisfied, somewhat unsatisfied, neither satisfied or unsatisfied, somewhat satisfied, and very satisfied.
Social Class. The social class of each character was measured by a five point category coding scheme: cannot code, clearly upper (obviously wealthy), upper middle, lower middle, and clearly lower (obvious poverty). 84 Income. The income of each character was measured by a four point category coding scheme: cannot code, low ($14,999 and under), moderate ($15,000 to $99,000), and high ($1 00,000 and higher).
Education. The education level of each character was measured by a four point cobg scheme: cannot code, some evidence of high school, some evidence of college, and other.
Staae in the Llfe Cvcle. The stage in the life cycle of each character was measured by a 10 point category cobg scheme. The categories were cannot code, honeymoon (no children), pre-school child (0 to 5 years old), pre-adolescent child (6 to 12 years old), adolescent child (13 to 17 years old), college age child (1 8 to 22 years old), adult child living at home (23 years old and older), no children living at home, childless, and mixed.
Number of Children Living at Home. The number of children living at home was measure for each character.
Number of Children. The number of total children for each character was also measured.
Number of Years Married to Present S~ouse.The coder recorded the number of years each character was married to their current spouse as known or estimated from 01 to 99 years. 85
Tvpe of Emplovment. The coder also recorded the type of employment for each character. The categories were cannot code, part-time employment (19 hours or less), full-time employment (21 hours to
40 hours), more than full-time employment (41 hours or more), full-time homemaker, mixed, and other.
Non-married Female Character is Working in Paid Employment.
The coder recorded the reason why each non-married female character was working in paid employment by a four point category codmg scheme. The categories were: cannot code, not working, working because of economic necessity, and working but not because of economic necessity.
Married Female Character is Workingin Paid Emplovment. The coder recorded the reason why each married female character was working in paid employment by a five point category coding scheme. The categories were: cannot code, not working, working by her own choice (husband supporhve), working by her own choice (husband not supportive), and working because of husband's choice.
Marital Twology. Coders also classified each character according to Fitzpatrick's typology of mamage. Marital type was measured by a five point scale, and the categories were cannot code, not married, tradtional, independent, and separate. 86
Character with a hditional marriage holds conventional values
about the relationship, demonstrates interdependence with spouse (share time,
space, companionship), has non-assertive communication patterns, and engages in rather than avoid marital conflicts.
Character with an independent marriage holds non-conventional
values about the relationship, demonstrates independence with spouse (do not
share time and space), yet has a high level of sharing and companionship, and
engages in rather than avoid marital conflict.
Character with a separate marriage holds conventional values about the relationship, yet values independence over relationship maintenance, has
persuasive and assertive communication patterns, and avoids marital conflicts
(Fitzpatrick, 1991, p. 214).
Traditional Marriage Orientation. This analysis measured how
traditional each married character was (see above definition). Tradition was
measured by a six point scale, and the categories were cannot code, extremely
traditional, somewhat traditional, neither traditional or non-traditional,
somewhat non-traditional, and extremely non-traditional .
Traditional Orientation. This analysis also measured how traditional each character was (see above definition). Tradition was measured by a six point scale, and the categories were cannot code, extremely traditional, 87 somewhat traditional, neither traditional or non-traditional, somewhat non- traditional, and extremely non-traditional.
Pretest
In March, 1995, a pretest was conducted to identify any problems with the recording instrument, variables, important definitions, and recordmg instructions.
Coders Training
Both coders were graduate students at the University of Delaware.
During their five hours of training, coders received detailed instructions about the definitions, recording instrument, and coding methods in this analysis.
Coders were Informed not to rely on any previously known information about programs or specific characters. Coders then practiced codmg on several programs drawn from network programming. All measurements in the actual analysis were supported by information available in the observed program and by characters' actions.
Reliabilitv Analvsis.
Twenty-six programs were selected and independently coded by two separate coders to provide data for the analysis of reliability (reported in table
3.1 and table 3.2) Intercoder reliability was measured using Krippendorff's
(1980) alpha. Items with a reliability level of .60 and above were accepted for 88 the analysis. Nevertheless, items with a reliability level between .60 and .80
should be viewed cautiously. Future studies should try and improve reliability
levels on these items. The measure of reliability for program format and program type were calculated as part of another project. The agreement
coefficients for these two variables were .96 for program type and .80 for program format. Table 3.1 Krippendorffs Alpha for minor character vsriables. Table 3.2 Gppendorffs Alpha for major and supporting character vruiables. Table 3.2 continued Table 3.2 continued 93 Data Analysis
Data were recorded onto specially designed data forms and was then analyzed using the SPSS Statistical Program. Statistical Abstracts of the
United States (1994) were used for the statistical analyses comparing television's population to U.S. population statistics. Dependmg on the scale of measurement, the statistical tests ranged from descriptive univariate frequency distributions, significant difference of proportions tests, and multivariate crosstabulations and correlations to more sophisticated inferential techniques such as anova and t-tests. Chapter 4
RESULTS
The following chapter presents the results of the data analysis.
First, general descriptive findmgs are presented. Next, results for specific research questions and hypotheses are presented.
Descriptive Findings
Overview of the Sample
Seventy-five prime-time dramatic programs were included in this sample. Approximately one-half (52.0%) were situation comehes, 29.3% were dramas, and 18.7% were crime, horror, and action adventure programs.
Overview of the Characters
One thousand and fifty-eight major, supporting, and minor characters were analyzed. There were 689 (65.1%) males and 369 (34.9%) females. More than three-quarters of all the characters (81.9%) were white. Of the remaining characters, 13.1% were African-American, 1.6%were Asian
Americans, .3% were Native Americans, and 3.0% were other minorities. 95
~pproximatelyone-half of all the characters were settled adults (50.1%). One- brd were young adults (35.0%), 10.2% were children and adolescents, and
4.1% were older adults.
Major and Sw~ortinaCharacters. There were 211 (48.3%) major characters and 226 (5 1.7%) supporting characters, a total of 437. There were
269 (61.6%) males and 168 (38.4%) females. More than three-quarters (82.2%) were white. The majority of the minority characters were African-American
(14.4%) while less than four percent were Asian American (1.4%), Native
American (.2%) or other (1.8%) minorities. Approximately one-half (50.8%) were settled adults, 39.8% were young adults, and very few children and adolescents (6.2%) or older adults (2.1%)
Minor Characters. There were 62 1 minor characters: 420 (67.6%) were male and 201 (32.4%) were female. More than three-quarters (81.8%) were white. Approximately 18% were minorities: 12.2% were African-
American, 1.8% were Asian American, .2% were Native American, and 3.9% belonged to another race. Almost half were settled adults (49.6%), approximately one-third were young adults (31.6%), 13.0% were adolescents or children, and 5.5% were older adults. 9 6
Overview of Characters in Relation to Programs
More characters appeared in programs aired between 9:00 pm and
11:OO pm (55.9%) than between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm (44.1%). Slightly more characters appeared on NBC (28.3%) than on ABC (26.7%) or CBS (25.0%).
Fewer characters (20.1%) appeared on FOX because this network aires the local news from 10:OO pm to 11 :00 pm.
Approximately two-thirds of the characters appeared in situation comedies (38.4%) and dramas (38.8%). The remaining one-third of the characters appeared in crime (15.6%), action adventure (4.6%), and horror
(2.6%) programs. More than three-quarters of all characters appeared in TV plays (86.2%). Less than fourteen percent appeared in films (1 1.8%) and cartoons (1.8%).
Malor and Supporting Characters. Slightly more characters appeared in programs aired between 9:00 pm and 11.00 pm (5 1.9%) than between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm (48.1%). More characters appeared on CBS
(29.1%) than on NBC (25.4%), ABC (25.6%), or FOX (19.9%). More than three-quarters of the characters appeared in situation comedies (43.7%) and dramas (35.5%). Few characters appeared in crime (15.3%) and less than six percent were in the horror (2.5%) and action adventure (3.0%) genre.
Moreover, most characters appeared in tv plays (89.0%); few characters appeared in films (9.2%) or cartoons (1.8%). 97
Mmor Characters. More minor characters appeared in programs
aired between 9:00 pm and 11:OO pm (58.6%) than between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm (41.4%). Slightly more minor characters appeared on NBC (30.3%) than
on ABC (27.4%), CBC (22.1%), or FOX (20.3%). Moreover, three-quarters of the characters appeared in situation comedies (34.6%) and dramas (41.1%).
Approximately twenty-five percent of the characters appeared in crime (15.8%),
action adventure (5.8%), and horror (2.7%) programs. The majority of the
characters appeared in tv plays (84.6%). Approximately fourteen percent
(13.7%) appeared in films and cartoons (1.8%).
Hvvotheses and Research Questions
Gender
The following section presents the results for HI through H,, which examined gender portrayals on television. The results indicate support for these hypotheses.
HI The number of female characters on television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population.
H, There are more male characters than female characters in prime-time television programming.
Table 4.1 indicates support for hypothesis HI. A significant
difference of proportions test revealed that the proportion of female characters on television, regardless of their status, was significantly less than their 98 proportionate share of the U.S. population (z=10.188, df=l, p< .005). For instance, of all the characters on prime-time television, 65.1% were male and
34.9% were female. However, in the U.S. population, there is practically a one-to-one ratio of males (48.8%) to females (51.2%).
Table 4.1 also indicates support for hypothesis &. For major, supporting, and minor characters there was almost a 2: 1 ratio of men (65.1 %) to women (34.9%). Moreover, for minor characters, males made up two-thirds
(67.6%) of the sample and over-represented females by more than two to one. Table 4.1 Frequency of males and females on television and in the U. S. population H, There are more male characters than female characters in action adventure, horror, and crime programs.
H, Situation comedies will have an even distribution of male and female characters.
Tables 4.2 through 4.4 indlcate support for hypothesis H,.
