Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004 Who Saves the Animated World?: the Sex-Role Stereotyping of Superheroes and Superheroines in Children's Animated Programs Kaysee Anne Baker

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION

Who Saves the Animated World? The Sex-Role Stereotyping of Superheroes and

Superheroines in Children’s Animated Programs

By

Kaysee Baker

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2004

The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Kaysee A. Baker defended on

March 24, 2004.

______Arthur A. Raney Professor Directing Thesis

______Laura M. Arpan Committee Member

______Donnalyn Pompper Committee Member

Approved:

______Stephen D. McDowell, Chairperson, 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... iv

1. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 1

2. METHODOLOGY ...... 18

3. RESULTS ...... 23

4. DISCUSSION...... 26

TABLES ...... 40

APPENDICES ...... 48

REFERENCES ...... 63

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 70

iii

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the stereotypic ways in which superheroes and superheroines are portrayed in children’s animated programs. Previous studies have concluded that both animated males and females are presented in traditional sex-role stereotypic ways. Therefore, it was expected that heroic characters would be portrayed similarly. Of the 61 programs recorded, 24 contained heroic characters resulting in 46 superheroes and 24 superheroines. Each character was evaluated on physical appearance, personality traits, physical behaviors, and communicative behaviors. T-tests indicated significant differences between males and females, with superheroines portrayed as more attractive, emotional, superficial, inquisitive, easily excited, and worried about appearance compared to their male counterparts. Superheroes were presented as muscular, tough, angry, and more likely to threaten others compared to females. The potential implications of presenting characters in sex-role stereotypic ways are explored.

iv

CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Television is the primary storyteller for much of American society. It has been called one of the most common, constant, and vivid learning environments (Signorielli, 1990). For many years, researchers have been investigating the potential effects of television consumption on society, and specifically on children (Greenberg & Reeves, 1976; Zuckerman, Singer, & Singer, 1980). The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (2004) reports children now spend about three to four hours a day with the television. Therefore, by the time they graduate high school, children will have spent more time watching television than in the classroom. Because of this heavy consumption, television has become an integral part of the socialization process for children. Through its simplistic ways of portraying life, it can teach children about people, places, power, and life. Instead of depicting characters in individualistic ways, television writers and producers rely on stereotypes when developing their characters. Specifically, males and females are portrayed in traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine ways, as defined by American culture. These stereotypical portrayals of both males and females permeate all media, in turn leading to an increased potential for instilling those stereotypes in viewers. Television’s stereotypic portrayals have been shown to influence individuals in their perceptions of sex-roles (Frueh & McGhee, 1975; Reeves & Greenberg, 1977), occupational roles (DeFleur & DeFleur, 1967; Pingree, 1978), race (Greenberg, 1972; Zuckerman, Singer, & Singer, 1980), body size (Harrison, 2000), and for children, how and what to play (Cobb, Stevens-Long, & Goldstein, 1982). This study focuses on the sex-role stereotypic depictions of superheroes and superheroines in children’s animated programs. Understanding the sex-role stereotypic portrayals of characters on television is important, because children look to models, especially on television, to learn how to look

1

and behave (Ruble, Balaban, & Cooper, 1982; Slaby & Frey, 1975). When characters are portrayed consistently as having sex-role specific behaviors and characteristics, children perceive those stereotypes as realistic. Sex-role stereotypes are potentially threatening to children because they define what it means to be male and female. They also limit the roles individuals feel they are permitted to play (Gunter & McAleer, 1990), and can cause negative self-images in viewers (Harrison, 2000). Some scholars argue that the sex-role stereotyping literature has been exhausted, especially when dealing with children’s programming. If that were the case, it would be assumed that television never changes, and that the programs aired during prior studies would be similar to those aired today. Arguing this is not the case, Signorielli (2001) calls for frequent content analyses. This, she states, is because in order to understand how viewers interpret messages, it is important to first understand what is being portrayed. It is only when we have information about the images to which people are exposed that we can start to assess their impact. Many content analyses investigating the prevalence of sex-role stereotypes in children’s animated programming have been conducted (Levinson, 1975; Sternglanz & Serbin, 1974; Streicher, 1974; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995). These studies concluded that both male and female animated characters are presented in sex-role stereotypic ways. The focus of previous studies tended to be on either the main characters or all those who played a significant role in the plot of the program. This study, however, focuses on a specific type of character that is potentially threatening to the socialization process of children when presented in stereotypic ways: the superhero and superheroine. Superheroes and superheroines are potentially threatening to the socialization process of children because children are extremely susceptible to the messages and behaviors of heroes and heroines (Liss, Reinhardt, & Fredriksen, 1983). Other studies have concluded that children are also more likely to identify with heroic characters, in turn, indicating a greater likelihood that they will imitate the characters’ behaviors (Hoffner, 1996; Potter, 1997). The Media Awareness Network (2004) emphasizes the need for investigations into superheroes and superheroines because children are particularly drawn to these characters and enjoy acting out their stories. Therefore, if

2

animated superheroes and superheroines exhibit sex-role stereotypic behaviors and characteristics, there is a chance that young viewers will act and think similarly.

Sex-Role Socialization through the Media

Gender portrayals in the media, especially those which are sex-role specific, are cause for concern because of the importance of mass media in the socialization process for children (Signorielli, 1990). Socialization, the way people learn about their culture and acquire its values, beliefs, perspectives and social norms, is an ongoing social process; we are socialized and re-socialized throughout the life cycle (Signorielli, 2001). Traditionally, children were socialized by parents, peers, religious and educational institutions (Signorielli, 1990; 2001), however, many studies have shown mass media, especially television, play an important role in the socialization process for children today (Berry & Mitchell-Kerman, 1982; Davidson, Yasuna, & Tower, 1979; Levinson, 1975; Swan, 1998). Specifically, Gerbner and colleagues call television today a “centralized system of storytelling” and have noted “it has become the primary common source of socialization and everyday information (mostly in the form of entertainment) of otherwise heterogeneous populations” (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994, p.18). Although television’s primary use is thought to be entertainment, it also functions as a source for information about the world. Children in particular use television as a window to the unknown world because of their limited exposure and experience with it. For many individuals, the majority of their information and news about the world comes from watching television (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, 2002). Because of this, individuals learn about society from heavy television consumption and everyday exposure to other media outlets. The media then play an important and crucial role in the socialization process. Media socialization differs from traditional socialization in that the media do not allow for face-to-face interaction. Television specifically is a medium that allows for observations of phenomena, not interactions with them; as a result, individuals, specifically children, learn observationally when watching television, not through direct experience.

3

Another concern about the role of television as an agent of socialization for children is the prevalence of stereotypes depicted on its programs. Signorielli (2001) defines stereotypes as standardized images or generalizations that are often based on misconceptions. Others define stereotypes as the preconceptions people bring to a viewing situation (Hoffner & Cantor, 1991). Stereotypes can develop from seeing one type of person portrayed over and over again in a particular way in the media (Swan, 1998). Researchers have investigated the prevalence and effects of stereotypes for years. Specifically, stereotypes have been shown to influence children’s ideas about body size (Harrison, 2000), race (Greenberg, 1972), and sex-roles (McGhee & Frueh, 1980). Of particular interest for this study are those stereotypes that define sex-specific roles for viewers, known as sex-role stereotypes. Sex-role stereotypes are a collection of sex-typed attributes, or traditional norms, that differentiate typical feminine behavior patterns from typical masculine behavior patterns in society (Mayes & Valentine, 1979). In other words, they define for viewers what it means to be male or female. The traditional division of male and female behaviors that has evolved in American culture is often based on the concept of a dominant masculine stereotype and a passive feminine stereotype (Barcus, 1983). Although these stereotypes may not be intentionally negative, they do have the potential to negatively affect viewers by showing them the way they should look or the way they are supposed to behave. In addition, sex-role stereotypes have the potential to limit the roles which males and females are encouraged or even permitted to play in life (Gunter & McAleer, 1990). This is especially important in the socialization process of children, because, as Bandura (1986) noted, observation and modeling are important parts of the learning process. Beuf (1974) posited that television is a prevalent medium in the presentation of sex-role stereotypes. Television writers often work with significant time constraints and often have difficulty developing their characters in the time period allotted. To expedite the process, writers and producers tend to rely heavily on character or sex-role stereotypes to help the audience identify with and understand the characters presented (Signorielli, 2001). Although writers and producers of these programs may not be cognizant of the effects these character portrayals may have, researchers have found sex- role stereotyping on television can play a part in body image issues (Harrison, 2000),

4

determine likeability of other people and characters (Hoffner, 1996; Harrison, 2000), and affect preferences for toys, games (Cobb, Stevens-Long, & Goldstein, 1982; Dileo, Moely, & Sulzer, 1979), and books (Ashton, 1983). When these stereotypical portrayals are viewed consistently over a long period of time, the likelihood that children will then begin to model the behaviors seen on television increases, as they perceive the stereotypes they see to be indicative of “real world” individuals. Kolhberg’s (1966) cognitive developmental theory posited “children acquire the concept of their own gender as constant and immutable as part of cognitive development” an outcome known as gender constancy (Luecke-Aleksa, Anderson, Collins, & Schmitt, 1995, p.773). Three levels of gender understanding make up gender constancy: gender identity, gender stability, and gender consistency (Slaby & Frey, 1975). The first level of gender understanding, gender identity, occurs when one has the ability to label oneself as male or female. Gender stability occurs when one recognizes that his or her sex remains constant over time. Finally, gender consistency occurs when children realize that no matter what clothes they wear, or what activities they engage in, their sex will remain constant (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Research has shown that children become gender constant around the age of six (Kohlberg, 1966; Luecke-Aleksa et al., 1995; Ruble, Balaban, & Cooper, 1982; Slaby & Frey, 1975); an age when many are consuming animated programs. Once developed, gender constancy allows for the categorization of behaviors and attributes along sex-related lines, and leads to a heightened motivation to observe and imitate same-sex behaviors and characteristics (Kohlberg, 1966; Slaby & Frey, 1975). Children then learn their sex is a meaningful “social fact” and comprises a crucial part of the way they appear to others and the way others will react to them (Levinson, 1975, p. 562). This heightened motivation to observe same-sex models leads children to perceive sex-appropriate behaviors as reinforcing (Ruble et al., 1982). Many theorists have posited the learning of sex-role appropriate behaviors via modeling to be crucial to the sex-role development of a child (Freud, 1933; Kohlberg, 1966; Ruble et al., 1982). Research using social learning theory has shown children can or may model aggressive and prosocial behavior seen on television (Barcus, 1983), and specifically on animated programming (Forge & Phemister, 1987). Social learning theory posits that

5

much learning takes place through observing the behaviors of others. The theory acknowledges that human beings are capable of cognition or thinking and that they can benefit from observation and experience (Bandura, 1986; 2002). Four subfunctions, or processes, govern observational learning: attentional processes, retention processes, production processes, and motivational processes. The attentional processes determine what is to be observed and what information should be extracted from those observations. The retention processes occur when cognitive representations, or symbolic transformations of modeled information, are formed. This process leads to information being stored in memory. The production processes are where symbolic conceptions are turned into actions and include the actual behavioral enactment of the observed event. Finally, individuals must be motivated to act out the observed actions. The motivational processes are influenced by reinforcement or punishments that accompany the observed behavior (Bandura, 2002). These processes each have different influential factors operating within them. When applied to the area of media effects, social learning posits that one has a greater likelihood of learning antisocial or prosocial acts from watching television, compared to those who do not. Virtually all learning from direct experience can also be attained vicariously by observing people’s actions and the potential consequences for them (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978; Bandura, 1986). Specifically, Mischel (1966) labeled sex-typed activities as an important function of one’s entire social learning, while emphasizing the input of environmental factors (i.e., mass media) on this process. This is not to say that children are simply reactive beings, reciting and reenacting everything they observe; rather, social learning theory acknowledges that “people are self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self regulating” (Bandura, 2002, p.121). Bandura’s later work with social cognitive theory suggested that personal determinants, such as cognitive, affective, and biological events; environmental determinants, such as societal events; and behavioral determinants work together to influence each other. In other words, environmental influences work with individual psychological mechanisms to influence behaviors. However, the viewer’s cognitive abilities, interests, motivations, and self- concept may make them more or less susceptible to the influence of role models seen on television (Graves, 1999). Although children may not directly emulate the characters

6

seen on television, it is highly probable they may acquire certain values, attitudes or rules from them (Gunter & McAleer, 1990). Signorielli (2001) argues that the sex-role stereotypes seen on television are particularly suited to the process of social learning theory because of the simplistic way they portray behaviors, strategies, and rules that are seen often on many program genres. One area television has been effective in influencing the socialization process of children is in their career aspirations. DeFleur and DeFleur (1967) concluded children learn the most about occupational roles from television. They also found that by the age of six, children have definite conceptions of occupational roles and of the social rankings accompanying them. Beuf (1974) found male and female children age’s three to six held sex-stereotyped attitudes towards occupations, especially those who were heavy television viewers. Specifically, the boys preferred adventurous types of careers, while the girls stated they preferred quieter occupations. These responses reflect an understanding, and possibly adoption of, the dominant masculine stereotype and the passive feminine stereotype perpetuated throughout American culture. Levinson (1975) posited television to be a window to the adult occupational world for children, and perhaps the absence of female models portrayed on it contributes to the sex-stereotyped attitudes held by them. Researchers have also investigated how televised counter-stereotypical portrayals of occupations—women doing traditionally male jobs and vice versa—affect children (Eisenstock, 1984; O’Bryant & Corder-Bolz, 1978; Pingree, 1978). These studies indicated that counter-stereotyped occupational roles presented on television have the potential to influence children in their ideas about occupations; however, there have been variations in how different children react to counter-stereotypical portrayals. Eisenstock (1984) categorized children into four groups based on a sex-role preference test: masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. She found that after exposure to a specially made video portraying males and females in counter-stereotypical occupational positions, masculine boys identified least with all counter-stereotypical images, while feminine children identified with them the most. Pingree (1978) found children exposed to non-traditional women in commercials held significantly less traditional attitudes about women compared to those exposed to traditional media. In

