Gender Representations in Betâ•Žs 106 & Park and Sucker
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2007 Gender Representations in BET's 106 & Park and Sucker Free on MTV: A Content Analysis Kiva Latouché Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION GENDER REPRESENTATIONS IN BET’S 106 & PARK AND SUCKER FREE ON MTV: A CONTENT ANALYSIS By KIVA LaTOUCHÉ A thesis submitted to the College of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Kiva LaTouché All Rights Reserved The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Kiva LaTouché on May 14, 2007. ____________________________ Arthur Raney Professor Directing Thesis ____________________________ Donnalyn Pompper Committee Member ____________________________ Felecia Jordan-Jackson Committee Member Approved: _________________________________________________ Stephen D. McDowell, Chair, Department of Communication _________________________________________________ John K. Mayo, Dean, College of Communication The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii This thesis is dedicated to all those who have helped me become the person I currently am, especially those who are no longer here to share in my achievement. Marian Withers, Lashonta Kebreau, and Norvella Phillips, you are deeply missed. Also, to my mother, who taught me that you should always use optimism and action in the face of adversity. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thank You to (in no specific order): Yolanda Durant and Family, Leopold Myrie, Monica Esquibel, Halima Mohammed, Daniel Williamson, Evan Lane, Robert Reid, Sally Bishai, Joshua Montgomery, Jason McKahan, Madhurima Sarkar, Kristin Carlton, Fayona Salmon, Sally Bishai, John “Jack” Tyndall, Charles Fleeman, and Gabrielle Lovett. Thanks Mom, Dad, Jassaan, and Ayana for never judging me or making me feel weird about being different from so many people my age. For you to trust in me and my actions to the extent you do must be difficult, the support you give me could only be described as courageous. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................................... VI ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................................VII INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................5 METHODS.................................................................................................................................................................14 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................................................20 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................................................................31 APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................................................35 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................40 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH....................................................................................................................................44 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 INTERCODER RELIABILITY ........................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 2 FEMALE/MALE OBJECTIFICATION WITHOUT FACE PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS................... 20 TABLE 3 FEMALE/MALE OBJECTIFICATION WITHOUT FACE PAIRED SAMPLES TEST ............................. 20 TABLE 4 FEMALE/MALE OBJECTIFICATION WITH GAZE PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS ......................... 21 TABLE 5 FEMALE/MALE OBJECTIFICATION WITH GAZE PAIRED SAMPLES TEST.................................... 21 TABLE 6 IMPLICIT SEXUALITY SHOWN BY MALE/FEMALE ACTORS PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS........ 22 TABLE 7 IMPLICIT SEXUALITY SHOWN BY MALE/FEMALE ACTORS PAIRED SAMPLES TEST .................. 22 TABLE 8 IMPLICIT SEXUALITY WITH FEMALE/MALE RECIPIENT PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS............ 23 TABLE 9 IMPLICIT SEXUALITY WITH FEMALE/MALE RECIPIENT PAIRED SAMPLES TEST ...................... 23 TABLE 10 EXPLICIT SEXUALITY WITH FEMALE/MALE ACTOR PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS................ 24 TABLE 11 EXPLICIT SEXUALITY WITH FEMALE/MALE ACTOR PAIRED SAMPLES TEST .......................... 24 TABLE 12 EXPLICIT SEXUALITY WITH MALE/FEMALE RECIPIENT PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS ......... 25 TABLE 13 EXPLICIT SEXUALITY WITH MALE/FEMALE RECIPIENT PAIRED SAMPLES TEST.................... 25 TABLE 14 DOMINANCE/SUBSERVIENCE PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS ..................................................... 26 TABLE 15 DOMINANCE/SUBSERVIENCE PAIRED SAMPLES TEST ............................................................... 26 TABLE 16 IMPLICIT SEXUALITY WITH MALE RECIPIENT BY ARTIST GROUP STATISTICS ....................... 27 TABLE 17 IMPLICIT SEXUALITY WITH MALE RECIPIENT BY ARTIST INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST ...... 27 TABLE 18 GROUP STATISTICS...................................................................................................................... 27 TABLE 19 INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST..................................................................................................... 34 TABLE 20 MALE/FEMALE OBJECTIFICATION WITHOUT FACE GROUP STATISTICS.................................. 29 TABLE 21 MALE/FEMALE OBJECTIFICATION WITHOUT FACE INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST................. 30 TABLE 22 MALE/FEMALE OBJECTIFICATION WITH GAZE INDEPENDENT GROUP STATISTICS................ 30 TABLE 23 MALE/FEMALE OBJECTIFICATION WITH GAZE INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST....................... 30 vi ABSTRACT A content analysis was conducted on the shows 106 & Park and Sucker Free on MTV for the time period of July 1st to August 31st 2006. Of the 92 videos shown, 43 were selected via random sample to create two ‘composite weeks’ for the viewing period of these shows. Coders were graduate and doctoral students in Florida State University College of Communication and only four had familiarity with the genre of music video coded. The frequency of dominance/subservience, implicit aggression, explicit aggression, aggression with sexuality, objectification (without showing face), objectification (showing face), implicit and explicit sexuality, wearing revealing clothing, sexual pursuit and being sexually pursued were counted. Intercoder reliability was conducted using PRAM software. The averages for all measures of intercoder reliability were: Percent Agreement (.798), Scott’s Pi (.006), Cohen’s Kappa (.17), and Holsti’s Coefficient of Reliability (.798). The findings show that females are objectified significantly more often than males with and without the camera showing the face of the individual. Female displays of implicit sexuality occur significantly more often than male displays in music videos and male artists are significantly more likely to be the recipient of these displays of sexuality. vii INTRODUCTION On August 1, 1981 the worlds of radio and film became bonded on the station we now know only as MTV or Music Television. When it was first launched, MTV delivered music videos 24 hours a day into 252 cable systems in 2.1 million American homes. Now under the ownership of Viacom, MTV has expanded not only to other countries and channels, but also to other forms of entertainment such as reality television and awards shows. And its popularity seems to only continue to grow. However, it still provides and is relied on to provide a healthy amount of music videos from the newest and most popular artists available to the public. When MTV was introduced to the viewing public it signaled a change in not only the way record companies advertised and marketed their product (i.e, the artist), but it also changed the way that that generation conceived of music entertainment. MTV proposed a format of entertainment that blended the narrative, performance, and abstract visual entertainment with the popular music of the day. When MTV became successful and music videos were found to be a fruitful investment, broadcast television adopted shows that would pick up on the music video trend to accommodate those consumers who did not have cable television. Later other cable channels, described by Sherman and Dominick (1986) as “a host of imitators,” (p. 81), came into being with the intention to fill other voids created by MTV. It would be safe to assume that those individuals who had both cable and broadcast television had the opportunity to increase their consumption of music videos and the frequency with which they see these videos. However, this new entertainment format was not universally accepted. The popularity of these music videos caused a controversy related to the amount of sex, violence, and gender and ethnic portrayals in these music videos and it still does. Researchers