Significant ddference of proportions tests comparing men and women in crime, I horror, and action programs were statistically significant for all (2=3.15, df=l, p< .005), major and supporting (z=2.34, df=l, p< .01) and minor (~2.03,df=l,
p< .05) characters. As shown in table 4.2, almost three quarters (73.6%) of the I characters in crime, horror, and action programs were male. I Significant ddference of proportions tests comparing the distribution I of men and women in situation comehes were statistically significant for all I (F-2.58, df=l, p< .01) and minor (z=-2.48, df=l, p< .01) characters. There were no significant ddferences for major and supporting characters (z=-.88,
df=l, ns). Nevertheless, hypothesis H, was not supported. Regardless of
character status, there was more than a one-to-one ratio of males (60.3%) to
females (39.7%) in situation comedies. Table 4.2 Frequency of all characters by program type and gender
Males (N=689) Females (N=369)
N C% R% N C% R% situation comedy 245 35.6 60.3 161 43.6 39.7 crime, horror and action 178 25.8 73.6 64 17.3 26.4 drama 266 38.6 64.9 144 39.0 35.1
Table 4.3 Frequency of major and supporting charactem by prognun type and gender
Program type Males (N=269) Female (N= 168)
N C% R% N C% R% situation comedy 113 42.0 59.2 7 8 46.4 40.8 crime, horror and action 66 24.5 72.5 2 5 14.9 27.5 drama 90 33.5 58.1 6 5 38.7 41.9 Table 4.4 Fkequency of minor characters by program type and gender
Program type Males (N=420) Females (N=201) N C% R% N C% R% situation comedy 132 31.4 6 1.4 83 41.3 38.6 crime, horror and action 112 26.7 74.2 39 19.4 25.8 drama 176 4 1.9 69.0 79 39.3 31.0
we
The following section presents the results for H, through &, examining the portrayal of race on prime time.
H, The number of non-whites on television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population.
H, The number of non-white men and women on television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population.
The proportion of minorities on television, regardless of character status, was slightly larger (1 8.1%) than their proportionate share in the U.S. population (16.5%)(see table 4.5). However, a difference of proportions test comparing the hstribution of non-whites on television and in the U.S. 103 population was not statistically significant (~1.333,df=l, ns), and hypothesis
H, was not supported.
Hypothesis H, was partially supported (see table 4.6). As predicted, the proportion of all non-white females on television (6.7%) was significantly less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population (8.6%)(~2.11,df=l, p< .05). Contrary to expectations, the proportion of all non-white males on television (1 1.3%) was more than their proportionate share in the U.S. population (7.9%)(2=3.78, df=l, p< .005). TaMe 4.5 Frequency of whites and non-whites on television and in the U.S. population Table 4.6 Race and gender of chmctels on television and of people in the U.S. population
133
4.30). Among all characters, females (17.0%) were more likely than males
(10.9%) to be portrayed as married.
Goodness of fit chi-square tests were statistically significant for all
(X2=734.5,&=3, p< .001), major and supporting (x2=135.5, df=3, p< .001) and minor (x2=673, df=3, p< .001) characters. Nevertheless, hypothesis &, was not supported. The majority of male characters could not be classified for marital status (see tables 4.28 through 4.30). For instance, among all characters, approximately 71.3% of the males could not be classified by marital status compared to 15.2% who were classified as married.
Difference of proportions tests comparing married non-white and white characters were statistically significant for all (~3.14,df= 1, p< .005), major and supporting (z=7.47, df=l, p< .005), and minor (z=1.90, df=l, p< .05) characters. Nevertheless, hypothesis El,, was not supported (see tables 4.3 1 through 4.33). Regardless of character status, more whites (14.6%) than non- whites (5.8%) were portrayed as married.
Difference of proportions tests comparing married white and non- white males were statistically signrficant for all (z=2.03, df=l, p< .05) and major and supporting (~1.82,df=l, p< .05) characters. There were no statistically significant drfferences for minor characters (2-.92, &=I, ns).
Nevertheless, hypothesis q,,was not supported. Regardless of character status, 134 signrf~cantlymore whte males (12.0%) than non-wkte males (5.7%) were portrayed as married (see table 4.34).
Difference of proportions tests comparing married white and non- white females were statistically significant for all (2-2.6, df=l, p< .001), major
and supporting (2-1.76, df=l, p< .05), and minor (2-1.86, df=l, p< .05)
characters. Nevertheless, hypothesis H, was not supported. Regardless of
character status, more white females (19.7%) than non-white females (6.2%) were portrayed as married (see table 4.35).
Table 4.28 Marital status by gender for all characters
Marital Status Males (N=624) Females (N=329)
N C% R% N C% R% unknown 445 71.3 73.0 165 50.2 27.0 ~~ single 95 15.2 50.3 94 28.6 49.7 married 68 10.9 54.8 56 17.0 45.2 formerly 16 2.6 53.3 14 4.3 46.7 x2=42.6, df=3 p< .001, N=953 Table 4.29 Marital status by gender for major and supporting characten
Marital Status Males (N=250) Females (N=153) N C% R% N C% R% unknown 135 54.0 77.6 39 25.5 22.4 single 65 26.0 48.9 68 44.4 51.1 married 39 15.6 52.0 23.5 48.0
p< .001, N=403
Table 4.30 Mruital status by gender for minor charactem
14.8 46.4
formerly 5 1.3 55.6 4 2.3 X2=9.8, df=3 p< .05, N=550 Table 4.31 Mruital status by race for dl characters
Marital Status Wte(N=782) Non-whites (N=17 1) N C% R% N C% R% unknown 487 62.3 79.8 123 71.9 20.2 single 153 19.6 81.0 3 6 21.1 19.0 married 114 14.6 91.9 10 5.8 formerly 28 3.6 93.3 2 1.2 6.7 XZ=13.0,df=3 p< .01, N=953
Table 4.32 Marital status by race for major and supporting characters
Marital Status Whites (N=330) Non-whtes (N=73)
N C% R% N C% R% unknown 136 41.2 78.2 3 8 52.1 2 1.8 single 105 31.8 78.9 2 8 38.4 21.1 married 69 20.9 92.0 6 8.2 8.0 formerly 20 6.1 95.2 1 1.4 4.8 P=lO.l, df=3, p< .05, N=403 Table 4.33 Marital status by race for minor characters Table 4.34 Marital status by race for male characters
Marital Status Whites Non-whites N C% R% N C% R% AU charactem unknown 364 70.3 81.8 8 1 76.4 18.2 single 77 14.9 81.1 18 17.0 18.9 married 62 12.0 91.2 6 5.7 8.8 formerly 15 2.9 93.8 1 .9 6.3 TOTAL: 518 106 X2=5.25, df=3, p=.15, mcf (12.5%) Major and suppolting unknown 109 53.2 80.7 26 57.8 19.3 single 50 24.4 76.9 15 33.3 23.1 married 36 17.6 92.3 3 6.7 7.7 formerly 10 4.9 90.9 1 2.2 9.1 TOTAL: 205 45 X2=4.68, df=3, p=.20, mcf (12.5%)' Table 4.34 continued
N C% R% N C% R% Minor I unknown 255 81.5 82.3 55 90.2 17.7 single 2 7 8.6 90.0 3 4.9 10.0 married 26 8.3 89.7 3 4.9 10.3 formerly 5 100 1.6 0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL: 313 61 X2=3.07, df=3,
1 mcf (minimum cell frequency) Table 4.35 Mruital status by race for female characters
Marital Status Whites Non-whites
123 46.6 74.5 4 2 64.6 25.5 28.8 80.9 18 27.7 19.1 married 52 19.7 92.9 4 6.2 7.1 formerly 13 4.9 92.9 1 1.5 7.1 TOTAL: 264 6 5 x2=10.4, df=3, p< .01, mcf (12.5%)' Major and supporting unknown 27 21.6 69.2 12 42.9 30.8 single 55 44.0 80.9 13 46.4 19.1 married 33 26.4 91.7 3 10.7 8.3 formerly 10 8.0 100 0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL: 125 2 8 X2=8.7, df=3, p< .05, mcf (12.5%)' Table 435 continued
Marital Status Whtes Non-whites N C% R% N C% R% Minor unknown 96 69.1 76.2 3 0 81.1 23.8 single 2 1 15.1 80.8 5 13.5 19.2 married 19 13.7 95.0 1 2.7 5.0 formerly 3 2.2 75.0 1 2.7 25.0 TOTAL: 139 3 7 x2=3.77, df=3, p=.29, mcf (37.5%)'
mcf (minimum cell frequency)
Marriage and occupation.
H3, More married women will be depicted in traditional female occupations whereas more single and divorced women will be depicted in traditional male occupations.
This hypothesis was partially supported. For all characters, more single
and divorced women were-portrayed in traditional male occupations, supporting hypothesis H3, (x2=10.1, df=4, p< .05). For instance, 47.4% were portrayed in traditional male occupations, compared to 3 1.6% in neutral occupations and
21.1% in traditional female occupations (see table 4.36). However, for major and supporting and minor characters, the differences between marital status and 142 occupational roles for single and divorced women were not sign$~cant, and hypothesis H,, was not supported (see tables 4.37 and 4.38).
For married women, regardless of character status, hypothesis H,, was not supported. Contrary to predictions, for all characters, more married women were portrayed in neutral occupations (x2=10 1, df=4, p< .05)(see table 4.36).
Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between marital status and occupational roles for major and supporting and minor characters
(see tables 4.37 and 4.38).
Table 4.36 Occupation by mruital status for all female characters Table 4.37 Occupation by marital status for major and supporting female characters
Table 4.38 Occupation by marital status for minor female charactem
1 mcf (minimum cell frequency) 144
Power. Dominance and Authoria
The next section presents results for hypotheses H,, and H, and research questions one and two, relating to the measures of dominance and authority and the portrayals of both male and female characters in certain interpersonal and work interactions.
H,, Men are more dominant than women in all interpersonal and work contexts.
H, Men have more authority than women in all work contexts.
T-tests comparing the amount of dominance between men and women in interpersonal and work contexts were not statistically significant, and hypothesis H,, was not supported (see table 4.39). For instance, even though males (M=2.9) were slightly more dominant than females (M=3.1) in marital contexts, the ddferences were not statistically significant (t=-1.14, ns).