7

addition, she found girls tend to stereotype jobs more often than boys when self-reporting occupational goals. Although these non-traditional ways of presenting women do occur, they do not occur consistently. Signorielli (2001) claims even when female characters do break the stereotypical mold in one aspect of their character portrayal, they often fall on other stereotypes when dealing with other dimensions of their character. Television has also been shown to influence how individuals think about the world around them or what is often called their conception of “social reality” (Swan, 1998, p.87). Cultivation theory specifically looks that this phenomenon. Developed by Gerbner and colleagues, the theory sought to explain the effects of television viewing on people’s perceptions, attitudes, and values. The researchers argued that especially for heavy viewers, television subsumed other sources of information as the dominant storyteller for those individuals. Specifically, when compared to light viewers, heavy viewers expressed notions of reality that were closer to television’s depiction of it. To the extent that television dominates individuals’ “sources of entertainment and information, continued exposure to its messages is likely to reiterate, confirm, and nourish—that is, cultivate—its own values and perspectives” (Gerbner et al., 2002, p. 49). In other words, the more an individual consumes television, the greater the likelihood the individual will adopt the values and perspectives portrayed on it. The effect of consistent exposure to similar kinds of messages becomes the teaching of a common worldview, common roles, and common values (Severin & Tankard, 2001). Later, Gerber and colleagues added the concepts of mainstreaming and resonance to cultivation theory in response to critics arguing that television may not have uniform effects on all heavy viewers as their earlier work suggested; it may have different outcomes for different social groups (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980; Severin & Tankard, 2001). The concept of mainstreaming argues that heavy television viewing may absorb or override differences in perspectives and behaviors that ordinarily stem from other factors and influences (Gerbner et al., 2002). For example, heavy viewers of low socio-economic status may think more similarly to heavy viewers of high socio-economic status, therefore, suggesting that SES, political ideology, and regional differences may not be as influential to the socialization process as the television. The second concept, resonance, occurs when the cultivation effect is enhanced for a certain

8

group of the population. Different situations may “resonate” with certain groups of a population more than others (Severin & Tankard, 2001). For example, heavy female viewers may believe rape occurs more than male heavy viewers, because on television, women are more often victims of rape, in turn making the viewer feel more vulnerable to the crime. Researchers have found children can cultivate the sex-role stereotypes presented on television. Specifically, Morgan (1982) found that television cultivated in children such notions as “women are happiest at home raising children” and “men are born with more ambition than women” (p.947). Others have found television to foster sex-role stereotypes with general activities like cooking and playing sports, and with personal qualities like warmth and independence (Rothschild, 1984). Because television is a prevalent medium in the presentation of sex-role stereotypes, cultivation theory would suggest that heavy viewers might adopt these stereotypes more often than light viewers. Frueh and McGhee (1975) concluded that children who were heavy television viewers identified more with traditional sex-role portrayals than did light viewers. The learning of these stereotypes is dangerous because for some children, television is their primary exposure to other types of people and places. To summarize, cognitive developmental theory posits children begin attending to same-sex models at a young age, typically around the age of six, and find those models’ behaviors to be reinforcing. Because children are said to be spending many hours a day with various mass media, cultivation theory suggests this heavy consumption may lead to a skewed perception of reality, and has the potential to instill in viewers the sex-role stereotypes portrayed on it. From a social learning perspective, the images and ideas permeating television have the ability to instill stereotypes in children. Their observations of sex-role specific behaviors may lead them to model or imitate the characters portrayed. Although they may not directly emulate the observed characters, children can acquire the beliefs, values, and attitudes portrayed by them.

9

Children’s Animated Programming: Images and Findings

Cartoons are the preferred television format for children starting at 18-24 months of age (Hapkiewicz, 1979). The television industry considers the child audience to be composed of children age 2 to 11, and this is their primary demographic for Saturday morning and daily after-school programs (Comstock, 1991). Most of children’s television viewing is devoted to fictional programs; “it is cartoons, fantastic heroes and funny situations which attract most of young viewer’s attention” (Gunter & McAleer, 1990, p. 41). Although some may assume cartoons are harmless or unrealistic simply because they are animated, research has shown children have difficulty consistently distinguishing between reality and fantasy, and therefore may not interpret cartoons as “make believe” (Baker & Ball, 1969; Beasich, Leinoff, & Swan, 1992). Beasich, Leinoff, & Swan (1992) found that 8- and 9-year-olds find the characters, situations, and story lines in Saturday morning animated programming to be realistic. This is potentially problematic because several studies on the prevalence of sex-role portrayals have shown that unrealistic, stereotyped sex-roles permeate all television programming, and children’s programming in particular (Barcus, 1983; Busby, 1975; Sternglanz & Serbin, 1974). Since television has become a major socializing agent of American children, animated programs represent a least one of the primary texts for their social learning. “Children are more likely to follow cartoon stories; therefore they are more likely to internalize the social realities depicted on them” (Swan, 1998, p.88). Thompson and Zerbinos (1997) concluded that children do internalize the stereotypes presented in children’s animated programming. Specifically, 78% of the children in their study, age 4 to 9, recognized that males have more parts and speaking roles in cartoons compared to females. The male characters were also perceived by both sexes as having more violent and silly or amusing behaviors. Historically, females have not fared well in children’s animated programming in many aspects. Studies have concluded that there is a vast under-representation of females in animated programming, and when they do appear it is usually in a stereotypical way (Barcus, 1983; Levinson, 1974; Sternglanz & Serbin, 1974; Streicher, 1974; Thompson

10

& Zerbinos, 1995). For example, the best-known animated characters were always male—Mickey, Donald Duck, Tom and Jerry—involved in a plot often revolving around two males in a “sadistic game of entrapment and punishment” (Seiter, 1993, p. 147). These animated characters adopted “masculine” actions and traits, without recognizable physical human features and were often portrayed as having the ability to act and be what they wanted (Delgaudio, 1980). In the rare occasion females did appear—Minnie, Daisy Duck, Betty Boop—they were given human breasts, heavily made-up faces, short skirts, and high heels (Seiter, 1993). These characters were given recognizable physiological “feminine” traits and characteristics and were portrayed as emotional, passive, and limited in their options of what they could achieve (Delgaudio, 1980). Perhaps the fact that males and females were presented so differently is due to the axiom producers of children’s programs have long lived under: boys will not attend to “girls” television; however, girls will attend to programs directed at boys (Seiter, 1993; Swan, 1999). The result of this axiom is that the majority of programming becomes directed at boys. It was not until the early 1980s and the popularity of VCRs and rental tapes that animated series were designed specifically for the female audience. However, these cartoons were based on dolls, toys, and other traditionally feminine objects, in turn, perpetuating the passive feminine ideal and defining what young girls should be interested in (Seiter, 1993). Many studies have looked at stereotyping in children’s animated programming; however, three content analyses and one experimental study influenced this project. Streicher (1974) looked at Saturday and Sunday morning and daily after-school cartoons to determine if males and females were presented in significantly differently and sex-role stereotypic ways. She concluded that for all cartoons, males outnumbered females. She also found that females had fewer lines, fewer lead roles, were less active, less noisy, occupied fewer positions of responsibility, and typically acted more juvenile than males. Concerning the occupational roles shown, women worked in the house, while males did not participate in housework. Females were not the only characters stereotyped in the cartoons that Streicher viewed; males were also stereotyped. These portrayals included “bumbling husbands, outwitted by their wives; the egomaniacal villains; [and] the brawny ones who, of course, have no brains” (Streicher, 1974, p. 129).

11

Sternglanz and Serbin (1974) also conducted an analysis of children’s animated television programs. In their analysis of the ten most popular children’s programs of 1973, they found, as many other studies have, that males significantly outnumbered females. In fact, half of the programs in the sample had to be discarded because there were no women present at all. Concerning behavioral characteristics, they found that males were portrayed as more aggressive and constructive, while females were more likely to be portrayed as deferent. They also found a difference in the way the both sexes received consequences. Males were shown being rewarded more often, while females tended to be ignored and went without reward or consequence. In 1995, Thompson and Zerbinos conducted the most up-to-date content analysis of children’s animated programs. They looked at the differences in gender representation between cartoons pre- and post- 1980 to determine if there had been a change in the way male and female characters were portrayed. They found, especially for females, a significant change toward less stereotypical portrayals; however, both male and female characters were portrayed stereotypically. Like previous studies, they found males outnumbered females overall. Other findings included males being portrayed as more verbally and physically aggressive, more frequently rewarded, exhibiting more ingenuity, asking and answering more questions, emphasizing more tasks, laughing and insulting others more frequently, and threatening others more often. Females were portrayed as being more likely to show affection, emphasize relationships, to be helpless, and more likely to ask for advice or protection. Other studies have investigated how young viewers perceived animated characters. Specifically, Mayes and Valentine (1979) found that children perceive the characters in animated programs as possessing sex-typed attributes. They asked children to rate, on a 5-point scale, characters on four Saturday morning animated programs according to 14 variables describing either traditional male or female stereotypical traits (e.g. brave, aggressive, dominant). The characters were judged to possess traditional sex- role stereotypic attributes by both male and female coders. To summarize, many content analyses have been conducted investigating the prevalence of sex-role stereotypic characters presented in children’s animated programs. The results of these analyses have consistently found females to be underrepresented and

12

portrayed in traditionally feminine ways. Even though male characters get more exposure, they too are presented in stereotypically masculine ways. While investigating what is presented on television is essential, it is also important to understand how viewers interpret what they see. Research has shown that when dealing the stereotypical portrayals of animated characters, children do perceive them to be presented in different ways. One important issue missing from the sex-role stereotyping and cartoon literature is an in-depth analysis of the action heroes and heroines portrayed in animated programming. These characters are of particular importance because they embody two of the characteristics found in effective social models, as noted by Bandura (1997): power and nurturance (Bongco, 1999). In addition, researchers have posited children to be particularly susceptible to the messages sent by heroes and heroines: “The superheroes are compelling, attractive, and evidently above reproach, making their actions highly visible and favorable for generalized imitation” (Liss, Reinhardt, and Fredriksen, 1983, p.184).

Heroes and Heroines

Heroes and heroines have been a staple of American popular culture for many years, finding their homes on the pages of comic books directed at young adolescent boys. The majority of these characters were male, even after the advent of Wonder Woman in the early 1940s. These characters’ identities were uniformly defined by their masculinity. Masculinity in this case goes beyond simply meaning muscular and strong; it is a social concept that manifests itself more in how effectively a hero (or at times a heroine) uses their mind and/or muscle to resolve various power struggles, thereby displaying authority and self-sufficiency, while gaining public attention (Bongco, 1999). Heroes also embody the female characteristic of nurturance, which can be seen by the constant rescuing of those who are in danger. Cawelti (1976) described the formula for these characters’ adventures as quite simple: The central character or group in the story is on a mission to overcome obstacles and dangers to accomplish what is frequently a moral mission. Often, but not always, the hero’s trials are the result of the machinations of a

13

villain. To help him in his quest to overcome the villain, the hero frequently employs the assistance of one or more attractive young women. Superheroes are often characterized as having a dual identity: the superhuman versus the typical average individual. An example of this would be the character Clark Kent made popular in the Superman series. Clark Kent was a reporter (a typical average individual) yet when problems arose, Kent’s superhuman identity, Superman, came to save the world. Bongco (1999) posits this “one-of-us” identity combined with the variety of powers the superhero or superheroine embrace, makes identifying with the hero character easy for readers and viewers. These characters are also endowed with varied abilities that allow them to excel and assume authority as a masculine force: physical or mechanical power, planning and leadership, cunning and advanced or specialized knowledge. All of these attributes contribute to providing multiple entry points for identification with the hero. From a social learning perspective, the ways in which masculinity is portrayed has the potential to help construct the viewers’ concept of what masculinity means; however, because masculinity is portrayed in a variety of ways, it allows for different ways of prioritizing the concepts and abilities that constitute masculinity for the observer. In 1941, the first female action heroine made her debut pages of comic books. Created by Harvard-trained psychologist Dr. William Marston, Wonder Woman was created as “a feminine character with all the strength of a Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman to counter the blood-curdling masculinity of other comic book superheroes” (Marston, 1944, pp. 42-43). This utopian ideal of having an equally empowering superheroine for the female audience did not quite turn out the way Marston had intended. Instead, Wonder Woman’s plot involved her coming to America to fight evil because of love, while frequently finding herself in situations of envy, bondage, and submission (Daniels, 2000). She was well known for her whips and chains, helping her be the leading character for the comic sub-genre of “Good Girl” art. “Good Girl” art depicts superheroines as scantily clad and in provocative and alluring poses. The target audience for this art genre is the same as comic books: the young adolescent male. As heroes have been defined by their masculinity, heroines have been defined by their passivity. Like Wonder Woman, many other animated heroines are often portrayed

14

as innocent and selfless in a story that places her in a situation of enforced passivity whether through physical confinement, muteness or death (Seiter, 1993). Others have noticed a gross under-representation of women in action programs in terms of actual numbers relative to the presence of men, something that has been referred to by Tuchman (1978) as the symbolic annihilation of women. As Signorielli (2001) noted even when female characters do break the stereotypical mold in one aspect of their character portrayal, they often fall on other stereotypes when dealing with other dimensions of their character. For example, Wonder Woman was sent to save the world, yet, as her story progressed—and writers changed—“she” (i.e., writers and editors) ultimately decided to give up her own immortality for love (Daniels, 2000). It is important to understand the effect that heroes and heroines have on their audiences. Greek myths, biographies of varied historical heroes, superhero stories, and video games all feature different kinds of conflicts and different kinds of resolutions. By observing these often moral stories, children learn important lessons about rewards and consequences. Collectively they offer to children symbolic material with which to explore the complexities and ambiguities of goodness and power and of their relationships with each other (Dyson, 1997). Therefore, adventures are important texts to study because of the strong potential for social learning. Cartoon heroes and heroines are changing though. As Swan (1999) noted, the focus of superheroes and heroines used to be on the individual; however, recently there seems to be a shift of focus toward the super-group (examples include The Powerpuff Girls, Teamo Supremo, and Pokemon). Bongco (1999) states that lead female action characters today are being portrayed as more aggressive and more dangerous than before, therefore blurring the line between heroines and female villains. This change can also be seen in the recent content analyses looking at the characters in children’s animated programming. Whereas before, males were portrayed as more aggressive (Levinson, 1975; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995), recent studies have shown there to be no significant differences in aggression between males and females (Baker & Raney, 2004). Heroes and heroines are not the only things changing in animated programs. Cartoons in general have changed since previous studies of stereotyping were conducted. Thompson and Zerbinos (1995) found in their comparison of pre- and post- 1980

15

cartoons, that “continuous adventure” and “teachy-preachy” cartoons are becoming more prevalent, with “chase-and-pratfall” becoming less common. Early studies found the opposite. The “continuous adventure” genre often contains plots and characters similar to those in early comic books (e.g., superheroes/heroines and villains) (Swan, 1998), which calls for a need to investigate these types of characters. In addition, heavy marketing of heroes and heroines like the Powerpuff Girls, Kim Possible, and Yu-Gi-OH! makes these characters even more prevalent in children’s lives. Not only are children exposed to them on television, but also in schools through their peers, shopping malls, video games, and Internet websites. The purpose of this study was to examine the demographic, personality traits, communicative acts, and physical behaviors of the superheroes and superheroines in the animated media consumed most often by children today. Of particular interest was how each category differs for males and females. Considering previous literature on the issue of sex-role stereotyping in children’s animated programming, it was expected that: H1: Male and female superhero characters will be portrayed in significantly different and sex-role stereotypic ways. Sex-role stereotypic is operationally defined as it was in previous studies done by Sternglanz and Serbin (1974), Streicher (1974), Levinson (1975), Mayes and Valentine (1979), and Thompson and Zerbinos (1995). More specifically, various physical attributes, physical behaviors, personality and communicative characteristics were examined. First, it was expected that males would outnumber females at least two to one. Concerning physical characteristics, females were expected to be presented as slimmer, wearing more revealing clothing, haveing more human-like features, and to be portrayed more often as a team member than a leader. Males were expected to be portrayed as more muscular in body type, wearing more modest clothing, and to be the leader of a team (or act alone) more often than females. Concerning personality traits and characteristics, females were expected to be portrayed as warm, emotional, jealous, attractive, romantic, affectionate, sensitive, mature, domestic, and superficial, whereas males were expected to be more assertive, athletic, technical, tough, and responsible compared to females. In the physical behaviors category, females were expected to be portrayed as needing to be rescued, being concerned about appearance, consumed by

16

love, getting easily excited in a crises, and crying more easily than males. Males were expected to be brave, dominant, intelligent, having difficulty making decisions, getting in trouble, acting like a leader, and being more aggressive. Concerning communicative behaviors, females were expected to be more likely to ask questions, ask for advice, and praise others, while males were expected to express more opinions, interrupt more, laugh more at others, brag, order/boss others, insult, threaten and show more anger.

17

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

The present study is a content analysis investigating the sex-role stereotypic ways in which superheroines and superheroes are presented in the animated programming directed at children.

Sample

The sample for this study used animated programs recorded on Saturday mornings—8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.—during the month of June 2003 and during the daily after-school time slot—3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.—for two weeks during September 2003. These “traditional” time slots were adapted from previous content analyses looking at stereotyping in children’s animated programming (Levinson, 1975; Barcus, 1977; Mayes & Valentine, 1979). An extensive analysis of the previous year’s television schedules via the local television channel guide indicated that ten different stations carried animated programming directed at children during one or both of the time slots chosen. The stations included in the Saturday morning sample were PBS 1, WB, ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, ABCFamily, and the Disney channel. This sample captured 44 different cartoons during the 160 hours of recorded programming. Six stations were recorded during the after-school time slot because, according the local TV Guide, these were the only stations airing animated programs directed at children during this period. These stations included PBS (Georgia affiliate), WFSU-PBS, WB, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and the Disney channel. In addition to recording these stations from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm, three additional hours of programming was

1 Because of technical difficulties during recording in June 2003, the PBS affiliate was recorded during all four Saturdays in September 2003. After an analysis of the programming guide it was determined that the same programs were being aired during both June and September, however it is unlikely that the same episodes were aired.

18

recorded for Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and the Disney channel because they extended their children’s animated programming until 9:00 pm. This sample yielded 36 different cartoons during the 270 hours of recorded programming. It is important to note that not all programs recorded during this time were animated; only animated programs were included in the sample. After recording was completed, a list of all the animated programs for both samples was compiled. The list was then narrowed down to only those programs that contained heroes and/or heroines, based on previous research by the author. When the author was not 100% sure if the program contained heroes and/or heroines, the program was viewed. Because many of the programs aired multiple times within both time slots, and sometimes on multiple channels, a random selection of one episode per program was coded. Many of the programs contained multiple segments within a 30-minute episode. In this case, a random selection of these segments was coded. In other words, if the 30- minute episode aired two 15-minute segments, only one of those segments was randomly chosen to code. The random selection process of the Saturday morning and daily after- school samples yielded 24 different animated programs, all of which contained heroes or heroines. A complete listing of all Saturday morning programs recorded can be found in Appendix A, while the list of all daily after-school programs can be found in Appendix B.

Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis for this study was the individual animated heroine or hero character. To be considered a hero or heroine, the character had to fit four criteria: 1) they had to be involved in a plot to complete a mission or task, 2) one of their goals had to be defeat evil or villains, 3) they had to be on the “good side”, and 4) they had to be extraordinary. In other words, they had to be able to do something an average individual can not. In order to be coded, the characters had to embody some extraordinary characteristic in order to be classified as a hero or heroine. These characteristics included superhuman powers, extraordinary logic skills, and/or super fighting skills, among other

19

attributes. These characters include “Kim Possible” who not only has extraordinary logic skills, but she is always fighting the same villain and his entourage. Another character included in the sample was “Captain Crandall” from the popular Saturday morning cartoon, Teamo Supremo. “Captain Crandall” is an ordinary student, until trouble arises, then he becomes the leader of a superhero team. He not only has super fighting skills, but he is also intelligent and brave. Not included were those characters whose jobs were detectives or school oriented (i.e. hall monitor, ghost detective). For example, in the program Fillmore!, the main character was the head of his school’s safety patrol and had the duty of stopping a bully from beating up another child. In this case, the character is not classified as a hero or heroine because there is nothing extraordinary about him. He is simply a school detective. The same situation occurred for the characters in What’s New Scooby Doo?. Therefore, these characters were not coded as superheroes or superheroines in this study. Some animated programs (such as Beyblade and Pokemon) which contain characters or teams that might not traditionally be categorized as superheroines or superheroes were coded. The main characters in these programs are out to save the world by fighting with magical animals or cards to defeat evil. These types of characters were included in the sample because their extraordinary ability is to communicate with magical animals or cards to help defeat evil.

Measures/Scales

Each character was coded in five different categories: physical characteristics, personality traits, physical behaviors, communicative behaviors, and superheroine/superhero characteristics. A copy of the coding sheet and coding manual is located in Appendix C. Physical Appearance This section was designed to capture the demographic data and physical characteristics of the superheroes and superheroines. Similar to the work of Streicher (1974), Levinson (1975), Mayes and Valentine (1979), and Thompson and Zerbinos (1995), these attributes included ethnicity, gender, species, age, hair color, visible disabilities and impairments, style of dress, physical body type, extent to which the

20

animated character had human features (such as exaggerated breasts or lips), and character status (i.e., “Leader” or “Character acts alone”). For most attributes, the coders had multiple selections to choose from; however, some (like human features) required the coder to fill in the blank if applicable. Personality Traits These variables sought to determine whether superheroines’ and superheroes’ personalities and character traits were portrayed differently in children’s animated programming. The section consisted of 16 bi-polar adjectives to be coded on a 5-point scale. Examples of the personality characteristics include assertiveness, jealousy, athleticism, and superficiality. These character/personality traits were adapted from Thompson and Zerbinos (1995). Physical Behaviors Each character was coded for 13 sets of bi-polar adjectives, each coded on a 5- point scale, concerning their physical behaviors (Mayes & Valentine, 1979; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995). These behaviors included items like bravery, extent to which needed to be rescued, dominance, intelligence, ability to make decisions, concern with appearance, and degree to which character is consumed by love. Communicative Behaviors Fourteen sets of polar opposites, each coded on a 5-point scale, were adapted from past research (Streicher, 1974; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995) to capture the communicative behaviors of the characters analyzed. The communicative behaviors included items such as expresses opinions, laugh at others, and asks for advice. Superheroes and Superheroines This section was concerned with the character’s position as a superheroine or superhero. Characters were coded for their position on the team, the outcome of their battles or missions (i.e. rewards and consequences), superhuman powers, and their fighting style. Because of a lack of content analyses investigating the portrayals of heroes and heroines in children’s animated programming, the variables for this section came from critical studies (primarily of comic book characters) concerning superheroes and superheroines (Seiter, 1993; Bongco, 1999; Daniels, 2000).

21

Coding

The present study had two coders: the author and one trained coder. Both coders were female and were used in a prior content analysis investigating the sex-role stereotypic portrayals of males and females in children’s animated programs presented on Saturday mornings (Baker & Raney, 2004). A training session and test for intercoder reliability occurred prior to coding. A subsample of 10% of the programs, which included 10% of the characters, was independently coded by each researcher (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 1998). For the two nominal sections, “physical appearance” and “superheroes and superheroines”, an agreement of 100% was achieved on each item for all characters. Because the personality traits, physical behaviors, and communicative behaviors required ratio-level coding decisions, Pearson correlations were used to examine intercoder reliability. With each set of variables, strong reliabilities were observed. For the 16 variables tested in personality traits, ranges of .250 to 1.00 were found with significance levels ranging from .01 to .63. The complete table of Pearson correlations and significance levels for personality traits can be found in Table 1. For the 13 physical behaviors examined, Pearson correlations ranging from .53 to 1.00 were found with significance levels ranging from .01 to .53. The complete list of Pearson correlations and significance levels for physical behaviors can be seen in Table 2. Finally, concerning the 14 variables tested for communicative behaviors, correlations ranging from .63 to 1.00 with significance levels ranging from .01 to .18. The Pearson correlations and significance levels for the communicative behaviors can be found in Table 3.

22

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS

Physical Appearance

As expected, and consistent with previous research, males outnumbered females nearly two to one. Of the 70 characters coded, 65.7% were heroes while only 34.4% were heroines. Ethnicity was also unequally distributed as compared to real world data. Specifically, Caucasians made up 57.1% of the sample, while African-Americans made up only 4.3% and Asians 2.9%. Hispanics/Latinos were the smallest category with only 1.4% of the sample. Twenty-four percent of the heroes and heroines were identified as either “Multi-racial” or “Other” and 10.0% had no distinguishable ethnicity. A little more than two-thirds of the characters were human, with the rest being non-humans (e.g., robots, unidentifiable creatures; 24.3%) or animals (7.1%). Teenagers were the largest age group, followed by adults, and then primary school kids (grades 1-6). Only six of the 70 characters showed a noticeable disability or impairment; five wore glasses and one had braces. With regard to body types, one-half of the superheroes and superheroines had what was considered an “average” sized body. Twenty-seven percent were considered muscular; interestingly, all of the characters were male. This was the only category in which males and females were portrayed differently. Specifically, females were most often portrayed with an average body size, while males were portrayed as muscular (x2 = 18.134, df = 5, p < .05). The results for each variable, along with significance tests, are reported in Table 4.

23

Personality Traits

Independent t-tests were conducted for the 16 bi-polar adjectives. Significant differences between superheroes and superheroines were found on two items: attractiveness and how emotional the characters were portrayed. As previous research has indicated women, in this case superheroines, were portrayed as significantly more emotional than their male counterparts (t = -2.894, df = 62.5, p < .05). Superheroines were also portrayed as more attractive than males (t = -4.838, df = 67.99, p < .01). Two other variables approached significance: toughness (t = 1.816, df = 30.6, p < .10) and superficiality (t = -1.970, df = 26.056, p < .10), with heroes portrayed as tougher, and heroines as more superficial. The means, standard deviations and significance tests for each personality trait can be seen in Table 5.