Only the t-test comparing the amount of authority between men and women in Mferent workplace contexts was statistically significant (see table
4.39), and hypothesis H, was supported. Men (M=3.2) had slightly more authority than women (M=3.O)(t=1.07, df= 1 16, p< .05) with peers of the same work level. Table 4.39 T-tests of dominance md autholity by gender for major md supporting characters
Variable # of Mean T-value DF Sigl cases -7- - Dominance: maniage males 3 7 2.9 -1.14 69 ,129 females 3 4 3.1 -1.14 69 129 Dominance: adult family members males 50 3.3 -.26 104 .399 females 56 3.4 -.26 104 .399 Dominance: boss at work males 76 4.1 -.25 126 .402 females 52 4.2 -.25 126 .402 Dominance: same level peers-work males 86 3.0 1.07 122 .I44 females 3 8 2.8 1.07 122 .I44 Authority: same level peers-work males 80 3.2 1.64 116 .052 females 3 8 3.0 1.64 116 .052 Table 4.39 continued
Variable # of Mean T-values DF Sig' cases
Authority: lower level peels-work males 83 4.5 -. 19 114 ,424 females 33 4.6 -. 19 114 .424
' one-tail test
Dominance and authoritv: with whom. Research questions one and
two asked if there was a relationship between patterns of dominance and
authority and the gender of the characters in each context.
RQ, What level of dominance do male and female characters have with (a) individuals of the same gender, (b) individuals of the opposite gender, and (c) individuals of the same and opposite gender.
A two-way Analysis of Variance of dominance with s&e level
peers at work by gender and context revealed a significant interaction effect
(F=3.245, df=2, p< .05) between gender and context (see table 4.40). There
were no significant main effects for dominance with same level peers and
gender. Although males (M=2.9) were slightly more dominant than females
(M=3.0) with individuals of the same gender, females were slightly more
dominant than males with individuals of the opposite gender and with
individuals of both the same and opposite gender (see table 4.4.1). 147
A post-hoc t-test (see table 4.42) comparing dominance with same level peers at work and gender revealed that females (M=2.8) had slightly more dominance than males (M=3.2) with individuals of the opposite gender (t=2.35, df=23, p< .05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between males and females with individuals of the same gender (t=-.89, ns) or with inhviduals of both the same and opposite gender (t=1.5 1, ns).
Table 4.40 Anova of dominance by same level work peers and gender of major and supporting chamctels
Source of Variation Sum of DF Mean F Sig -----Squares Square - Main effect dominance-same level peers .244 2 .I22 .489 .615 gender .642 1 .642 2.576 .I11 Interaction effect dominance- same level peers x gender 1.617 2 .808 3.245 .043 TOTAL: 2.503 Table 4.41 htemclion between dominance with same level peen and gender of major and supporting chaFscten
Gender Frequency Mean (N= 123)
Peen of same gender I I I I[ females 14 3.0 II Peels of opposite gender males 10 3.2 11 females 15 2.8 (1 Peels of same and opposite gender 20 3.1 1) females
Table 4.42 T-test of dominance with same level peels of the opposite gender by gender of major and supporting characten
Mean T-value DF Sig cases
10 3.2 2.35 23 .028 RQ, What level of authority do male and female characters have with (a) inhviduals of the same gender, (b) individuals of the opposite gender, and (c) individuals of the same and opposite gender.
As seen in table 4.43, a two-way Analysis of variance of authority with boss by gender and context revealed a significant main effect for the context (F=4.831, df=2, p< .01). Male and female characters had equal authority (M=3.0) with bosses of the same gender. They had slightly more authority (M=3.1) with bosses of the opposite gender. Moreover, they had little authority (M=2.2) with bosses of both the same and opposite gender (see table 4.44).
As seen in table 4.45, a two-way Anova of authority with same level peers at work by gender and context revealed a significant main effect for gender (F=5.424, df=l, p< .05). Female characters (M=3.0) had equal authority while male characters had slightly more authority (M=3.2) with same level peers at work (see table 4.46). Table 4.43 Anova of authority by boss at work and gender of major and supporting chamctew
Source of Variation Sum of DF Mean F Sig Squares Square
Main effect authority-boss at work 14.441 2 7.220 4.831 .010 gender 2.341 1 2.341 1.566 .213
- p~ Iukraction effect authority-boss at work x gender
Table 4.44 bquency and mean distributions for main effect of authority with boss at work
Gender of Boss Frequency Mean (N= 1 19)
same gender 5 8 3.0 opposite gender 3 7 3.1 same and opposite gender 24 2.2 Table 4.45 Anova of authority by same level work peels and gender of major and supporting charsctels
Source of Variation Sum of DF Mean F Sig Squares Square ----. ----. Main effect authority-same level peers 1.253 2 ,627 1.946 .I48 gender 1.746 1 1.746 5.424 .022 Interacf on effect authority-same level peers x gender 1.053 2 .526 1.635 .200 TOTAL: 39.254
Table 4.46 Fkequency and mean distributions for the main effect of gender
Gender Frequency Mean (N=118)
males 80 3.2 females 3 8 3.0 Marital Success
The following section explores the relationship between women's occupational roles and marital success.
H, TV women in female occupations have more successful marriages than TV women in male occupations.
H,, TV women in professional and white collar occupations have less successful marriages than TV women in blue collar occupations.
A t-test of marital success by occupations found that females employed in traditional male occupations (M=3.8) had less marital success than females employed in traditional female occupations (M=4.4). However, the differences were not statistically significant (t=-.72, ns), and hypothesis H,, was not supported (see table 4.47).
A t-test of marital success by occupations found that females employed in professional and white collar occupations (M=4.4) had more marital success than females employed in blue collar occupations (M=3.0).
However, the drfferences were not statistically significant (t=l. 17, ns), and hypothesis H,, was not supported (see table 4.47). Table 4.47 T-tests of mluital success by type of employment for married major and supporting characters
Occupation # of Mean T-value DF Sigl cases
traditional male 5 3.8 -.72 8 .247 traditional female 5 4.4 -.72 8 .247 professional and white collar 12 4.4 1.17 11 .I34 blue collar 1 3.0 1.17 11 .I34
1 one-tail test
Research Questions Three. This research question examined whether certain variables were related to the marital success of television characters. Research question three was broken down into 18 sub-research questions which examined specific variables. Flfteen of these sub-research questions were not examined due to low reliability levels (see table 3.2). Table
4.48 shows the results of the following variables:
RQ, educational level RQ, stage in the life cycle RQ, duration of marriage
As seen in table 4.48, educational level was positively related to the marital satisfaction of characters (r=.5802, p< .05). In other words, marital 154 success was higher when characters had more education. Stage in the life cycle (r=. 1962) and duration of marriage (r=.-2179) were not significantly related to the marital satisfaction of characters. However, partial correlations controlling for the effects of gender and social age eliminated the relationship between marital success and educational level, stage in the life cycle, and duration of mamage.
Table 4.48 Cornlatiom and parlial-cornlalions of marital success and education, stage in the Life cycle, and number of years manied.
zero order: controlled for gender r=.59 controlled for social age r= 59 Stage in the Life cycle ~.20 zero order: controlled for gender r=.20 controlled for social age r=.24 Number of years manied r--.22 zero order: controlled for gender r=-.23 controlled for social age r--.41 Research Ouestion Four.
RQ, Was marital success on television a multi-dimensional phenomena?
Table 4.48 indicates that marital success on television is mi- dimensional, not a multi-dimensional phenomena. Educational level (r=.5802, p< .05) was the only variable related to marital satisfaction, but this relationship did not withstand controls for gender and social age.
H,, Marital success was higher when women worked by choice and with their husbands' approval than when women worked because of economic necessity and without their husbands' approval.
This hypothesis was not tested. A frequency analysis indicated that the reasons why married females were working in paid employment could not be ascertained for most of the characters (97.5%) in this sample. Moreover, approximately 1.1% of the married females in this sample did not work. Thus, the reasons why married female characters were working in paid employment could be determined for less than two percent (1.4%) of the characters: these characters were working because of their own choice and with the support of their husbands.
Marital Typolorn
The following section explores Fitzpatrick's typology of marriage in relation to characters on television. Hs, On television, there are more traditional images of men and women than separate or independent images.
A goodness of fit chi-square test indicates support for H,,
(x2=74.11, df-2, p< .01). The type of marriage (traditional, independent, or separate) was coded for approximately fourteen percent (13.9%) of the characters in this sample (N=65). More than three-quarters of these characters
(81.5%) were classified as traditional. Of the remaining characters, 7.7% were classified as independent and 4.6% were classified as separate (see table 4.49).
Table 4.49 F'requency distxibution of marital type for major and supporting characters
Relationship Between Marital Tvpe and Marital Success.
RQ, Do television characters classified as traditional marital types have more successful marriages than characters classified as independent or separate?
Table 4.50 indicates that characters classified as traditionals
(M=4.4) had more successful marriages than characters classified as either 157 I independent or separate (M=3.1). The results were statistically significant
Table 4.50 T-fest of marital success by marital type for major and supporting characters
1 one-tail test
Traditional Images
Tables 4.5 1 and 4.52 present information concerning the portrayal
of traditional marriages on television.
H,, On television, characters are more likely to have traditional marriages than non-traditional marriages.
A goodness of fit chi-square was statistically significant (X2=88.15,
df=4, p< .01), and hypothesis H,, was supported (see table 4.51). The type of
marriage (traditional or not trahtional) was coded for approximately fifteen
percent (14.8%) of the characters in this sample. Of those characters,
approximately two-thirds (66.2%) had somewhat traditional marriages. 158
Approximately twenty percent of the characters had non-traditional marriages, with 12.3% having extremely non-traditional marriages.
Table 4.51 Fhquency dis~bulionof level of tmdilional maniage for major and supporting
Type of Marriage Frequency Percentage (N=65) (%) extremely traditional 7 10.8 I I somewhat traditional 43 66.2 I I neither traditional or I I non-traditional 2 3.1 I I somewhat non-traditional I 5 I 7.7 extremely non-traditional 8 12.3
RQ, On television, do men or women have more traditional mamages?
Table 4.52 indicates that men (M=3.5) and women (M=3.4) were equally likely to have traditional marriages. However, the differences were not statistically significant (t=.60, ns). Table 4.52 T-test of ~diliodmmdage by gender for manied major and supportiq characters
Gender # of Mean T-value cases
males females
Research question seven asked if men or women had more traditional images on prime-time television. However, traditional images of men and women was not tested in the data analysis because the variable
"traditional" did not meet reliability standards (see table 3.2).