Physical Behaviors

Two significant differences were found when analyzing the 13 physical behaviors. Action heroines were found to be significantly more worried about their appearance in comparison to heroes (t = 2.421, df = 23.51, p < .05). Superheroines were also found to be more likely to get over-excited in a crisis (t = 1.955, df = 67, p < .10) compared to their male counterparts. Perhaps this also reflects their tendency to be portrayed as more emotional, as noted above. The results for all 13 physical behaviors can be seen in Table 6.

Communicative Behaviors

Of the 14 variables coded for communicative behaviors, significant differences were found for three: asking questions, threatening of others, and anger. Specifically, heroines were found to be more likely to ask questions (t = 2.155, df = 49.8, p < .05), while heroes were more likely to be portrayed as threatening (t = -1.959, df = 67, p = .05) and showing more anger (t = -2.155, df = 67, p < .05). For means, standard deviations and significance test results for each of the communicative behaviors refer to Table 7.

24

Superhero and Superheroine Characteristics

Chi-square tests were run for the questions dealing with specific superhero and superheroine characteristics. Although no significant results were found, some interesting trends did emerge. Specifically, only one-third of the characters had a mentor that they consulted with; however, almost twice as many girls had a mentor (45.8%) compared to boys (24.4%). In addition, all but one of the mentors (n = 22) were male. The majority of the characters, 72.9%, were involved in a team rather than working alone. Specifically, 87.5% of superheroines were members of a group compared to 65.2% of males. Another interesting finding concerned rewards and consequences. Only 34.3% of the characters received a reward for defeating evil—whether a tangible reward or praise—while 22.9% did not. Another 42.9% of the characters were involved in a plot that was continuous or not resolved in the particular episode coded. As a result, a resolution to the mission engaged in was not depicted in nearly one-half of the episodes. These findings offer potential implications according to social learning theory as discussed below. Perhaps the most interesting finding concerns the fighting style of the characters: 80.0% of the characters exhibited an aggressive fighting style, while 11.4% of the characters did not fight in the particular episode coded, and 7.1% used their brains to fight evil. These results indicated that there were no significant differences between males and females when dealing with aggression. This finding was not expected considering previous research, which typically defined males as more aggressive than females. The specific means, standard deviations, and significance tests for superhero and superheroine characteristics can be seen in Table 8.

25

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION

The goal of this paper was to discover, through a content analysis, if there were any significant differences between the portrayals of superheroes and the portrayals of superheroines in children’s animated programming. Previous research suggests that the characters in children’s animated programs have historically been portrayed as appearing, behaving, and communicating in sex-role stereotypic ways (Mayes & Valentine, 1979; Sternglanz & Serbin, 1974; Streicher, 1974; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995). Specifically, this study investigated whether or not animated superheroes and superheroines were portrayed in sex-role stereotypical ways females as defined by traditional American culture. One hypothesis was proposed: Heroes and heroines will be portrayed in significantly different and sex-role stereotypic ways. This hypothesis was derived from the vast amount of literature investigating the prevalence of sex-role stereotypic portrayals of males and females in children’s animated programming, and includes a variety of differences between males and females, or in this case, superheroes and superheroines (Mayes & Valentine, 1979; Sternglanz & Serbin, 1974; Streicher, 1974; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995). Based on previous studies, it was expected that males would outnumber females, at least two to one. It was also expected that: • Males would be presented as muscular in body type, wearing modest clothing, the leader of a team (or act alone), assertive, athletic, technical, tough, responsible, brave, dominant, intelligent, have difficulty making decisions, get in trouble, act like a leader, aggressive, more likely to express opinions, interrupt, laugh at others, brag, order/boss others, insult, threaten and show more anger compared to females. • Females would be presented as warm, emotional, jealous, attractive, romantic, affectionate, sensitive, mature, domestic, superficial, slim,

26

wearing revealing clothing, having more human-like features, portrayed more often as a team member than a leader, needing to be rescued, concerned about appearance, consumed by love, easily excited in a crisis, cry more easily, be more likely to ask questions, ask for advice, and praise others. Surprisingly, the hypothesis was supported for only seven of the 70 variables. First, superheroes outnumbered their superheroine counterparts nearly two to one. Secondly, females were portrayed as having “average” body types while males were portrayed as muscular. Superheroines were also portrayed as more emotional, attractive, and concerned about appearance, while superheroes were more likely to express disappointment. Finally, superheroines were more likely than superheroes to ask questions. Four other variables also approached significance at the .10 level. Specifically, the analysis revealed that superheroes were more likely to be presented as tough and more likely to threaten others, while superheroines were portrayed more often as easily excited in a crisis and superficial. There were many areas where significant differences were expected but not found. For example, other studies found males were more responsible, intelligent, brave, dominant, technical, expressed more opinions, and emphasized tasks more often than females. Significant differences were not found for these variables in the present study. In fact, the means for these variables were almost identical for superheroes and superheroines. Concerning the portrayals of female animated characters, past research found those characters presented as dependent, jealous, romantic, affectionate, sensitive, domestic, needing to be rescued, passive, acting as followers, and crying easily. However, no significant differences were observed between superheroines and superheroes on these variables. This is not because males and females are being portrayed in less sex-specific ways. On the contrary, it appears that superheroines are losing traditional their feminine characteristics while gaining traditional masculine ones (see Table 2). Where differences were not found with traditional male stereotypes, it was because females were being portrayed in more masculine ways, therefore yielding insignificant differences. The reason there were no significant differences with the traditional feminine stereotypes was not because males are beginning to be portrayed as

27

having some of these characteristics. The superheroine in then presented as a more masculine character compared to the typical animated female. Whether or not losing these traditional feminine stereotypes, while gaining traditional masculine stereotypes is positive or negative is up to interpretation. As previous content analyses found, superheroines were portrayed as significantly more emotional and more likely to get excited in a crisis compared to males. When looking at the variables that were found to be exclusive to females, we find superheroines to be presented as highly emotional, excitable, superficial, and attractive while also being physically aggressive. Animated superheroines are losing some of the traditional feminine traits—domesticity and passiveness—that are typically associated with animated females, but are instead portrayed as having the stereotypical masculine trait of aggression. In fact, animated superheroines and superheroes were portrayed as virtually equal in terms of physical aggressiveness. Significant differences, however, were still found for both verbal aggression and expression of anger, with males showing higher levels of both. Similarly, superheroines were portrayed as more attractive than their male counterparts. It should be noted that this is not only the case for superheroine characters. In a study examining all characters playing a significant role in the plot of animated programs shown on Saturday mornings; females were portrayed more often as attractive compared to males (Baker & Raney, 2004). What is particularly unusual about this finding is that all other previous content analyses prior to 2003 found males to be portrayed as more attractive than females (Sternglanz & Serbin, 1979; Streicher, 1979; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995). When females were presented as attractive, they were typically pretty teenage girls or housewives, were “performers of ‘socioemotional’ to the males’ ‘instrumental’ roles, were defined in status by their relationship to males, and rarely initiated action or performed tasks of physical strength or bravado” (Levinson, 1975, p.567). This is not the case for superheroine characters. These characters are not defined by their relationship status with men. In fact, when looking at the variables that deal with romantic relationships, no significant differences were found. However, the mean scores for males where higher than the scores for females on the variables of romanticism and consumed by love. Therefore, there seems to be a trend towards

28

superheroes becoming more interested in romantic relationships compared to superheroines. Even though female characters might be shifting from their “traditional” feminine portrayals, the portrayal of male characters does not seem to be changing. Whereas there is a difference between overall animated females and superheroines, the same does not seem true for superheroes. Superheroes stayed true to the sex-role specific ways in which animated males have been stereotypically portrayed in the past; they were still portrayed as muscular, threatening, tough, aggressive, athletic, and angry. While females are beginning to acquire traditional masculine characteristics like aggression, males are not acquiring traditional feminine characteristics. Although the results suggest females are not being as stereotypically portrayed as they were in the past, instead, they are beginning to be portrayed more like males, rather than as equal to males. However, animated male characters are still portrayed as the most powerful and in control, shown by the mere fact that they are presented more often in these roles. One way to interpret the differences between superheroines and superheroes would be to suggest that while the traditional stereotypic portrayals of both males and females still exist, things might be changing in a positive way, especially for female heroine characters. Although males are still outnumbering females nearly two to one as many content analyses found before (Sternglanz & Serbin, 1974; Streicher, 1974; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995), the portrayals of animated females are immensely different than what previous research had posited. For example, other researchers had difficulty even finding animated programs that contained females; and when they did, they were typically portrayed in traditionally sex-role stereotypic ways: domestic, passive, and occupying positions traditionally labeled as “girl jobs” (i.e. nurse, teacher, secretary). Overall, female characters have been found to be portrayed as slim, wearing revealing clothing, concerned about appearance, mature, warm, domestic, romantic, attractive, emotional, sensitive, romantic, and more affectionate compared to their male counterparts (Baker & Raney, 2004; Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995). Compared to overall female portrayals in animated programming, superheroines rely less on traditional feminine stereotypes in their portrayals.

29

Another positive way these superheroines are portrayed is that historically, animated females were presented as domestic and limited in their roles and occupations; however, now they are being portrayed as having extraordinary characteristics such as brainpower, super fighting skills, and superhuman powers. Portraying female characters as powerful and capable of fending for themselves and others has the potential to send positive messages to young female and male viewers. Female viewers have the opportunity to see powerful female models, which may lead them to feel empowered. Males get to see women in powerful positions similar to their own, instead of observing the same passive individuals pushed around like the animated females before superheroines. Even though superheroines have lost some of the traditional sex-role stereotypes that plague overall animated females, other parts of their presentation may question how positive superheroines are portrayed. For example, females—while still vastly underrepresented in general—are beginning to have more lead roles in action adventure programs. This continued under- representation has the potential to negatively affect female viewers. Specifically, continually being outnumbered by males in all media could send the message that somehow males “deserve” greater social recognition and higher status than females. This could especially be true when dealing with heroic characters because of their perceived power. That is, these portrayals may imply that males are more powerful than females because they are consistently presented more often than females in positions or characters with power. Another interesting finding is that females were more often a part of a team, rather than a leader or individual heroine, compared to males. Specifically, 32.6% of males acted alone or were the leaders of a team, while only 12.5% of females were leaders or acted alone. These results might suggest that females are less capable of holding positions of power, are in need of more help from others than males. In other words, superheroines may be seen as less capable of saving the world on their own, compared to males. Another negative way to interpret these results would be to suggest that even though females are losing some of their traditional feminine stereotypes; it is only because they are gaining traditional masculine ones. One might argue that, the ideal situation would be if males and females were both being less stereotypically portrayed, in

30

turn working toward a more equal representation of both sexes. If this were the case, animated heroic characters, both male and female, would not be bound by societal definitions of what it means to be male or female. Instead, they would be free to behave and look in any way they chose, in turn sending the same message to viewers. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Females are indeed being portrayed in less sex-role specific ways, according to traditional definitions of femininity. However, this seems to be because they are portrayed more like males. These results could be suggesting that in order to be tough and capable of being a superheroine, one cannot lose her strong sense of femininity and should at the same time maintain her beauty. In other words, if one is going to break the traditional stereotype of what is means to be female— domestic, passive, nurturing—other traditional feminine traits like being emotional and beautiful should be emphasized. Perhaps this is because some groups in society do not want females to seem too intimidating, and to compensate for their perceived power, other feminine characteristic have to be emphasized. Some would suggest that superheroines and superheroes are being portrayed in sex-role specific ways, similar to all animated characters. Specifically, males are still being portrayed more often and in more powerful ways than females. For example, a character portrayed as muscular, aggressive, angry, threatening and tough, is much different than a character portrayed as slim, attractive, easily excited, emotional, and aggressive. The way males are portrayed suggests they may be perceived as more powerful and threatening than females and perhaps more capable of saving the world than superheroines. This positioning of animated superheroes and superheroines is not surprising when we look at how a hero is traditionally defined: masculine and powerful (Bongco, 1999). Adding the masculine trait of aggression to a character that is already portrayed as having traditional feminine traits such as being emotional, slim, and attractive, while also losing other more prominent feminine stereotypes (i.e., domesticity, passiveness), suggests that in order to do what is traditionally defined as a “male” job, one has to become more masculine. Therefore, in order to be heroic, one has to be more masculine, regardless of sex. The idea that women have to compensate for being portrayed as strong and powerful by emphasizing other traditional feminine traits not associated with power is not