Television Industry
The following section explores the frequency of men and women as writers and directors of prime-time television programs. Tables 4.53 and 4.54 presents the gender distribution of writers and directors. Tables 4.55 and 4.56 presents the gender distribution of writers and directors by program type. An examination of female producers was not included in the data analysis because its measure of reliability was not acceptable (see table 3.2).
H,, There will be more male writers, producers, and directors than females writers, producers, and directors. 160
Goodness of fit chi-square tests were statistically significant, and hypothesis H,, was supported. There were more male writers and directors than female writers and directors (see tables 4.53 and 4.54). Of the writers,
65.3% were men and 16.0% were women (X2=65.53,df=3, p< .01). Of the directors, 8 1.3% were men and 9.3% were women (x2=127.00, df=3, p< .01).
Table 4.53 Frequency disbibution of gender for television writers
- - - - females 13 16.0 mixed 8 12.0
Table 4.54 Frequency dis~butionof gender for television directow
11 Gender I Frequency I Percentage 11
11 males I 6 1 1 81.3 females 7 9.3 mixed 0 0.0 Promam Tves. Research questions eight and nine asked if females were confined to writing and directing certain types of programs, such as situation comehes, dramas, crimes, action adventures, and horror programs.
RQ, What program type has the largest majority of female writers, producers, and directors?
RQ, What program type has the largest majority of male wnters, producers, and directors?
As indicated in tables 4.55 and 4.56, dramatic programs had the largest majority of female writers (x2=1.17, df=4, ns) and female directors
(X2=4.27,df=4, ns). For instance, of the female writers, 22.7% were for dramas, 14.3% were for crime, action, and horror programs, and 15.4% were for sitcoms (see table 4.55). Nevertheless, the ddferences were not statistically significant.
As seen in tables 4.55 and 4.56, crime, action, and horror programs had the largest majority of male writers (x2=1.17, df=4, ns) and male directors
(X2=4.27, df=4, ns). In fact, all of the directors (100.0%) for crime, horror, and action adventure programs were male (see table 4.56). However, the ddferences were not statistically significant. Table 4.55 Pmgram type by gender of television Hrlitem
cnme, horror, action (N= 14) 10 71.4 2 14.3 1 7.1 1 7.1 dramas (N=22) 13 59.1 5 22.7 2 9.1 2 9.1 TOTAL:
Table 4.56 bgram type by gender of television directom
sitcom (N= 14) 14 100.0 0 0 0 0 dramas (N=22) 16 72.7 3 13.6 3 13.6 TOTAL: (N=75) 6 1 7 7 Table 4.57 Summary of statistical support for hypotheses
Hypotheses Statistical Support
H, The number of female characters on Supported television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population H, There are more male characters than Supported for all, major, supporting, and female characters in all prime-time dramatic minor characters television programming H, There are more male characters than Supported for all, major, supporting, and female characters in action adventure, minor characters crime, and horror programs H, Situation comedies will have an even Not supported for all, major, supporting, distribution of male and female characters and minor characters H, The number of non-white characters on Not supported television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population H, The number of non-white male and Partially supported female characters on television is less than their proportionate share in the U.S. population
H, There are more white male characters Supported for all, major, supporting, and than white female characters minor characters
H, There are more non-white male Supported for all characters characters than non-white female characters Not supported for major and supporting and on television minor characters
H, More non-white characters are Supported for all, major, supporting, and portrayed in situation comedies than in any minor characters other program type on television
H, Female and male characters under 20 Supported are under-represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population
q, Female and male characters over 65 Supported are under-represented den compared to their proportions in the U.S. population Table 4.57 continued
Hypotheses Statistical Support
H, White and non-white characters under Supported 20 are under-represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population H, White and non-white characters over Supported 65 are under-represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population &, Female characters are younger than Supported for all, major, supporting, and male characters minor characters
H,, White characters are older than non- Supported for all and minor characters white characters I Not supported for major and supporting characters &, White male characters are older than Supported for all and minor characters non-white male characters Not supported for major and supporting characters
HI, White female characters are older than Supported for all characters non-white female characters Not supported for major, supporting, and minor characters
H, On television, professionals are over- Supported represented when compared to their numbers in the actual U.S. labor force &, On television, white collar workers are Not supported over-represented when compared to their numbers in the actual U.S. labor force IL, On television, blue collar workers are Supported under-represented when compared to their numbers in the actual U.S. labor force &,More female than male characters Supported cannot be classified for a specific occupation
&, On television, more men are portrayed Not supported for all, major, supporting, in professional occupations than women and minor characters IE, On television, more men are portrayed Supported for all, major, and supporting in white collar occupations than women characters Not supported for minor characters Table 4.57 continued
Statistical Support
&, The majority of men on television are Partially supported for all, major, portrayed in traditional male occupations supporting, and minor characters whereas the majority of women are portrayed in traditional female occupations IE, More male characters than female Supported for all, major, supporting, and characters cannot be classified by marital minor characters
&, On television, more women than men Supported for all, major, supporting, and are portrayed as married minor characters
6,The majority of male characters on Not supported for all, major, supporting, television are single and minor characters H, More non-white than white characterrs Not supported for all, major, supporting, are portrayed as married and minor characters
6,More non-white males than white Not supported for all, major, supporting, males are portrayed as married and minor characters
H, More non-white females than white Not supported for all, major, supporting, females are portrayed as married and minor characters H,, More married women will be depicted Partially supported for all characters in traditional female occupations whereas Not supported for major and supporting and more single or divorced women will be minor characters depicted in traditional male occupations
H,, Men are more dominant than women Not supported for major and supporting in both interpersonal and work contexts characters H, Men have more authority than women Partially supported for major and in work contexts supporting characters H, TV women in female occupations have Not supported for major and supporting more successful marriages than TV women characters in male occupations
H, TV women in professional and white Not supported for major and supporting collar occupations have less successful characters marriages than TV women in blue collar occupations Table 4.57 continued
Hypotheses Statistical Support
H,, Marital success was higher when Not supported for major and supporting women worked by choice and with their characters husbands' approval than denwomen worked because of economic necessity and without their husbands' approval
H,, On television, there are more Supported for major and supporting traditional mamages than separate or characters independent marriages
H, On television, characters are more Supported for major and supporting likely to have traditional marriages than characters non-traditional marriages
H,, In general, there will be more male Supported writers, producers, and directors than female writers, producers, and directors
The last chapter first provides a summary of the results for each research question and hypothesis. Next, it describes the limitations of this master's thesis. Finally, it gives suggestions for future research studying gender-roles, occupational, and marital portrayals of men and women on prime- time television. Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Summalv
This content analysis examined character portrayals of major, supporting, and minor characters in a sample of prime-time dramatic television programs. The study analyzed demographic information for all characters, includmg the ways in which characters were portrayed in relation to gender, race, age, occupation, and marital status. It examined the amount of dominance and authority men and women had in interpersonal and work contexts. It also analyzed the marital success of characters and the types of marriages presented on television. Finally, it determined the proportion of female and male writers and directors who helped shape and mold television's images of men and women.
The basic premise that guided the research questions and hypotheses in this thesis was that prime-time programming would present stereotypic images of men and women. The results of this study supported this basic assumption. The following ducussion begins with an analysis of general, 168
descriptive mformation, then moves to an analysis of the research questions and hypotheses.
Descri~tiveInformation
The following semen reviews general descriptive ~nformationabout the characters that appear in these programs.
Character Demonraghics
Consistent with numerous previous content analyses of television
characters, a highly disproportionate number of characters were male, compared to the one-to-one ratio of men to women in the U.S. population. Perhaps the proportion of male to female characters would be more equal if more women were writers and directors in the television industry.
Caucasian characters were slightly under-represented on television-- they were 83 percent of the U.S. population compared to 82 percent of the television population (Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1994). Of the non-white characters, African Americans were over-represented by less than one percent (.7%) while Asian Americans and Native Americans were under- represented by approximately two percent (2.2%) when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population. 169
Although the patterns of over- and under-representation of characters by race were somewhat small when compared to U.S. population statistics, these differences were still meanmgful. For instance, even though the program All American Girl featured Asian Americans while Northern Exposure featured Native Americans, these minorities were still under-represented on pnme-time. Consequently, except for one or two programs, these minority groups were perhaps almost invisible throughout the entire sample week of prime-time television programming.
In regard to age, although children, adolescents, and the elderly comprise a large portion of the viewing audience, these age groups made up less than fifteen percent of all characters on pnme-time. The most frequently portrayed age groups on prime-time television were settled and young adults, malung up approximately three-quarters of the sample. These findmgs may indicate that television producers use images of young and middle-aged adults in their programs to target the prime demographic market, adults between 18 and 49. Adults typically have a large discretionary income, which attracts advertisers. Moreover, television producers may favor this age group since many appealing and interesting storylines that appeal to all audience members can be written about them. 170
Discussion of Research Questions and Hvpotheses
This descriptive information reveals only some details about character portrayals on prime time. The following discussion of research questions and hypotheses explores the findmgs and their ramdications.
Gender
The first set of hypotheses examining the portrayal of gender on prime-time were partially supported. First, when compared to their proportions in the United States (5 1.2%), female characters (34.9%) were under-represented on prime-time. As hypothesis EE, predicted, male characters over-represented female characters by a ratio of almost two-to-one on prime-time, indcatmg that females were less vlsible on television. However, when compared to the ratios of males to females found in previous studies (Greenberg, 1982; Signorielli,
1989), this study found an increase in the number of women as major and supporting characters. For instance, among major characters, whereas
Signorielli (1989) found a three-to-one ratio of males to females, this study found less than a two-to-one ratio of males to females (see table 4.1).
Second, female characters were confiied to certain genres of programs. When compared to male characters, relatively few females were presented in action, horror, and crime programs, in which characters were often 171
shown participating in dangerous car chases, challenging investigations, and
exciting adventures. Although the distribution of male to female characters in situation comedies was uneven, the majority of female characters were still found in situation comedies, which usually focus on the family, romance, and marriage (Wober & Gunter, 1988). Nevertheless, despite the increase in the total number of women as major and supporting characters, women were still
confined to genres in which the storyline centered around the family, romance,
and marriage, indicating that character portrayals on prime-time are still gender
stereotyped and somewhat trahtional.