31

exclusive to children’s animated programming. In particular, critical scholars have found similar sex-role stereotypes and over-compensations in women’s athletics—specifically basketball—that are not found in the male version of the sport. McPherson (2000) posits female athletes present themselves within fairly traditional notions of feminine appeal and appearance to compensate for the traditional masculine stereotypes that come with being an athlete. Positioning athletes in this way shifts the focus from their athletic abilities to their sexuality. Their muscles are no longer seen as denoting strength and toughness as with male athletes; it is recoded to mean feminine and beautiful. As a result, the female athlete is evaluated in relation to her sex appeal, whereas the male athlete is still evaluated based on performance and abilities. For example, during the early stages of the WNBA, female athletes posed in high-fashion magazines wearing designer clothing and makeup, while being photographed in glamorous locations. “The WNBA’s early marketing worked vigorously to contain the threat of the muscled woman (and implicitly, of the sports dyke) through a soft-focus view of the female” (McPherson, 2000; p. 188). In other words, to keep the women from seeming too “manly” they were portrayed as super-feminine. In turn, male audience may attend to them, instead of being intimidated by them. Wolf (1991) claims that those who do not follow the feminine ideal or myth—the idea that women are to be passive, dependent, and nurturing while their “natural” place is in the home—are often characterized as suffragists: unattractive and mannish. Perhaps this is why the WNBA employed such a marketing strategy. In order to compensate for breaking the stereotypical mold of what it means to be female, WNBA players and superheroines alike, highlight other traditional feminine traits. For example, animated females were not previously portrayed as attractive; however, now that they have masculine traits such as aggression, their beauty is emphasized. Typically, heroes and heroines are thought of as empowering because they are powerful and able to do things normal individuals cannot do, but if a female cannot be powerful without emphasizing her feminine traits, is this message still empowering? The messages animated characters send to viewers are important to understand because children begin watching animated programs at a young age, at a time when cognitive-developmental theory posits children begin attending to same-sex models to

32

learn behaviors. Furthermore, cultivation theory suggests that children, especially those who are heavy viewers have the potential to adopt the values, beliefs and perspectives of those presented on television. Specifically, increased exposure to sex-role stereotyping of characters has the potential to alter children’s perceptions of reality, particularly the way they feel they and others should look and behave. Whether or not children interpret heroic characters to be portrayed in the way this study suggests is beyond the scope of this project; however, the ways these characters are portrayed may have other possible effects. Two possible outcomes for the way superhero and superheroine characters are portrayed in this study include a greater likelihood for identification with the character or characters and a greater likelihood for aggressive behaviors or feelings following exposure to these aggressive characters. Identification with selected characters is one outcome of television viewing that is assumed to mediate the socialization process (Hoffner, 1996). Identification is defined as a process by which viewers adopt abstract psychological characteristics of a model such as values, personality traits or social roles (Gewirtz & Stingle, 1968). It has been found that children’s identification with specific characters or sets of characters is likely to be an important variable when considering television exposure and learning of specific behaviors (Reeves & Miller, 1979). The more a child identifies with a character, the greater the likelihood the child will be influenced by that character’s behaviors (Dorr, 1981; Perry & Perry, 1976). Researchers have found that children and adults form affective attachments to recurring television characters and personalities, especially those they perceive to be similar to themselves in gender, ethnicity, social class, and age (Hoffner & Cantor, 1991; Maccoby & Wilson, 1957; Reeves & Miller, 1979). Specifically, Hoffner (1996) concluded that girls have a greater wishful identification—the desire to be like or behave in ways similar to the character—with female characters, especially those who are portrayed as attractive, while boys identify most with male characters, especially those who have noticeable strength. Wishful identification is particularly suited to heroic characters because their unique qualities that are unattainable are especially attractive to the audience (Hoffner & Cantor, 1991). Wishful identification has also been thought to

33

promote the viewer’s tendency to take the characters perspective while viewing (von Feilitzen & Linne, 1975). Albert (1957) found children overwhelmingly aspired to be like the hero or heroine in a film rather than the villain. In addition to perceived similarity and wishful identification, attractiveness, strength, and hero status are other constructs that aid in greater identification with characters (Potter, 1997). The superheroines in this study embrace all of those attributes, which may lead females to have a greater likelihood for identification with the superheroines. For males, identification might not be as strong. Experimental studies have found different contextual variables that are appealing to the male audience; however, the character attributes of same-sex, strength, and hero status still apply to males as they do with females (Potter, 1997). Intelligence and attractiveness have also been identified as variables that can lead to heightened identification with characters by males (Hoffner, 1996); however, those variables were not shown to be unique to the superheroes in this study. The more that children identify with the characters presented on television, the more likely it is that they will cultivate the values, beliefs, and behaviors portrayed by them. A common feature often associated with superheroes and superheroines is aggression, usually in relation to crime fighting. A greater likelihood for aggressive behaviors or feelings following exposure to these heroic characters is another possible outcome for the way in which superheroines and superheroes are portrayed in this study. Experimental research has shown that a number of contextual variables have an effect on the imitation of aggressive behaviors portrayed by television characters: rewards/punishment, consequences, realism, humor, and identification with perpetrator (Potter, 1997). Four of these five variables apply to the animated superheroes and heroines in children’s animated programming, which may lead to a greater likelihood of imitation. Although this study does not deal with aggressive television’s effects on children, nor were the characters in this study coded for level of aggression, the portrayals of rewards and punishments accompanying aggressive behaviors, along with the lack of consequences, should increase the likelihood for identification, and the portrayal of humor—the funnier the behavior is, the less serious it seems—may mediate

34

how viewers react to aggressive television, and therefore should be taken into consideration. Social learning theory emphasizes the importance of observing consequences and rewards when learning new behaviors (Bandura, 1986; 2002). Specifically, when the aggressive behavior of the character is rewarded, the likelihood of aggressive behavior in the viewer increases (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963; Liebert & Baron, 1972). However, when viewers see perpetrators of aggressive behaviors suffer consequences for their actions, an inhibiting effect of subsequent aggressive behavior may occur (Berkowitz & Rawlings, 1963). In this study only 8.3% of males and 45.8% of females received rewards for their defeat of the evil villain or villains, while no characters received consequences for exhibiting aggressive behaviors. These results suggest that the likelihood for subsequent aggressive behaviors would be higher for females than for males, assuming females identify more with superheroines than males with superheroes. Another interesting finding is the lack of resolution at the end of many of the programs, meaning that no immediate rewards or consequences were shown for the aggressive behaviors portrayed. Specifically, 47.8% of the males and 33.3% of the females were involved in an episode that was “to be continued”. Swan (1998) posits the lack of rewards in the animated world may teach children that there is no punishment and no real reward for defeating evil, and therefore no justice. This, she states, is because villains do not suffer real consequences either. At most, they are sent back to their own dimension, only to come back and terrorize the heroes and heroines again. Justification, or motive, also plays a part in how children react to aggressive television. The presence or absence of justification—the reason a characters commits a violent act—may determine how viewers interpret the aggressive behaviors shown, as well as the likelihood of subsequent aggressive behaviors and feelings in the viewer. Specifically, when hero characters are presented as being justified in their aggression, viewers will likely act or feel more aggressive than they would if the character was portrayed as unjustified (Berkowitz & Powers, 1979). Therefore, justified violence committed by socially attractive characters serves to reduce inhibitions (Jo & Berkowitz, 1994). The likelihood of this effect increases with age, because as children get older, they are better able to link behavior with reward and consequence (Collins, 1973).

35

One final interesting point is that superheroes and superheroines were coded for ethnicity. The results indicated that more than one-half of the characters were presented as White. Specifically, 57.1% of the characters were White, with less than 5% portrayed as African American, 2% as Asian, and only 1% as Hispanic or Latino. The majority of the female characters, 79.2%, were presented as being White, compared to 45.7% for males. Only one female character exhibited a known race other than Caucasian; she was portrayed as African American. One-third of the characters were considered multi-racial, or their ethnicity was not clearly stated. Of the 17 characters coded as multi-racial, 15 of them were male, while only two were females. This distribution of ethnicities poses a serious question about the perceived power distribution in our society and is quite different from the current state of affairs. What does this lack of equal portrayals of ethnicities say about the status and abilities of other individuals and groups that are not Caucasian? Does this mean only Whites—especially in the case of women—are capable of being superheroes and superheroines? These questions are especially important because researchers have found children to be highly susceptible to the messages sent by heroes and heroines and to imitation of their behaviors (Liss, Reinhardt, & Fredriksen, 1983). If we would have our children create a better, more integrated society; shouldn’t we present them with images of what such a place might be like? Heroic characters are typically defined as possessing a great deal of power (Bongco, 1999); therefore, portraying the majority of these characters as White has the potential to send the message to viewers that Whites are the most powerful group. Cultivation theory would suggest that consistent viewing of these portrayals could increase the likelihood that viewers would cultivate these premises of power, while also learning other negative racial stereotypes. Greenberg (1972) found children do adopt the stereotypic portrayals of other ethnicities from watching television. Specifically, when asked how real they thought the depictions of Blacks on television are, rural and urban children stated they believed them to be “pretty” real, whereas suburban children thought them to be accurate. These findings were particularly important because they showed that even those children who are exposed to other ethnicities more often (i.e., the urban children) in real life, their television exposure subsumes those experiences, thus indicating a mainstreaming effect.

36

To summarize, the superheroes and superheroines in children’s animated programming are presented in many of the same traditional sex-role stereotypic ways in which animated characters have been for years. Superheroes did not differ significantly from how all animated males are typically portrayed, whereas, superheroines were portrayed in less traditionally feminine ways. Even though they lost many of the traditional traits often associated with females, superheroines adopted stereotypical masculine traits, such as aggression, making it appear there were few differences in how heroes and heroines were portrayed. The reality is that animated females have to be more like males in order to extraordinary. Presenting powerful women in more masculine ways suggests that in order to be considered as equal to males, females have to become more masculine. The ways in which superheroes and superheroines are portrayed has the potential to lead to a heightened identification between the viewer and the character. When individuals identify with characters, they are more likely to adopt the values and behaviors portrayed by them. Because these characters are portrayed in sex-role stereotypic ways, those who identify more with the characters have a greater likelihood of cultivating the sex-roles presented. Another possibility is increased aggressive behaviors and feelings in the viewer, especially when the character is either rewarded for his or her violent act, or when he or she does not suffer consequences for it. Superheroes and superheroines often commit “justified” violence, and in this instance, the likelihood for subsequent aggressive feelings and behaviors goes up even more.

Limitations

A few limitations to this study should be pointed out in order to help further research in this area. One of the limitations lies in the sampling process. Although two separate time slots were recorded (after-school and Saturday morning), it is very possible that not all of the animated programs directed at children were captured in this sample; in spite of this limitation, the vast majority of heavily marketed cartoons such as The Powerpuff Girls, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Kim Possible were included. Children are also exposed to animated movies and animated programs not directly intended for

37

children; however, this study does not take those into consideration. More research is needed in the area of adult-intended cartoons because many of them air during times when children might still be consuming television. It should also be noted that this is simply a prevalence study looking at what is presented for children to be exposed to. In no way do these results suggest possible effects as experimental research would; however, these results do allude to possible effects of consistent viewing of the same types of images. Another limitation of this study is that both coders were female. Although it would have been ideal to have male coders as well, monetary constraints prevented the hiring of more coders. Because the coders were female, it is possible they tended to notice more of the ways the female characters were portrayed instead of objectively looking at both males and females. Subsequent studies should employ a more diverse coding team. Future Research In order to work toward a more equitable representation in children’s animated programming, a few issues should be looked at that were not captured in this study. One issue that might be of interest would be the sex of the opponent or victim of the superhero or superheroine. It would be interesting to see if more males fought women—often thought of as taboo in American culture—or if they fought more men. If males were found to fight a large number of women, the power struggle between males and females would again be in favor of males, as it typically is. Another area of interest would be the see how the villain or villains are portrayed, specifically the differences between males and females. Bongco (1999) states that the line between heroine and villain is blurring because of the increased aggressive and violent ways in which superheroines are now being portrayed. If a superheroine is portrayed similarly to the villain, is the characters still seen as being on the side of good? Are their violent behaviors still seen as justified by the audience? The next step in this area should involve research investigating how children actually perceive the heroic characters in today’s animated programs. Do young girls identify with superheroines in today’s animated programs the way the identification literature suggests they might? Are male viewers just as susceptible to superheroes’

38

messages as female viewers may be to superheroines? Or maybe a more important question would be: Do children really attend to the specific attributes of the character as this study suggests they might? The way this and other studies are set up assumes that children systematically process the information they see, attending only to explicit characteristics; however, other cues—not investigated in this analysis—may be playing a part in how children interpret the main superhero or superheroine or other characters in the programs. For example, children may attend more to the animals presented in the program, such as a pet or friend, than they do to the main characters. Sometimes animals and other characters do not have many speaking roles, and in that instance, they are not even included in analyses; however, these could be the characters that catch the attention of some children. Research concerning the prevalence of sex-role stereotypes is imperative as we work toward a more understanding and equitable society. When individuals are shown how everyone is supposed to look and behave simply from watching television, it leads to many misinterpretations of different people and groups, and hinders our advancement as a society. Children are especially susceptible to the messages in the media; therefore, careful examinations of the media content they consume is essential. This is especially true for children and their observations of heroic characters, because children are especially vulnerable to the messages sent by them. Because various theories suggest that consistent viewing of these messages leads to a skewed view of reality and modeled behaviors, the portrayals of both males and females in the media play an important role in a child’s sex-role development. Perhaps the best defense against the potential negative effects of the media is to educate children to understand what is being presented to them; however, to do that, we must first understand what is presented. In order to continue investigating the effects the media have on children, frequent content analyses must be conducted. In addition, the ways in which the characters on television are stereotyped should be brought to the attention of writers and producers, because it is only when they understand the implications of what they are doing that they can make an effort to minimize these portrayals.

39

Table 1.

Intercoder Reliability: Pearson r values for Personality Characteristics of Superheroes and Superheroines

Variable Pearson r and Significance Level

Warmth r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Independence r(4) =.89, p < .05

Assertiveness r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Emotion r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Jealousy r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Athleticism r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Attractiveness r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Romance r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Affection r(4) = .96, p < .01

Sensitivity r(4) = .88, p < .05

Technicality r(4) = .97, p < .01

Toughness r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Responsibility r(4) = .25, p = .63

Maturity r(4) = .50, p = .31

Domesticity r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Superficiality r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

40

Table 2.

Intercoder Reliability: Pearson r values for the Physical Behaviors of Superheroes and Superheroines

Variable Pearson r and Significance Level

Bravery r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Need to be Rescued r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Dominance r(4) = .82, p < .05

Intelligence r(4) = .99, p < .01

Decision Making r(4) = .87, p < .05

Appearance Worries r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Consumed by Love r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Troublemaking r(4) = .53, p = .53

Crisis Excitement r(4) = .86, p < .05

Leadership r(4) = .96, p < .01

Aggression r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Crying r(4) = .83, p < .05

Distraction r(4) = .97, p < .01

41

Table 3.

Intercoder Reliability: Pearson r values for the Communicative Behaviors of Superheroes and Superheroines

Variable Pearson r and Significance Level

Asking Questions r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Opinion Expression r(4) = .63, p = .18

Answering Questions r(4) = .71, p = .11

Emphasizes Tasks r(4) = .98, p < .01

Interrupts r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Laughs at Others r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Bragging r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Orders/Bosses r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Insults r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Threatens Others r(4) = .71, p = .12

Expresses Disappointment r(4) = .98, p < .01

Anger r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

Asks for Advice r(4) = .87, p < .05

Praising r(4) = 1.00, p < .01

42

Table 4.

Physical Appearance for Heroes and Heroines on Children’s Animated Programs

Variable Male Characters Female Characters Total n % n % n % Gender 46 65.7 24 34.3 70 100.0 Ethnicity2 Caucasian 21 45.7 19 79.2 40 57.1 African American 2 4.3 1 4.2 3 4.3 Asian 2 4.3 0 0.0 2 2.9 Hispanic/Latino 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 Multi-racial/Other 15 32.6 2 8.3 17 24.3 Species Human 29 63.0 19 79.2 48 68.6 Animal 5 10.9 0 0.0 5 7.1 Other Non-human 12 26.1 5 20.8 17 24.3 Age Primary School 4 8.7 6 25.0 10 14.3 Teenager 26 56.5 14 58.3 40 57.1 Adult 12 26.1 3 12.5 15 21.4 Elderly 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 Unable to Determine 3 6.5 1 4.2 4 5.7 Impairments/Disabilities Glasses 4 8.9 1 4.2 5 7.2 Braces 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 None 40 88.9 23 95.8 63 91.3 Body Type3 Slim 2 4.3 2 8.3 4 5.7 Average 16 34.8 19 79.2 35 50.0 Muscular/Built 19 41.3 0 0.0 19 27.1 Chubby/Over-weight 7 15.2 2 8.3 9 12.9 Robot/Creature 2 4.3 1 4.2 3 4.3 Dress/Clothing Modest 36 78.3 16 66.7 52 74.3 Revealing 8 17.4 7 29.2 15 21.4 Character Position Leader 9 19.6 2 8.3 11 15.7 Assistant 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 Member of Team 30 65.2 21 87.5 51 72.9 Acts Alone 6 13.0 1 4.2 7 10.0

2 Categories of “Multi-racial” and “Other” were combined for this table, but were analyzed separately; “Not Distinguishable” was omitted from table, but was included in analyses (n=7; 10% of characters). 3 Categories of “Over-weight” and “Chubby” were combined for this table, but were analyzed separately; X2 = 18.134, df = 5, p < .05

43

Table 5.

Personality Traits for Heroes and Heroines in Children’s Animated Programs

Variable Male Characters Female Characters Significance M SD M SD Testing

Warmth 4.83 .677 4.92 .282 nsd

Independence 4.45 .968 4.68 .716 nsd

Assertiveness 4.74 .801 4.58 1.018 nsd

Emotion 3.15 1.505 4.04 1.042 t(1,62.5) = -2.894**

Jealousy 1.33 .739 1.59 1.403 nsd

Athleticism 4.71 .869 4.79 .415 nsd

Attractiveness 3.33 1.477 4.63 .770 t(1,67.9) = -4.838*

Romance 1.61 1.308 1.54 1.250 nsd

Affection 2.43 1.601 2.87 1.660 nsd

Sensitivity 2.20 1.660 2.13 1.604 nsd

Technicality 2.85 1.825 2.83 1.834 nsd

Toughness 4.74 .681 4.25 1.225 t(30.6) = 1.816***

Responsibility 4.74 .713 4.92 .282 nsd

Maturity 4.67 .701 4.83 .381 nsd

Domesticity 1.33 1.034 1.17 .816 nsd

Superficiality 1.07 .442 1.58 1.248 t(1,26.1) = -1.970***

Note. * p < .001, ** p < .01, *** p < .10

44

Table 6.

Physical Behaviors for Heroes and Heroines for Children’s Animated Programs

Variable Male Characters Female Characters Significance M SD M SD Testing

Bravery 1.11 .434 1.17 .381 nsd

Need to be Rescued 3.41 1.586 3.00 1.532 nsd

Dominance 1.80 1.003 2.17 1.167 nsd

Intelligence 1.65 .948 1.75 1.113 nsd

Decision Making 1.52 .960 1.63 .970 nsd

Appearance Worries 4.96 .206 4.25 1.422 t(23.5) = 2.421*

Consumed by Love 4.72 .861 4.58 1.139 nsd

Troublemaking 3.57 1.424 3.75 1.327 nsd

Crisis Excitement 3.33 1.414 2.63 1.469 t(67) = 1.955**

Leadership 1.91 1.208 2.21 1.179 nsd

Aggression 1.24 .673 1.42 .776 nsd

Crying 4.72 .834 4.29 1.160 nsd

Distraction 4.04 1.445 4.25 1.422 nsd

Note. * p <.05, ** p < .10

45

Table 7.

Communicative Acts for Heroes and Heroines in Children’s Animated Programs

Variable Male Characters Female Characters Significance M SD M SD Testing

Asking Questions 1.43 1.205 1.04 .204 t(49.8) = 2.155*

Opinion Expression 1.15 .631 1.08 .282 nsd

Answering Questions 1.46 1.110 1.39 .891 nsd

Emphasizes Tasks 2.04 1.398 2.21 1.615 nsd

Interrupts 4.28 1.440 4.67 .868 nsd

Laughs at Others 4.43 1.223 4.39 1.196 nsd

Bragging 4.57 .981 4.75 .676 nsd

Orders/Bosses 4.39 1.308 4.29 1.334 nsd

Insults 3.78 1.590 3.87 1.517 nsd

Threatens Others 1.58 1.270 2.25 1.511 t(67) = -.217**

Expresses Disappointment 2.26 1.652 2.00 1.532 nsd

Anger 3.00 1.732 3.92 1.586 t(67) = -2.155*

Asks for Advice 3.53 1.590 2.96 1.574 nsd

Praising 3.15 1.788 2.88 1.650 nsd

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .10

46

Table 8.

Superhero and Superheroine Characteristics on Children’s Animated Programs

Variable Male Characters Female Characters Total n % n % n % Gender 46 65.7 24 34.3 70 100.0

Character has a Mentor Yes 11 24.4 11 45.8 22 31.9 No 34 75.6 13 54.2 47 68.1

Sex of Mentor Male 11 100.0 10 90.9 21 95.5 Female 0 0.0 1 9.1 1 4.5

Rewards Received 13 8.3 11 45.8 24 34.3 Did Not Receive 11 23.9 5 20.8 16 22.9 Unknown (Story Continues) 22 47.8 8 33.3 30 42.9

Fighting Style Physically Aggressive 39 84.8 17 70.8 56 80.0 Physically Delicate 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 Uses Brains 2 4.3 3 12.5 5 7.1 Doesn’t Fight in Episode 4 8.7 4 16.7 8 11.4

Superhuman Powers Yes 22 47.8 9 37.5 31 44.3 No 22 47.8 14 58.3 36 51.4 Does Not Show 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 Robot or Creature 1 2.2 1 4.2 2 2.9

47

APPENDIX A

Saturday Morning Taping: Schedule of Programs from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.4

Station June 7, 2003 June 14, 2003 June 21, 2003 June 28, 2003 WB Scooby-Do Scooby Scooby Scooby Yu-Gi-Oh! Yu-Gi-OH Yu-Gi-OH Yu-Gi-OH Jackie Chan Jackie Chan Jackie Chan Jackie Chan Megaman MegaMan MegaMan MegaMan Pokemon Pokemon Pokemon Pokemon Static Shock Static Shack Static Shack Static Shack Yu-Gi-Oh! Yu-Gi-Oh! Yu-Gi-Oh! Yu-Gi-Oh! Mummy Mummy Mummy Mummy ABC Teamo Supremo TeamoSupremo Teamo Supremo Teamo Supremo Recess Recess Recess Recess Fillmore Fillmore Fillmore Fillmore Recess Recess Recess Recess Lizzie Lizzie Lizzie Lizzie Proud Family Proud Family Proud Family Proud Family Kim Possible Kim Possible Kim Possible Kim Possible Power Rangers Power Rangers Power Rangers Power Rangers CBS Weekend Edition Weekend Edition Weekend Edition Weekend Edition Saturday Early Saturday Early Saturday Early Saturday Early Show Show Show Show Chalk Zone Chalk Zone Chalk Zone Chalk Zone Hey Arnold Hey Arnold Hey Arnold Hey Arnold FOX Fighting Foodons Fighting Foodons Fighting Foodons Fighting Foodons Back to Future Back to Future Future Back to Future Turtles Turtles Turtles Turtles Kirby Kirby Kirby Kirby Ult. Muscle Ult. Muscle Ult. Muscle Ult. Muscle Turtles Turtles Turtles Turtles Cramp Twins Cramp Twins Cramp Cramp Twins Pirate Islands Pirate Islands Pirate Island Pirate Islands NBC French Open/No Today Today Today Tape Adventure Adventure Strange Days Croc Files Croc Files Scouts Safari Trading Trading Trading Endurance Endurance Endurance Nickelodeon Rugrats Rugrats Rugrats Rugrats Rugrats Rugrats Rugrats Rugrats Spongebob Spongebob Spongebob Spongebob Spongebob Spongebob Spongebob Spongebob Fairly Oddparents Fairly Oddparents Fairly Oddparents Fairly Oddparents

4 The programs bolded were the ones coded.

48

Station June 7, 2003 June 14, 2003 June 21, 2003 June 28, 2003 Nickelodeon Jimmy Neutron Jimmy Neutron Jimmy Neutron Jimmy Neutron (Continued) Rocket Power Rocket Power Rocket Power Rocket Power Rocket Power Rocket Power Rocket Power Rocket Power Cartoon Courage Dog Courage Dog Courage Dog Courage Dog Network Powerpuff Girls Powerpuff Girls Powerpuff Girls Powerpuff Girls Loony Toons Loony Toons Loony Toons Loony Toons Loony Toons Loony Toons Loony Toons Loony Toons Tom + Jerry Tom + Jerry Tom + Jerry Tom + Jerry ABCFamily Power Rangers Power Rangers Technical Power Rangers Power Rangers Power Rangers Difficulties Power Rangers Beyblade Beyblade Beyblade Medabots Medabots Medabots Spider-man X-Men X-Men Spider-man Spider-man X-Men Tokyo Pig Tokyo Pig Tokyo Pig Galidor Galidor Galidor Disney PB&J Otter PB&J Otter PB&J Otter PB&J Otter Wiggles Wiggles Wiggles Wiggles Roli Polie Roli Polie Roli Polie Roli Polie Roli Polie Stanely Stanely Stanely Stanely House House House House of Mouse Even Even Even Honey, I….. Sister, Sister Sister, Sister Sister, Sister

PBS5 Benji Goes to Benji Goes to School Benji Goes to School Benji Goes to School School Marvin-Dancing Horse Marvin-Dancing Horse Marvin-Dancing Horse Marvin-Dancing Horse 7 Little Monsters 7 Little Monsters 7 Little Monsters 7 Little Monsters George Shrinks George Shrinks George Shrinks George Shrinks Clifford Clifford Clifford Clifford Clifford Clifford Clifford Clifford

5 These programs were taped during the four Saturdays in September because of technical difficulties.

49

APPENDIX B

Daily After-School Taping: Schedule of Programs from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.6

DATE WFSU-PBS WB Nickelodeon Cartoon Network Disney PBS 9/1/03 Between the Lions Scooby Rocket Power Dexter Sabrina Sagwa Liberty’s Kids Jackie Chan Rugrats Robot Jones Recess Zoom Cyberchase Pokemon Rocket Power Powerpuff Recess Cyberchase Arthur Yu -Gi-Oh! Cyberchase Totally Spies Recess Dragon Clifford Ricki Lake My Life -Robot SD Gundom Recess Tales Dragon Tales Elimidate My Life Dragonball Z Proud Family Clifford My Life Cyborg 009 Arthur My Life Dragonball Fairly Odd Totally Spies Fairly Odd Dexter Fairly Odd Ed, edd, & eddy Fairly Odd Yu -Gi-Oh! Fairly Odd 9/2/03 Between the Lions Scooby Wild Thorn Ed, edd, eddy Sabrina Sagwa Liberty’s Kids Jackie Chan Rugrats Ed, edd, eddy Recess Zoom Cyberchase Pokemon Rocket Power Ed, edd, eddy Recess Cyberchase Arthur Yu -Gi-Oh! As told-Ginger Totally Spies Recess Dragon Clifford Ricki Lake Spongebob SD Gundom Recess Tales Dragon Tales Elimidate Spongebob Dragonball Z Proud Family Clifford Hey Arnold Cyborg 009 Arthur Hey Arnold Totally Spies Rugrats Dexter Spongebob Ed, edd, eddy Fairly Odd Yu -Gi-Oh 9/3/03 Between the Lions Scooby Wild Thorn Technical Sabrina Technical Liberty’s Kids Jackie Chan Rugrats Difficulties Recess Difficulties Cyberchase Pokemon Rocket Power Recess Arthur Yu -Gi-Oh! As told-Ginger Recess Clifford Ricki Lake Spongebob Recess Dragon Tales Elimidate Spongebob Proud Family Hey Arnold Hey Arnold Rugrats Spongebob Fairly Odd 9/4/03 Between the Lions Technical Wild Thorn Courage Dog Sabrina Sagwa Liberty’s Kids Difficulties Rugrats Courage Dog Recess Zoom Cyberchase Rocket Power Courage Dog Recess Cyberchase Arthur Ginger Totally Spies Recess Dragon Clifford Spongebob SD Gundom Recess Tales Dragon Tales Spongebob Dragonball Z Proud Family Clifford Hey Arnold Cyborg 009 Arthur Hey Arnold Dragonball Rugrats Totally Spies Spongebob Dexter Fairly Odd Ed, edd, eddy Yu -Gi-Oh!