This study determined that television content does not necessarily provide an accurate depiction of race when compared to U.S. population
statistics. On television, whites were slightly under-represented and non-whites were slightly over-represented when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population. However, the patterns of over and under-representation were small.
For example, non-whites were over-represented by less than two percent (see table 4.5). Nevertheless, this was a positive new trend on prime-time television. Consistent with fiidings from a content analysis by Gerbner and
Signorielli (1979), this study also found that white and non-white women were 172
under-represented on television when compared to U.S. population statistics. In
other words, regardless of race, women were under-represented on television.
Moreover, of the minorities presented on television, blacks had the hghest visibility when compared to other minorities, namely Asian Americans
and Native Americans. This is not surprising since blacks also compose the
largest proportion of minorities in the U.S. population and since this findmg
has been undsputed by previous content analyses examining the race of
television characters (Greenberg, 1986; Signorielli, 1984; Statistical Abstracts
of the United States, 1994).
'Jks study also found that characters of ddferent races were
segregated according to genre and program. More non-white characters were
featured in sitcoms than in any other program type, especially dramas.
Moreover, many of the sitcoms revolving around minority characters (such as
Family Matters and The Fresh Prince of Bel-A ir) did not feature many (or any)
whte characters. Therefore, television often perpetuated isolated images of
minorities who interacted and lived in a "world" separate from whites. Clearly this image is not reflective of reality.
Thus, the presentation of race on television was limited, despite the
slight increase in the number of minorities on television. In general, these types of images can have negative effects on the socialization process of 173 adolescents and children, especially on those youngsters who live in towns and cities that are do not have a large minority presence. For instance, some children may not have the cognitive development to understand that television's representation of minorities is not reflective of reality and may actually believe that minorities and whites work and socialize only with people of the same race. ke
Children, adolescents, and the elderly made up a very small percentage of the characters on prime-time television. First, when compared to their proportions in the U.S. population, television characters younger than twenty and older than sixty-five were under-represented, regardless of their race or gender. Programs typically featured characters between the ages of twenty- five and fifty, with female characters portrayed as younger than male characters, and non-white characters portrayed as younger than white characters.
Second, there were ddferences between major, supporting, and minor characters in regards to age portrayals on television. For all, major, and supporting characters, white males were portrayed as older than non-white male characters whereas for minor characters, there were no significant differences 174 between them. Moreover, for all characters, white females were portrayed as older than non-white females. However, when distinguishmg between major, supporting, and minor characters, there were no significant differences in regards to age.
Television programming is typically aimed at individuals between
18 and 49, which may explain the overabundance of youthful images on television. Television's preoccupation with youthful images, however, can have negative implications because these images convey that most people are young.
In addtion, these images wrongly imply that there are relatively few children, adolescents, and elderly people in society, when in reality approximately 41% of the U.S. population are children, adolescents, and the elderly (Statistical
Abstracts of the United States, 1994). As a result of this misrepresentation, average to heavy television viewers may actually believe that few people in the
United States live beyond their mid sixties. This may also explain why many adolescents are anxious to become adults, since television programming presents adult characters with many more opportunities than adolescents. 175
Occuoational Roles
The measures of occupation specifically focused on gender portrayal. The findings inQcate that the word of work on television was stereotypic and not necessarily reflective of the U.S. work force.
On television, professionals were over-represented by a ratio of two-to-one when compared to their real world proportions. Dramatic programming still placed a large emphasis on glamorous and prestigious occupations such as doctors, entertainers, lawyers, and journalists, yet placed a small emphasis on the amount of time and ddficulty involved in completing the work for these jobs (Signorielli, 1993b).
Contrary to predictions, white collar workers were significantly under-represented on television in comparison to the actual labor force.
However, of the 68 occupations included in the cohg scheme, only six (8.8%) were actually classified as white collar, which may explain the under- representation of white collar workers on television.
Consistent with findings from previous content analyses, blue collar workers were under-represented on television when compared to statistics of the U.S. labor force (DeFleur, 1964). Since blue collar jobs are typically more mundane and less glamorous and interesting, it was not surprising that less than twenty percent (17.0%) of the workers on television were blue collar workers 176
(see table 4.21). Nevertheless, specific blue collar jobs, such as police officers, were actually over-represented on television. Approximately 44% of the blue collar workers on television, compared to 1% in the U.S. labor force, were police officers. In addition, police officers on television were rarely shown doing routine duties such as giving traffic tickets and doing paper work. Most police officers on television spent their days catching and arresting dangerous criminals, breaking down doors, and engaging in high speed car chases with suspects; activities which are not reflective of everyday police work.
There were two unexpected findmg in this study. One finding was that more women than men were portrayed as professionals. This finding was true for all characters and minor characters, though the aferences were largest for minor characters in which 27.5% of the males and 35.8% of the females were portrayed as professionals. This finding reflected the larger proportion of women who are now professionals (53.2%) in the U.S. work force (Statistical
Abstracts of the United States, 1994). Therefore, there were more liberated images of women on television that may, perhaps, encourage more adolescent girls to strive toward professional careers.
Interestingly, content analyses conducted during the 1970s (Jeffries-
Fox & Signorielli, 1979; McNeil ,1975) found that significantly more male characters than female characters were portrayed in professional occupations. 177
In contrast, some content analyses conducted during the 1980s (Signorielli,
1989; Vande Berg & Strekfuss, 1993) found that on television, men and women were equally likely to be portrayed as professionals whereas content analyses. Perhaps the finding that more female than male characters were portrayed in professional occupations is a new trend that will continue throughout the 1990s.
Another unexpected finding in this study was that the majority of female characters were portrayed in traditional male occupations such as doctor, lawyer, and journalist. Previous content analyses found that women were typically cast in traditional female occupations such as homemaker, nurse, and teacher (Kanigua, Scott, & Gade, 1974; McNeil, 1975; Vande Berg &
Strekfuss, 1993).
Therefore, on the surface it may appear as though the portrayal of women was less stereotypic. However, the overall figures revealed that only eleven (16.2%) occupations were actually classified as "traditional female" whereas thirty-six (52.9%) occupations were classified as "traditional male"
Moreover, significantly more women than men were employed in tradtional female occupations. For instance, 18.5% of all female characters compared to
6.1 % of the male characters were employed in traditional female occupations. 178
Despite the increase in the number of females employed as professionals or in traditional male jobs, images of worlung women on television were sdl somewhat stereotypic and trahtional. For example, as previous Literature indicated, significantly more women than men could not be coded for a specific occupation (Liebert et al., 1982; McNeil, 1975; Signorielli,
1989). Moreover, for all, major, and supporting characters, men were more likely than women to be portrayed as white collar workers, such as self- employed workers and managers.
Marital Roles
A previous content analysis by Signorielli (199 1) found that
"television may be the single most common and pervasive source of conceptions and actions related to marriage and intimate interpersonal relationships for large segments of the population" (p. 121). She found that themes of romance and marriage were pervasive, particularly for major female characters.
In this study, however, marital portrayals were not pervasive, especially for minor characters. Even though more female characters could be classified by marital status (see hypothesis I&,), a significantly large number of male and female characters could not be classified by marital status. For 179 instance, among major characters, whereas Signorielli (1991) found that approximately ten percent of the females and one-third of the males could not be classified by marital status, approximately one-fourth of the females and more than one-half of the males could not be classified by marital status in this study. Moreover, among minor characters, whereas Signorielli found that more than thirty percent of the males and forty percent of the females could not be classified by marital status, more than eighty percent of the males and seventy percent of the females could not be classified by marital status in this study.
Although a large proportion of characters could not be classified by marital status, this study revealed some interesting findings concerning marital status and character portrayals. First, themes of marriage and romance were more important for female characterizations since more females than males were portrayed as married. This implies that on television, there was not a male partner for every married female. Second, although there was a slight increase in the number of minorities presented during prime-time, there was a significant decrease in the number of minorities portrayed as married. Contrary to expectations (see hypotheses Bl, through H,), marriage was more important for white than non-white characters, regardless of gender. Interestingly, more than three-fourths of the non-white males and almost two-thirds of the non- white females could not even classified by marital status. Perhaps less non- 180 whtes were portrayed as married because when compared to whites, relatively few non-white characterizations actually had an identifiable marital role.
Marriage and Occupation. There was only a statistically significant relationship between marital status and occupational role for all female characters. As predicted, more single and divorced women were portrayed in traditional male occupations than in traditional female or neutral occupations.
Interestingly, more mamed women were portrayed in neutral occupations, includmg students, entertainers, sales, and other service workers, rather than traditional female occupations. Moreover, significantly more married females were portrayed in traditional male (34.8%) than traditional female occupations (21.7%). This findmg may reflect the fact that more than one-half (55.0%) of the females in the U.S. labor force are married, with many employed in traditional male or professional occupations (Statistical Abstracts of the United States).
In conclusion, these changes in the presentation of characters have significant social consequences. If large segments of the population are relying on television as a primary source of mformation on marriage, they may be receiving little mformation, since less than one fourth of all television characters were actually portrayed as married. Nevertheless, marital portrayals 181 were still stereotypical, and average to heavy television viewers may actually believe, for instance, that more females than males are mamed.
Power. Dominance and Authority
The measures for dominance and authority revealed little statistical support, though some were not used in statistical analyses because they did not have acceptable levels of coder reliability, and some analyses included so few characters that the generalizability of the findmgs was questionable.
There were no significant uferences between men and women in relation to dominance in interpersonal contexts, such as in marriage and with adult family members. Similarly the relation to authority in certain workplace contexts, such as with the boss and lower level peers, were also not statistically sigmficant. There was, however, a significant relationship between men and women in interactions with same level peers; male characters had slightly more authority with same level peers than their female counterparts. This implies that men may have received more titles of respect and more perquisites than women. Moreover, when compared to women, men had more control over their work process and the work process of others.
This study also revealed that while men had equal dominance with women of the same work level, women had slightly more dominance with men 182 of the same work level. For instance, women gave slightly more orders, directives, permission, and advice to men at the same work level, whereas men gave the same number of orders, directives, permission, and advice as women of the same work level.
In regards to authority, both men and women had: (1) little authority with bosses of the same and opposite gender, (2) equal authority with bosses of the same gender, and (3) the most authority with bosses of the opposite gender. Moreover, men had slightly more authority than women in interactions with same level peers, regardless of their gender.
In general, analyses indicated that power was an important part of both male and female characterizations on prime-time television. Men and women were presented with ddferent amounts of authority and dominance.
Nevertheless, there were situations in which women had the same amount of or more authority and dominance than men, indicating that gender portrayals were less stereotypic and traditional than indicated in previous content analyses
(Greenberg et al., 1980a, Henderson et al., 1980; Turow, 1974; Vande Berg &
Strekfuss, 1992). Thus, television programming may be disseminating more positive portrayals of women, whch can have hrect ramifications for the socialization process of children and adolescents. They may be less likely to 183 believe that men have more power, dominance, and authority than women in all contexts and situations.
Marital Success
The hypotheses and research questions that examined the marital success of television characters were generally not supported. First, there was no relationship between women's occupational roles and marital satisfaction.
For instance, there was no difference in the marital success of women employed in traditional male versus traditional female occupations.
Second, although certain demographic variables were strong predictors of marital success in interpersonal relationships, there were no positive or negative correlations between the marital satisfaction of television characters and certain demographic variables. This implies that the predictors of marital success in interpersonal and television relationships are Mferent and possibly that interpersonal communication theories cannot be applied to mass media images. More likely, however, is that television does not reveal enough information about the dynamics of characters' marriages to ascertain what are reliable predictors of marital success in real life.
Interestingly, more than one-third of the programs in this sample were situation comedies. According to Fitzpatrick (1991), this program type reveals limited information about marriage, which may be one possible explanation why less than twenty percent (1 8.1 %) of the major and supporting characters were actually classified as married.
Third, research question six revealed that marital success on television was uni-hensional. In other words, marital success on television was affected by one specific variable, educational level. However, the finchgs for research questions six may not be reflective of the portrayals of marital success on television but rather an indication of the methodological limitations encountered in this study.
Because this study was ground-brealung in applying predictors of marital success in interpersonal relationships to television characters, these type of inconsistencies were expected and may indicate methodological flaws, incluhg low reliability levels and small sample sizes. For instance, less than one-fourth of all television characters were actually classified as married.
These findings do not necessarily indicate that marital success cannot be studied on television, especially since previous content analyses (Manes &
Melynk, 1974; W eigel & Loomis, 1981) found statistically significant relationships between marital success and occupational roles of television characters. Instead, it indicates that marital success must be approached from a more simple perspective than proposed in this research study. 185 Marital Twoloav
The hypotheses and research questions examining the types of marriages on television were generally supported. As predicted, there were more individual television characters with traditional marriages than either separate or independent marriages (see hypothesis H,,). For instance, more than four-fifths of the married characters on television were classified as traditionals (see table 4.49).
Interestingly, an analysis of the proportions of traditional, separate, and independent couples by Fitzpatrick (1988) revealed that of 700 American couples in a non-random sample, 20% were traditionals, 17% were separates, and 22% were independents. The remaining couples were mixed couple types
(each spouse had a chfferent marital classification). This findmg implied that many American couples had non-ideological views about their marital relationship since there was a large proportion of independents in this sample.
Though it is ddficult to make a direct comparison between the fmdmgs in this study (unit of analysis=character) and in Fitzpatrick's study
(unit of analysis=couple), since each study utilized a different unit of analysis, it is evident that television over-represents the number of characters with traditional marriages. This implies that the presentation of marriage on television was stereotypic since a character classified as having a traditional 186 marriage holds conventional ideological values and gender-role orientations
about their relationship (Fitzpatrick, 1988, 1990).
There was also a relationship between marital success and type of
marriage for television characters; characters classified as having trahtional
marriages had more successful marriages than characters classified as having
independent or separate marriages. Therefore, the "formula" for a successful
marriage on television was for characters to have a trahtional marriage.
These types of stereotypic images can have serious implications for
average to heavy television viewers, who may actually believe that people with
independent or separate marriages will have less satisfying marriages.
Adolescents and adults who classify themselves as independents or separates
may be more ambivalent toward marriage if they are using television as a
source of information about marital relationships.
However, caution should be exercised given the limited amount of information about marriage on television. As stated previously, less than twenty percent of the major and supporting characters were classified as married. Moreover, less fifteen percent (12.3%) of the characters classified by
Fitzpatrick's typology of marriage had separate or independent marriages, indicating that the results for research question RQ, may lack generalizability. 187 Traditional Images
As predicted, television characters were more likely to have traditional marriages than non-traditional marriages. More than three-quarters of the married characters had somewhat traditional marriages (see table 4.50).
There was no relationship, however, between gender and having a traditional
\ marriage. Thus, content items relating to marriage revealed very traditional and stereotypical portrayals of men and women.
Television Industrv
This study indicated that portrayals of men and women were stereotypic and traditional. One possible explanation for the abundance of stereotypic portrayals may be the small numbers of female writers and directors in the television industry. The majority of the programs in this sample were written and directed by men. There was, however, no relationship between the gender of writers and directors and type of program type.
Because relatively few programs were written and directed by women, most of television's images actually reflect a male's view of social reality. In other words, television's images of women were predominantly men's images of women (Rakow, 1986; Smith, 1978), which may not be reflective of women's actual roles and experiences in society. 188 The next section describes some limitations in ths research study l and directs attention toward future related research opportunities. Limitations of the Research
There are a number of limitations with this study that must be I addressed. The first is the size of the sample. There were only seventy-five dramatic programs on the four networks. A larger sample of programs
formatted as tv plays and films would have been desirable. Thus, more
characterizations would have been included in the data analysis.
This was another limitation with the sample. Some statistical
analyses included few characters and therefore had little power and no
statistical support. For instance, a chi-square test comparing mamed and single
women employed in traditional male and female occupations included less than
sixty characters, which may have contributed to the lack of statistical
significance (i.e., see hypothesis H,,). Moreover, though some research
questions and hypotheses were statistically significant, few characters were
included in the analysis. Thus, the generalizability of the findings were
questionable. A better sample would have more power and include more
characters to test certain variables. 189
Another limitation was the rewrdmg instrument. Many of the categorical schemes included were too specific for analyzing television characters. For instance, instead of focusing only on the amount of dominance and authority characters have in specfic interactions, a general measure of dominance and authority for each character could have yielded more reliable results.
Moreover, it was originally thought that characterizations on prime- time would focus on the marital relationship and aferent interpersonal and workplace interactions. However, most programs on prime-time gave very broad depictions of these interactions and relationships. A better sample would have been drawn from soap operas on both day-time and prime-time television.
Traditionally, the primary focus of these programs are relational and would provide much information in terms of occupational, interpersonal, and marital relationships.
Another hutation was the low reliability levels. Many variables
&d not meet acceptable standards and were not included in the data analysis.
However, time and cost constraints made it impossible to have an extensive training program. A more extensive training program wuld have raised reliability to acceptable levels. 190
Another htation of this study was that it could not examine trends in the use of gender stereotypes across time. This study could not ascertain whether there has been an improvement or decline in the number of positive gender image portrayals on prime-time. A longituhal analysis, whch performs the same study on samples taken from two different time periods, would allow comparisons to be made concerning the trends in the portrayal of gender images.
A fmal limitation of this study was its generalizability. This research specifically focused on prime-time television programs, and its findmgs cannot be generalized to other media forms. What this study lacked was the analysis of another time block or type of programming (such as cable) to be used as a comparison. A good comparison point would reveal the degree to which prime-time network television programs transmits gender-role stereotypes.
Directions for Future Research
The discussion of the generalizability of this study leads to the question of what future related research opportunities exist. A second, identical study should be performed on programs appearing within other time blocks.
Because this study isolated prime-time programs, another study should analyze 191 dramatic programs aired during daytime television, such as soap operas, that focus specifically on images of adult men and women. Such research would provide more detailed information about the marital relationship between characters, dominance and authority of male and female characters in dfferent interpersonal and workplace interactions, and basic demographic portrayals
Second, this study, in a departure from tradi~onalmethods of content analysis, utilized the more subjective and psychological measures of the amount of marital satisfaction between male and female characters in relation to certain dimensions. Although these measures were more subjective and less reliable, with more extensive coder training and a program sample of both daytime and prime-time dramatic programs, these measures may yield interesting and reliable results. Moreover, this sample may provlde a better framework for analyzing the ddferent types of marriages on television.
Third, this study clarified and extended the meaning of the terms dominance and authority to determine whether men or women had more, less, or equal amounts of power. Future studies should utilize these definitions, and code for: (1) the overall level of dominance and authority of each character, and (2) the level of dominance and authority of each character in specific interpersonal and workplace contexts. 192
Fourth, although this study revealed that portrayals of men and women were stereotypic on prime-time television, it did not analyze whether programs written, produced, and directed by females had more, less, or the same number of stereotypical portrayals as programs written, produced, and directed by males. Is there a relationship between stereotypical portrayals and the gender of those individuals who help create and mold these images?
Moreover, an institutional analysis of the television industry may reveal why there are few women writers, producers, and &rectors in the television industry.
Fifth, this study indicated that individual television characters could be classified reliably according to Fitzpatrick's typology of marriage. However, future researchers should isolate examples of traditional, independent, separate, and mixed couples among television characters on dramatic programs
(excluding situation comedies), as suggested by Fitzpatrick (1991). A large sample of married couples on television may reveal interesting findings, especially in regards to dominance and marital success.
Sixth, the primary focus of this research study was on gender portrayals on prime-time television. Research should extend the analysis of certain variables, inclubg dominance, authority, marital satisfaction, and marital type, in terms of race and age. For instance, do older characters had more dominance and authority than younger characters? Do white characters 193 have more dominance and authority than non-white characters? With whom do characters of ddferent races and gender have the most or least amount of authority and dominance. Does the marital success of television characters vary accordmg to race and age?