6 The programs bolded are those that were chosen randomly to be in the sample; Nick, TOON, and Disney were taped until 9:00p.m.

50

DATE WFSU-PBS WB Nickelodeon Cartoon Network Disney PBS 9/5/03 Between the Lions Scooby Wild Thorn Samurai Jack Sabrina Sagwa Liberty’s Kids Jackie Chan Rugrats Samurai Jack Recess Zoom Cyberchase Pokemon Rocket Power Samurai Jack Recess Cyberchase Arthur Yu -Gi-Oh! Ginger Totally Spies Recess Dragon Clifford Ricki Lake Spongebob SD Gundom Recess Tales Dragon Tales Elimidate Spongebob Dragonball Z Proud Family Clifford Hey Arnold Cyborg 009 Arthur Hey Arnold Dragonball Rugrats Totally Spies Spongebob Dexter Fairly Odd Ed, edd, eddy Yu -Gi-Oh! 9/8/03 Between the Lions Scooby Wild Thorn Pup – Scooby Technical Sagwa Liberty’s Kids Jackie Chan Rugrats Pup – Scooby Difficulties Zoom Cyberchase Pokemon Rocket Power Pup – Scooby Cyberchase Arthur Yu -Gi-Oh! As told-Ginger Totally Spies Dragon Clifford Ricki Lake Fairly Odd SD Gundom Tales Dragon Tales Elimidate Spongebob Dragonball Z Clifford JimmyNeutron Cyborg 009 Arthur Hey Arnold Dragonball Rugrats Totally Spies Spongebob Dexter Fairly Odd Ed, ed, Eddy Yu -Gi-Oh! 9/9/03 Between the Lions Scooby Wild Thorn Ed, edd, eddy Sabrina Sagwa Liberty’s Kids Jackie Chan Rugrats Ed, edd, eddy Recess Zoom Cyberchase Pokemon Rocket Power Ed, edd, eddy Recess Cyberchase Arthur Yu-Gi-Oh! As told-Ginger Totally Spies Recess Dragon Clifford Ricki Lake Rockos Life SD Gundom Recess Tales Dragon Tales Elimidate Spongebob Dragonball Z Kim Possible Clifford Hey Arnold Cyborg 009 Arthur Rugrats Dragonball Spongebob Totally Spies Fairly Odd Dexter Yu -Gi-Oh! Pokemon 9/10/03 Between the Lions Scooby Wild Thorn Dexter Sabrina Sagwa Liberty’s Kids Jackie Chan Rugrats Dexter Recess Zoom Cyberchase Pokemon Rocket Power Dexter Recess Cyberchase Arthur Yu -Gi-Oh! As told-Ginger Totally Spies Recess Dragon Clifford Ricki Lake Rockos Life SD Gundom Recess Tales Dragon Tales Elimidate Spongebob Dragonball Z Proud Family Clifford Hey Arnold Cyborg 009 Arthur Rugrats Dragonball Spongebob Totally Spies Fairly Odd Dexter Ed, edd, eddy Yu -Gi-Oh!

51

DATE WFSU-PBS WB Nickelodeon Cartoon Network Disney PBS 9/11/03 Between the Scooby Wild Thorn Courage Dog Technical Sagwa Lions Jackie Chan Rugrats Courage Dog Difficulties Zoom Liberty’s Kids Pokemon Rocket Power Courage Dog Cyberchase Cyberchase Yu -Gi-Oh! Ginger Totally Spies Dragon Arthur Ricki Lake Spongebob SD Gundom Tales Clifford Elimidate Spongebob Dragonball Z Clifford Dragon Tales Chalkzone Cyborg 009 Arthur Hey Arnold Dragonball Rugrats Totally Spies Spongebob Dexter Fairly Odd Ed, edd, eddy Yu -Gi-Oh! 9/12/03 Between the Scooby Wild Thorn Totally Spies Sabrina Sagwa Lions Jackie Chan Rugrats Totally Spies Recess Zoom Liberty’s Kids Pokemon Rocket Power Totally Spies Recess Cyberchase Cyberchase Yu -Gi-Oh! Ginger Totally Spies Recess Dragon Arthur Ricki Lake Fairly Odd SD Gundom Recess Tales Clifford Elimidate Spongebob Dragonball Z Proud Family Clifford Dragon Tales Chalkzone Cyborg 009 Arthur Hey Arnold Dragonball Rugrats Totally Spies Spongebob Dexter Fairly Odd Ed, Edd, Eddy Yu -Gi-Oh!

52

APPENDIX C

Coder Name______Tape Number ______

Program Name______Program Channel______

Segment Name______Date of Program______

Character Name______Copyright Date ______

1 Cartoon Category 1 = Chase and Pratfall “Bugs Bunny” “Road Runner” 2 = Continuous Adventure “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” “GI Joe” 3 = Teachy-Preachy (teaches morals) “Smurfs” “The Little Mermaid” 2 Gender 1 = Male 2 = Female 3 = Gender Neutral 3 Species 1 = Human 2 = Animal 3 = Other non-human (robot, etc) 4 Ethnicity 1 = Caucasian 2 = African American 3 = Hispanic or Latino 4 = Asian 5 = Other 6 = Multi-Racial 7 = Not Distinguishable 5 Age 1 = Infant 2 = Toddler/preschooler 3 = Primary school (1-6) 4 = Teenager 5 = Adult 6 = Elderly 7 = Unable to determine 6 Hair Color 1 = Blonde 2 = Brunette 3 = Red 4 = Black 5 = Other color 6 = No hair 7 Impairments 1 = Glasses 5 = None 2 = Braces 3 = Wheelchair 4 = Other Observable Disabilities

53

8 Body Type 1 = Slim 2 = Average 3 = Muscular/Built 4 = Over-weight 9 Does the character have human 1 = Yes features? (Human breasts, lips, 2 = No muscles, noticeable make-up) Describe: ______

10 Dress/Clothing 1 = Modest 2 = Revealing 10b. Is the character wearing a dress 1 = Yes or skirt? 2 = No 10c. If character is wearing a skirt or 1 = Yes dress, are they also wearing 2 = No thigh-high stockings? 11 Character Status 1 = Primary Recurring 2 = Secondary Recurring 3 = Guest Character 4 = Not Able to Determine 12a Is there a voice-over to the 1 = Yes cartoon? 2 = No 12b. If yes to 13a, what is their 1 = Male gender? 2 = Female 13a. Character position as a heroine 1 = Leader or hero. 2 = Assistant 3 = Member of team (not leader) 4 = Character acts alone 13b. If character is part of a team, ______Girls what is the gender make-up? ______Boys (Indicate the number of each) ______Animals

54

Character/Personality Traits

Cold 1 2 3 4 5 Warm

Dependent 1 2 3 4 5 Independent

Unassertive 1 2 3 4 5 Assertive

Unemotional 1 2 3 4 5 Emotional

Not Jealous 1 2 3 4 5 Jealous

Unathletic 1 2 3 4 5 Athletic

Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 Attractive

Unromantic 1 2 3 4 5 Romantic

Unaffectionate 1 2 3 4 5 Affectionate

Insensitive 1 2 3 4 5 Sensitive

Untechnical 1 2 3 4 5 Technical

Weak/“Prissy” 1 2 3 4 5 Tough

Irresponsible 1 2 3 4 5 Responsible

Immature 1 2 3 4 5 Mature

Undomestic 1 2 3 4 5 Domestic

Not Superficial 1 2 3 4 5 Superficial

55

Physical Behaviors

Brave 1 2 3 4 5 Not Brave

Needs to be 1 2 3 4 5 Doesn’t Need to be Rescued Rescued

Dominant 1 2 3 4 5 Passive

Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 Not Intelligent

Makes Decisions 1 2 3 4 5 Has Difficulty Easily

Concerned 1 2 3 4 5 Unconcerned About Appearance

Consumed by love 1 2 3 4 5 Not consumed and romance

Keeps Out 1 2 3 4 5 Gets in trouble of Trouble

Easily Excited 1 2 3 4 5 Not Easily Excited in a Crisis

Acts as a Leader 1 2 3 4 5 Acts as a Follower

Aggressive 1 2 3 4 5 Not Aggressive

Cries Easily 1 2 3 4 5 Does not Cries Easily

Easily Distracted 1 2 3 4 5 Not Easily Distracted

56

Communicative Behaviors

Asks Questions 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Ask Questions

Expresses Opinions 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Express Opinions

Answers Questions 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Answer Questions

Emphasizes Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Emphasize Tasks

Interrupts 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Interrupt

Laughs at Others 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Laugh at Others

Brags 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Brag

Orders/Bosses 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Order or Boss

Insults Others 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Insult

Threatens Others 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Threaten Others

Expresses 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Express Disappointment Disappointment

Shows Anger 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Show Anger

Asks for Advice 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Ask for Advice

Praises Others 1 2 3 4 5 Does Not Praise Others ______

57

Superheroine and Superhero Questions

If character has an assistant (not 1 = Male 1 part of a team), what is the gender 2 = Female of that character? 3 = No assistant 2a Does the team or character have a 1 = Yes mentor (someone they consult 2 = No with; ex: Charlie of “Charlie’s Angels)? 2b If the character or team does have 1 = Male a mentor, what is their gender? 2 = Female 3 If character was “Easily 1 = Yes Distracted”, was it by the opposite 2 = No sex or love interest? 4 Is there a good vs. evil dichotomy? 1 = Yes 2 = No 5 How does the character get their ______opponents attention? ______

6a Does the character receive a 1 = Yes reward for “defeating evil”? 2 = No

6b If reward was received, what was ______it? ______

7a Does the character have 1 = Yes superhuman powers? 2 = No

7b If character has superhuman ______powers, describe them. ______

7c How did the character get their ______superhuman powers or ability to ______be extraordinary? 8 List the gadgets (and the colors of ______them) that the character uses to ______fight evil. (ex: X-ray gun – blue) 9 What kind of fighting style does 1 = Aggressive the character have? 2 = Delicate

58

Coding Manual

Sex-role stereotypes = a collection of traditional norms (sex-typed attributes) that differentiate typical feminine behavior patterns from typical masculine behavior patterns in contemporary American society (Mayes & Valentine, 1979).

1. Cartoon Category:

“Chase and Pratfall” - “Teachy-Preachy” = cartoons that have a message (Stanley, Recess, Rugrats) “Continuous Adventure” = action adventure programs

8. Body Type:

Slim = smaller than average, sometimes indicated by a concave looking stomach Average = looks about normal weight; not overly skinny or over-weight Muscular/Built = body shows muscle definition Overweight = larger than normal, but not because of muscle

10a. Dress/Clothing:

Modest = clothing covering much of the body; no stomach showing Revealing = clothing that is not covering much of the body; stomach baring, short skirts or shorts, swimming suits, etc

10c. Thigh highs? For females wearing dresses or skirts, is she also wearing thigh-high or tall socks to cover the lower part of her legs? This does not include regular ankle or just above the ankle socks.

11. Character Status

Primary Recurring = character that is a primary (one of the main characters with an integral part to the plot) and appears in almost all of the episodes

Secondary Recurring = character that is often in the plot, however does not play a primary role

Guest Character = a character that is not a regular on the program

12a. Voice-over: someone telling the story that is not seen on the screen.