Finally, this research design examined data collected from prime- time television by a content analysis, or message system analysis. Future research examining gender-role, occupational, and marital portrayals on television should be designed to consist of two interrelated parts: Message
System Analysis and Cultivation Analysis, which is the hrd prong of the
Cultural Indicators Project. Hypotheses should be tested to examine the relationship between television viewing and responses to an index of sexism that dnectly asks adolescent and adult respondents their views about women's role in society in relation to employment, mamage, and power.
Conclusion
This study revealed that character portrayals on prime-time television often perpetuated gender-role stereotypes and maintained the status quo. Female and minority characters on prime-time appeared less often than male or white characters and were restricted to certain program genres. For the most part, white and non-white females were under-represented and portrayed 194 as younger than their male counterparts, though the aferences for major and supporting and minor characters were not necessarily significant.
Analyses of occupational roles revealed that when compared to female characters, more male characters could be classified by occupational status and were white collar workers. In contrast, more female characters than male characters were portrayed as professionals. Consequently, in terms of occupational roles, there were some non-stereotypic images of women on prime-time.
Analyses of marital roles revealed that a large proportion of television characters could not be classified by marital status, especially minor characters. When compared to male characters, more female characters could be classdied by marital status and were portrayed as married. Moreover, more white characters than non-white characters, regardless of gender, were portrayed as married. In addition, for all characters, the majority of single and divorced women were portrayed in traditional male occupations whereas the majority of married women were portrayed in neutral occupations.
Measures of dominance and authority revealed that both males and females had dominance and authority in the workplace, indicating that some character portrayals were not stereotypic. The axtiount of dominance and 195
authority attributed to men and women, however, varied according to the
context and the gender of the characters in each context.
There was no relationhp between marital success and females
employed in traditional male, traditional female, professional, or white and blue
collar occupations. On television, there were also no variables that predicted whether characters were satisfied or not satisfied in their marriage.
Analyses of characters by Fitzpatrick's typology of marriage revealed that more male and female characters were classified as having traditional rather than independent or separate marriages. Yet there was no relationship between Fitzpatrick's typology of marriage and the marital success of television characters. Moreover, characters were more likely to have traditional marriages than non-traditional marriages, although Mferences by gender were not significant.
This study indicated that the goals of the women's movement have not necessarily been reflected through television content, since many female characters were subordmated, devalued, and presented in negative and stereotypical role portrayals. Although there were some non-stereotypic images of men and women on prime-time, they were few and far between. If television is an important tool in the socialization process, as cultivation theory suggests, then average to heavy television viewers leam many inaccurate and 196 stereotypic views of the roles of men and women in society. Whde hsstudy does not attempt to examine relationships between program content and sexist beliefs and attitudes, its images and characterizations rarely contradict conventional ideological views about women's roles and experiences in society.
The television industry should recognize that it has a moral and social responsibility to broadcast accurate representations of men and women to society. Perhaps television writers, producers, and directors should start creating and disseminating storylines, characterizations, and programs that do not offend and devalue women. Appendix A
RECORDING INSTR- FOR CHARACIERS
(1-76= all characters) (1-76= major and supporting characters) (1-26= minor characters)
1-3 Program ID number
4-5 Characber ID number
6-7 Coder ID number
8-9 Month
12-13 Year (94)
14 'IIme of broadcast 1= begins at 7:00 pm 2= begins at 7:30 pm 3= begins at 8:00 pm 4= begins at 8:30 pm 5= begins at 9:00 pm 6= begins at 9:30 pm 7= begins at 10:OO pm 8= begins at 10:30 pm 15 Netwollc 1= ABC 2= CBS 3= NBC 4= FOX
16 Format 0= cannot code 1= cartoon 2= TV play 3= feature film/TV movielmini-series 4= reality dramalreenactment 5 = documentary 6= newsmagazineltalk show 7= varietylaward 8= sports 9= game show
17 program type O= cannot code 1= crime 2= westernlaction adventure 3= drama 4= science fictionhorror 5= situation comedy 6= comedy, not sitcom or variety skits 7= other children's program 8= varietylaward 9= other
18 Character type O= cannot code 1= majorlleadmg character 2= supporting character 3= minor character
19 Gender O= cannot code 1= male 2= female 3= other 20 Race O= cannot code 1= Caucasian 2= African-American 3= Asian American 4= Native American 5= other
21-22 Chronological age Record chronological age as known or estimated (01 to 99)
23 Social age O= cannot code 1 = childJadolescent 2= young adult (late teens to mid-thirties) 3= settled adult (family, established in career) 4= older adult (elderly)
24 Wtal status O= cannot code 1= single (no reference to having been married) 2= impenchg marriage (engaged) 3= presently married 4= separated 5= formerly but no longer married (divorced, widowed) 6= remarried 7= mixed 8= cohabiting (living with someone of the opposite sex) 9= involved in a homosexual or lesbian relationship
25-26 Occupation (see Appendix B )
27 Social status O= cannot code 1= clearly upper, obvious wealth 2= upper middle 3= middle 4= lower middle 5= clearly lower, obvious poverty 2 8 Income O= cannot code 1= low ($1 4,999 and under) 2= moderate ($1 5,000 to $99,000) 3= high ($100,000 and up)
29 Education O= cannot code 1= some evidence of elementary school (1-8) 2= some evidence of high school (9-12) 3= some evidence of college 4= other
30 Stage in the life cycle O= cannot code 1= honeymoon (before children) 2= pre-school child (0-5) 3= pre-adolescent child (6- 12) 4= adolescent child (1 3- 17) 5= college age child (18-22) 6= adult child living at home (23+) 7= no children living at home 8= childless 9= mixed
3 1 Number of children living at home O= none 1= one 2= two 3= three 4= four 5= five 6= six 7= seven 8= eight+ 9= cannot code 32 Number of children O= none 1= one 2= two 3= three 4= four 5= five 6= six 7= seven 8= eight+ 9= cannot code
33-34 Number of years manied to pmsent spouse Record chronological number of years married as known or estimated (01 to 99).
35 Non-manied female is working in paid employment because: O= cannot code 1= not working 2= working, because of economic necessity 3= working, not because of economic necessity
36 Manied female is working in paid employment because: O= cannot code 1= not working 2= working, because of own choice (husband not supportive) 3= working, because of own choice (husband supportive) 4= working, because of husband's choice
37-52 Dominance: To have control or Influence over people and resources.
When compared to other characters in the program (by context), this character is: (see odd digits 37 through 5 1)
5= dominated 4= somewhat dominated 3= equal dominance 2= somewhat dominant 1= dominant O= cannot code Gender of otber characten in each specific context: (see even digits 38 through 52)
O= cannot code 1= individual(s) of the same gender 2= in&vidual(s) of the opposite gender 3= individual(s) of the same and opposite gender
37-38 marriage
39-40 with friends
41-42 with adult family members
43-44 with children adult members
45-46 with boss and peers at work (higher level)
47-48 with peers at work (same level)
49-50 with peers at work (lower level)
51-52 other
53-60 Authority: Having control over one's own work process (autonomy) and the work process of others.
When compared to other characten in the program (by context), this character has: (see odd digits 53 through 59)
5= high authority 4= some authority 3= equal authority 2= little authority I= no authority O= cannot code Gender of other characters in each specific context: (see even hgits 54 through 60)
O= cannot code 1= in&vidual(s) of the same gender 2= individual(s) of the opposite gender 3= individual(s) of the same and opposite gender
53-54 with boss and peers at work (hlgher level)
55-56 with co-workers (same level)
57-58 with co-workers (lower level)
59-60 other
6 1 Marital success: The outcome of a manta1 relationship. Marital success represents the adjustment, satisfaction, happiness, communication, conflictlrole strain, and emotions experienced by married individuals. It reflects the dynamic, ongoing characteristics of an interacting and functioning marriage.
How satisfied does the character seem with their pl.esent maniage?
5= very satisfied 4= somewhat satisfied 3= neither satisfied or unsatisfied 2= somewhat unsatisfied 1 = vev unsatisfied O= cannot code
62-70 Dimensions of marital success
How satisfied does each character appear with the 7 5= very satisfied 4= somewhat satisfied 3= neither satisfied or unsatisfied 2= somewhat unsatisfied 1= very unsatisfied O= cannot code
62 amount of affective communication received from spouse.
63 problem solving commuuication with spouse
64 work oommitmeslt of spouse
65 sexual relations with spouse
66 religious beliefs of spouse
67 political beliefs of spouse
68 type and amount of recreational timespent with spouse
69 role load of spouse
70 personality traits of spouse
7 1 Classification of chamcter according to Fltzpatkk's typology of maniage O= cannot code 1= not married 2= trachtional 3= independent 4- separate
72 How traditional is this character's manage? O= cannot code 1= not married 2= extremely traditional 3= somewhat traditional 4= neither traditional or non-traditional 5= somewhat non-traditional 6= extremely non-traditional 73 How traditional is this character? O= cannot code 1= extremely traditional 2= somewhat traditional 3= neither trahtional or non-trachtional 4= somewhat non-traditional 5= extremely non-traditional
74 Writeljs) of program O= cannot code 1= male 2= female 3= mixed
Produceljs) of program O= cannot code 1= male 2= female 3= mixed
7 6 Dimctoljs) of program O= cannot code 1= male 2= female 3= mixed Appendix B
OCCCTPATIONAL CATEGORIES
Traditional Gender-tvv ed Occwations
Trahtional Male Occu~ations superhero repair person superhero, legit front cab truck driver doctor transportation psychiatrist firefighter dentist laborers veterinerian military officer paramedic enlisted noncom judge military doctor lawyer military clergy journalist/author military foreign scientist police technician private detective athlete guard watchperson clergy government agent pilot foreign agent public official farmer restaurant manager hotel manager other manager fin an cia1 advisor Traditional Female Occupations homemaker nurse teacher social worker secretary clerical household worker other restaurant worker dtary nurse flight attendant food server
Neutral Occuu ations
student college student entertainer artist athlete seK employed sales crafts factory worker recreation hostlannouncer food preparer
Other Occuuations
unemployed retired criminal criminal, legit front revolutionary other professional other service mixed other
Professional. White Collar. and Blue Collar Occuuations
Professional Occu~ations
other professional journalist doctor artist psychiatrist teacher dentist social worker v eterinerian scientist nurse athlete parame&c clergy judge pilot lawyer hostlannouncer entertainer flight attendant sales clerical secretary mteCollar Occwations public official hotel manager restaurant manager other manager self employed financial advisor
Blue Collar Occwations technician repair person crafts factory worker cab truck dnver transportation recreation household worker other restaurant worker other service fire fighter laborers police private detective guard w atchp erson government agent foreign agent farmer food preparer food server
Other Occw ations unemployed homemaker retired criminal student criminal, legit front college student revolutionary superhero military officer superhero, legit front enlisted noncom xrulitary doctor military nurse military clergy military foreign mixed other REFERENCES
Adegoke, A. (1987). Female labour force participation and maniage happiness: A study of selected married women in Ilorin and Ibadan. Nigerian Journal of-g, a(1-2), 132-40.
Aronoff, C. (1974). Old age in prime-time. Journal of Communication, 24(4), 86-7.
Baptista-Fernandez, P., & Greenberg, B. S. (1980). The context, characteristics, and communication behaviors of blacks on television. In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Life on television: Content analvsis of U. S. TV drama @p. 13-21). Nonvood, NJ: Ablex.
Barbatsis, G. S., Wong, M. R., & Herek, G. M. (1983). A struggle for dominance: Relational communication patterns in television drama. Communication Ouarterlv, 3l, 148- 155.
Blood, R. 0. (1963). The husband-de relationship. In F. I. Nye & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), -a (pp. 282-305). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of- married living. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. i Burr, W. R., Hill, R., Nye, F. I., & Reiss, I. L. (Eds.). (1979). Wife-mother i employment, family, and society. In contemporary theories about the 1 familv. Volume I (pp. 203-226). NY: Free Press. Busby, L. J. (1975). Sex-role research on the mass media. Journal of Communication, 25(4) , 107- 13 1.
Busby, L. J. (1985). The mass meha and sex-role socialization. In J. Dominick & J. Fletcher (Eds.), Broadcastinn research methods (pp. 267- 295). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chadwick, B. A., Albrecht, S. L., & Kunz, P. R. (1976). Marital and family role satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 431-440.
Corrales, R. G. (1975). Power and satisfaction in early marriage. In R. E. Cromwell & D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in families (pp. 197-216). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Davis, R. H., & Davis, J. A. (1985). TV's imaae of the elderly: A practical- guide for change. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
DeFleur, M. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1989). Theories of mass communication (5th ehtion.). NY: Longman.
Dobrow, J. R. (1990). Patterns of viewing and VCR use: Implications for cultivation analysis. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analvsis: New directions in meha effects research (pp. 71-84). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dominick, J. R. (1979). The portrayal of women in prime-time, 1953-1977 Sex Roles, 5, 405-4 1 1.
Downing, M. (1974). Heroine of the daytime serial. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 130-9.
Downs, C. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping on prime-time television. Journal of Genetic Psvcholoav, 138, 253-258.
Em~lovment.hours. and earnings: United States. 1909-94. Volume I1 (1994). Washington, D.C.: Reference Press.
Feinauer, L. L., & Williams-Evans, L. (1989). Effects of wife employment preference on marital adjustment. The American Journal of Familv Therapy, l7, 208-21 8.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communicationin marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Models of marital interaction. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of lanauaae and social ~svchology(pp. 433- 450). New York: John Wiley & sons.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1991). Understandmg personal relationships through meha portrayals. Communication Education, 40, 213-21 8.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Best, P. (1979). Dyadc adjustment in relational types: Consensus, cohesion, affectional expression, and satisfaction in enduring relationships. Communication Monoarmhs, 46, 167-178.
Fitzpatrick, M. A,, Fey, J., Segri., C., & Schiff, J. F. (1993). Internal working models of relationships and marital communication. Journal of Lannuaae and Social Psvcholo~,l2(1), 103-3 1.
Fitzpatrick, M. A,, Vance, L., & Witteman, H. (1 984). Interpersonal communication in the casual interaction of marital partners. Journal of Language and Social Psvcholow, 3, 81-95.
Geiogamah, H., & Pavel, D. M. (1993). Developing television for American Indian and Alaska Native children in the late 20th century. In G. L. Berry & J. K.Asamen (Eds.), Children & television: Images in3 chanainn sociocultural world (pp. 191-204. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gerbner, G. (1973). Cultural indicators: The third voice. In G. Gerbner, L. Gross, & W. H. Melody (Eds.), Communications technolow and social policv (pp. 555-573). NY: Wiley.
Gerbner, G. (1990). Epilogue: Advancing on the path of righteousness (Maybe). In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analvsis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 249-262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gerbner, G. (1993). Women and minorities on television: A study in casting and fate. Paper presented to the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980a). Media and the familv: Images and impact. Paper for the National Research Forum on Family Issues, White House Conference on Families.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980b). The 'mainstreaming' of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 10-29.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980~). Aging with television: What viewers see and what they say. Report for the U. S. House of Rmresentatives Select Committee on Aging. Publishing #96- -23 1. Washington: U. S . Government Printing Office.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living wth television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds. ), Perspectives on meQa effects (pp . 17-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theorv and research (pp.17-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (1980d). Aging with television: Images on television drama and conceptions of social reality. Journal of Communication, =(I), 37-47.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., Morgan, M., & Jackson-Beeck, M. (1979). The demonstration of power: Violence profile no. 10. Journal of Communication, 29(3), 177-196.
Gerbner, G., & Signorielli, N. (1979). Women and minorities in television- drama. 1969-1978. Philadelphia: The Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania.
Gerbner, G., & Signorielli, N. (1982, October). The world according to television. American Demoaraphics, 15-17. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1978). A multivariate, multisurvey study of marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 269-282.
Graves, S. B. (1993). Television, the portrayal of African Americans, and the development of &&en's attitudes. In G. L. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds.), Children & television: Images in a changing sociocultural world (pp. 179- 190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psvchological Bulletin, 93, 5 13-538.
Greenberg, B. S. (1982). Television and role socialization: An overview. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific Droaress and implications for the eiahties. Volume 11: Technical Reviews (pp. 179- 190). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Greenberg, B. S. (1986). Minorities and the mass media. In B. Jennings & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on meha effects (pp. 165- 188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Greenberg, B. S., Richards, M., & Henderson, L (1980a). Trends in sex-role portrayals on television. In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Life on television: Content analysis of U.S. TV drama (pp. 65-87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Greenberg, B. S., Simmons, K. W., Hogan, L., & Atkin, C. (1980b). Three seasons of television characters: A demographic analysis. Journal of Broadchg, 24, 49-60.
Greenberg, B. S., Simmons, K. W., Hogan, L., & Atkin, C. K. (1980~).The demography of fictional TV characters. In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Life on television: Content analysis of U.S. TV drama (pp. 35-46). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gross, L., & Jeffries-Fox, S. (1978). "What do you want to be when you grow up, little girl?" In G. Tuchman, A. Kaplan-Daniels, & J. Benet (Eds.), Hearth and home: Images of women in the mass media (pp. 240-265). NY: Oxford. Gross, L., & Morgan. (1985). Television and enculturation. In J. R. Dominick & J. E. Fletcher (Eds.), Broadcasting research methods @p. 221-234). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gunter, B. (1986). Television and sex-role stereotwinq. London: John Libbey.
Gunter, B., & Wober, M. (1982). Television viewing and perceptions of women's roles on television and in real life. Current Psvcholo~ical Research, 2, 277-288.
Hamarnoto, D. Y. (1993). They're so cute when they're young: The Asian- American child on television. In G. L. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds.), Children & television: Images in a changing sociocultural world (pp. 205-214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Haskell, D. (1979). The depiction of women in leading roles in prime time television. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 19 1-196.
Head, S. W. (1954). Content analysis of television drama programs. Ouarterlv of Film. Radio. and Television, 9, 175- 194.
Henderson, L., Greenberg, B. S., & Atkin, C. K. (1980). Sex ddferences in giving orders, making plans, and needing support on television. In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Life on television: Content analysis of U.S. TV drama @p. 49-63). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hicks, M. W., & Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and stability: A review of the research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and the Familv, 32, 553-573.
Hinton, J. L, Seggar, J. F., Northcott, H. C., & Fontes, B. F. (1974). Tokenism and improving imagery of blacks in TV drama and comedy: 1973. Journal of Broadcasting, l8, 423-432.
Hofferth, S. L., & Moore, K. A. (1979). Women's employment and marriage. In R. E. Smith (Ed.), The subtle revolution: Women at work (pp. 99- 124). Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. Houseknecht, S. K., & Macke, A. S. (1981). Combining marriage and career: The marital adjustment of professional women. Journal of Marriage and the Familv, 43, 65 1-66 1.
Janus, N. Z. (1977). Research on sex-roles in the mass media: Toward a critical approach. The Insurgent Sociolo~ist,2(3), 19-32.
Jeffery, L., & Durkin, K. .(1989). Chddren's reactions to televised counter- stereotyped male sex role behaviour as a function of age, sex and perceived power. Social-, 4, 285-310.
Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1979). Television and children's conceptions of occupations. In H. S. Dordick (Ed.), Proceedmgs of the 6th annual telecommunications policv research conference @p. 2 1-38). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Kalisch, P. A,, & Kalisch, B. J. (1984). Sex-role stereotyping of nurses and physicians on prime-time television: A cbchotomy of occupational portrayals. Sex Roles, 10, 533-553.
Kanigua, N., Scott, T., & Gade, E. (1974). Working women portrayed on evening television programs. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 22, 134-137.
Katman, N. (1972). Television soap operas: What's been going on anyway? Public binion Ouarterlv, 36, 200- 12.
Kubey, R. W. (1980). Television and aging: Past, present, and future. The Gerontologist, 20 16-35.
Laws, J. L. (1971). A feminist review of marital adjustment literature: The rape of the Locke. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 483-5 15.
Lemon, J. (1974). Dominant or dominated? Women on prime-time television. In G. Tuchman, A. Daniels, & J. Benet (Eds.), Hearth and home: Images of women in the mass media (pp. 5 1-68). NY: Oxford University Press.