59

13a. Character Position:

Leader = someone who heads the team; helps to direct others Assistant = a character who does not lead a group, but helps someone else accomplish their mission Member of Team = Someone who works with other to accomplish a goal Character acts alone = Someone who does not have the assistance of others to accomplish their goal

Character/Personality Traits

Cold = gruff, not nurturing;

Dependent = relies on others to accomplish things; follow others

Assertive = is aggressive in conversation

Emotional = is emotional in conversation; does not have to be sadness, can be excitement;

Jealous = character is envious of others; wants what others have

Athletic = is active; rapid movements of the body; not lazy;

Attractive =

Romantic = is attracted to someone else or involved with another character in a romantic way;

Affectionate = tender and loving to others

Sensitive = quick to feel; easily offended or irritated

Technical = Uses technical words in conversation or speech; includes scientific and technology jargon; ex: talks about computers, experiments

Tough = strong; rough; not able to be pushed around

Responsible = dependable to accomplish tasks;

Mature = acts fully grown, not childish

Domestic = Does household chores; things around the house; cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, taking care of children

Superficial = consumed by beauty and materialism

60

Physical Behaviors

Brave = full of courage

Need to be Rescued = needs the aid of another to get out of a predicament

Dominant = to influence or control others, to persuade, prohibit, dictate

Intelligent = able to solve problems and comprehend things; able to learn (and does)

Makes Decisions Easily = does not take lots of time to pine over decisions; does not second-guess oneself

Concerned about Appearance = puts effort in making sure they look good; worried about clothing, hair, etc

Consumed by Love and Romance = Puts lots of effort into getting the attention of another; wants to have a romantic companion;

Gets into trouble = character find her or himself in predicaments

Easily Excited in Crisis = reacts dramatically in a crisis; gets startled and shows fear easily

Acts as a Leader = to lead or direct; to organize the behavior of a group

Aggressive = to go at things with force

Cries Easily = Cries easier than most individual; is hyper-sensitive

Easily Distracted = gets distracted without much effort

Communicative Behaviors

Asks Questions = asks other if character does not know answer or how to do something

Expresses Opinions = verbally states their opinion on issues

Answers Questions = does not ignore person when spoken to; answers what they have been asked to best of ability

Emphasizes Tasks = like a leader, directs others what needs to be done without being hateful or rude

Interrupts = break in on another’s conversation or speech

61

Laughs at Others = teases or makes fun of others; laughs at their vulnerabilities

Brags = to boast; tell of things one has done with a “better than you” attitude

Orders/Bosses = aggressively tells others what needs to be done

Insults Others = makes fun of others’ weaknesses; makes fun of others in general

Threatens Others = aggressively challenges other; warning of plan to harm another

Expresses Disappointment = expresses unhappiness with situation; does not have to be volatile or angry; character shows their hopes have been spoiled

Shows Anger = expresses anger or disappointment in a volatile manner; gets very upset

Asks for Advice = looks to another for guidance/answers

Praises Others = tells others when they have done something well

Superhero/Heroine Questions:

2a. Mentor = someone that the team or individual seeks advice from; helps to direct the character

4. Good vs. Evil Dichotomy = “good” force battling “bad” force

7a;b. Superhuman powers = things not able to be done by an ordinary individual;

7c. How did the character acquire their powers; were they born with them; happened after an encounter with a chemical; someone gave them to the character; a special object brings power to the character, etc.

8. Gadgets are the tools the character fights/works with.

9. Fighting Styles: Aggressive: character clenches, grasps, and grips things; punches and fights without holding back Delicate: does not fight as much, is more in the background; characters does not use a lot of physical violence; may use verbal attacks more

62

REFERENCES

Albert, R. S. (1957). The role of mass media and the effect of aggressive film content upon children’s aggressive responses and identification choices. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 55, 221-285.

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. (2004). AACAP facts for families #54: Children and watching TV. Retreived Febuary, 29, 2004 from http://www.aacap.org/publications/ factsfam/tv.htm.

Ashton, E. (1983). Measures of play behavior: The influence of sex-role stereotyped children’s books. Sex Roles, 9(1), 43-47.

Baker, K., & Raney, A. (2004, May). Toons’ they’re not a-changin’: Sex-role stereotyping on Saturday morning animated programs. Paper to be presented to International Communication Association, May, 2004

Baker, R. K., & Ball, S. J. (1969). Violence and the media. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 121-153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 3-11.

Barcus, F. E. (1977). Children’s television: An analysis of programming and advertising. New York: Praeger.

Barcus, F. E. (1983). Images of life on children’s television: Sex roles, minorities, and families. New York: Praeger.

Berry, G., & Mitchell-Kerman, C. (1982). Television and the socialization of the minority child. New York: Academic Press.

Berkowitz., L., & Powers, P. C. (1979). Effects of timing and justification of witnessed aggression on the observers’ punishments. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 71-80.

Berkowitz, L., & Rawlings, E. (1963). Effects of film violence on inhibitions against

63

subsequent aggression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(5), 405- 412.

Beasich, J., Leinoff, S., & Swan, K. (1992). Saturday morning TV: Kids’s perspectives. In K. Swan (Ed.), Saturday morning: Critical analyses of television cartoon programming (pp. 65-93). Albany: Learning Technologies Laboratory.

Beuf, A. (1974). Doctor, lawyer, household drudge. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 142-145.

Bongco, M. (1999). Reading comics: Language, culture, and the concept of the superhero in comic books. New York: Garland.

Botta, R. A. (1999). Television images and adolescent girls’ body image disturbance. Journal of Communication, 49, 22-41.

Busby, L. J. (1975). Sex-role research on the mass media. Journal of Communication, 25, 107-131.

Bussy, K. & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713.

Cawelti, J. (1976). Notes toward a typology of literary form. Journal of Popular Culture, 10, 34-45

Cobb, N. J., Stevens-Long, J., & Goldstein, S. (1982). The influence of televised models on toy preference in children. Sex Roles, 8(10), 1075-1080.

Collins, W. A. (1973). Effect of temporal separation between motivation, aggression, and consequences: A developmental study. Developmental Psychology, 8, 215-222.

Comstock, G., & Paik, H. (1991). Television and the American child. San Diego: Academic Press.

Daniels, L. (2000). Wonder woman: The complete history. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

Davidson, E., Yasuna, A., & Tower, A. (1979). The effects of television cartoons on sex- role stereotyping in young girls. Child Development, 50, 597-600.

DeFleur, M. L., & DeFleur, L. B. (1967). The relative contribution of television as a learning source for children’s occupational knowledge. American Sociological Review, 32, 777-798.

Delgaudio, S. (1980). Seduced and reduced: Female animal characters in some Warners’

64

cartoons. In D. Peary & G. Peary (Eds.), The American animated cartoon (pp. 211-216). New York: E.P. Dutton.

Dileo, J. C., Moely, B. E., & Sulzer, J. L. (1979). Frequency and modifiability of children’s preferences for sex-typed toys, games, and occupations. Child Study Journal, 9(2), 141-159.

Dorr, A. (1981). Television and affective development and functioning: Maybe this decade. Journal of Broadcasting, 25, 335-345.

Dyson, A. H. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture, and classroom literacy. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Eisenstock, B. (1984). Sex-role differences in children’s identification with counterstereotypical televised portrayals. Sex Roles, 10(5/6), 417-431.

Feilitzen, C. von, & Linne, O. (1975). Identifying with television characters. Journal of Communication, 25(4), 51-55.

Forge, K. L., & Phemister, S. (1987). The effect of prosocial cartoons on preschool children. Child Study Journal, 17(2), 83-88.

Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures in psycho-analysis. New York: Norton.

Frueh, T., & McGhee, P. (1975). Traditional sex-role development and amount of time spent watching television. Developmental Psychology, 11(1), 109.

Gerbner, G. (1990). Epilogue: Advancing in the path of righteousness (maybe). In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 249-262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 10-29.

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 theory and research (pp. 17-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 43-67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gewirtz, J., & Stingle, K. (1968). Learning of generalized imitation as the basis for identification. Psychological Review, 75, 374-397.

Graves, S. B. (1999). Television and prejudice reduction: When does television as a vicarious experience make a difference? Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 707-729.

65

Greenberg, B. S. (1972). Children’s reactions to TV blacks. Journalism Quarterly, 47, 277-280.

Greenberg, B. S., & Reeves, B. (1976). Children and perceived reality of television. Journal of Social Issues, 32(4), 86-97.

Gunter, B., & McAleer, J. (1990). Children and television: The one eyed monster? London: Routledge.

Hapkiewicz, W.G. (1979). Children’s reactions to cartoon violence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, Spring, 30-34.

Harrison, K. (2000). Television viewing, fat stereotyping, body shape standards, and eating disorder symptomatology in grade school children. Communication Research, 27(5), 617-640.

Hoffner, C. (1996). Children’s wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 40, 389-402.

Hoffner, C. & Cantor, J. (1991). Perceiving and responding to mass media characters. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp.63-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jo, E., & Berkowitz, L. (1994). A priming effect analysis of media influences: An update. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 43-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Eds.), The development of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Levinson, R. M. (1975). From Olive Oyl to Sweet Polly Purebred: Sex role stereotypes and televised cartoons. Journal of Popular Culture, 9, 561-572.

Liebert, R. M., & Baron, R. A. (1972). Some immediate effects of televised violence on children’s behavior. Developmental Psychology, 6, 469-475.

Liss, M. B., Reinhardt, L. C., & Fredriksen, S. (1983). TV heroes: The impact of rhetoric and deeds. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4, 175-187.

Luecke-Aleksa, D., Anderson, D. R., Collins, P. A., & Schmitt, K. L. (1995). Gender constancy and television viewing. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 773-780.

Maccoby, E. E., & Wilson, W.C. (1957). Identification and observation learning from

66

films. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 76-87.

Marston, W. (1944). Why 100,000,000 Americans read comics. The American Scholar, 13, 35-44.

Mayes, S. L., & Valentine, K. B. (1979). Sex role stereotyping in Saturday morning cartoon show. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 41-50.

McGhee, P. E., & Frueh, T. (1980). Television viewing and the learning of sex-role stereotypes. Sex Roles, 6(2), 179-188.

McPherson, T. (2000). Who’s got next? Gender, race, and the mediation of the WNBA. In T. Boyd, & K. Shropshire (Eds.), Basketball Jones: America above the rim (pp. 184-197). New York: University Press.

Media Awareness Network. (2004). Managing superhero play. Retrieved on February, 29, 2004 from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/tip_sheet/ superhero_tip.cfm.

Meyers, P. N., & Biocca, F. A. (1992). The elastic body image: The effect of television advertising and programming on body image distortions in young women. Journal of Communication, 42(3), 108-133.

Mischel, W. (1966). A social learning view of sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences. Stanford: University Press.

Morgan, M. (1982). Television and adolescents’ sex-role stereotypes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 947-955.

O’Bryant, S. L., & Corder-Bolz, C. R. (1978). The effects of television on children’s stereotyping of women’s work roles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 233- 244.

Peary, D. G., & Perry, L. C. (1976). Identification with film characters, covert aggressive verbalization, and reaction to film violence. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 399-409.

Pingree, S. (1978). The effects of nonsexist television commercials and perceptions of reality on children’s attitudes about women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2(3), 262-277.

Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York: Ballatine Books.

Potter, W. J. (1997). The problem with indexing risk of viewing television aggression. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 228-248.

67

Reeves, B., & Greenberg, B. S. (1977). Children’s perceptions of television characters. Human Communication Research, 3(2), 113-127.

Reeves, B., & Miller, M. (1979). A multi-dimensional measure of children’s identification with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting, 22(1), 71-86.

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1998). Analyzing media message using quantitative content analysis in research, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roberts, D. F., & Bachen, C. M. (1981). Mass communication effects. American Review of Psychology, 32, 307-356.

Rosenthal, T. L. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York: Academic Press.

Rothschild, N. (1984). Small group affiliation as a mediating factor in the cultivation process. In G. Melischek, K. Rosengren, & J. Stappers (Eds.), Cultural indicators: An international symposium (pp.377-387). Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Ruble, D. N., Balaban, T., & Cooper, J. (1981). Gender constancy and the effects of sex- typed televised toy commercials. Child Development, 52, 667-673.

Seiter, E. (1993). Sold separately: Children and parents in consumer culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (2001). Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. New York: Longman.

Signorielli, N. (1990). Children, television, and gender roles: Messages and impact. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 11, 50-58.

Signorielli, N. (2001). Television’s gender role images and contribution to stereotyping: Past, present, future. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of Children and the Media (pp. 341-358). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Slaby, R. G., & Frey, K. (1975). Development of gender constancy and selective attention to same-sex models. Child Development, 46, 849-856.

Sternglanz, S. H., & Serbin, L. A. (1974). Sex role stereotyping in children’s television programs. Developmental Psychology, 10(5), 710-715.

Streicher, H. W. (1974). The girls in the cartoons. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 125-129.

68

Swan, K. (1998). Social learning from Saturday morning cartoons. In Swan, K., Meskill, C., & DeMaio, S. (Eds.), Social learning from broadcast television. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Thompson, T. L., & Zerbinos, E. (1995). Gender roles in animated cartoons: Has the picture changed in 20 years? Sex Roles, 32(9-10), 651-673.

Thompson, T. L., & Zerbinos, E. (1997). Television cartoons: Do children notice it’s a boy’s world. Sex Roles, 37(5), 415-432.

Tuchman, G. (1978). The symbolic annihilation of women by the mass media. In G. Tuchman, A. Daniels, and J. Benet (Eds.), Hearth and home: Images of women in mass media. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: Anchor Books.

Zuckerman, D. M., Singer, D., & Singer, J. (1980). Children’s television viewing, racial and sex-role attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(4), 281-294.

69

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kaysee A. Baker was born in Wichita, Kansas in March of 1980. She received her Bachelors degree from Florida State University in 2001. Later, she attended FSU again to receive her Masters of Science in Mass Communication. While working on her M.S., Kaysee worked on two publications for the Florida Department of Education researching the effectiveness of mentoring programs in Florida. She also had two papers accepted to the International Communication Association’s Annual conference on topics such as sex-role stereotyping in children’s Saturday morning programs, and the public’s perception of protest groups influenced by the framing of news stories. She hopes both will be published. Future plans for Kaysee include getting her PhD and working on other projects that can help further our society.

70