Course paper
ADVERTISING AS A MEDIUM OF GENDER-BIASED COMMUNICATION
CONTENTS
Introduction
1. CulturalPreconditions of Gender Stereotypes in Communication
1.1 Interculturalperspective on gender and communication
1.2 Proxemics and gender
2. Manifestation ofGender Bias in Mass Communication
2.1 Gender Stereotypingin TV Advertisements
2.2 Gender rolestereotyping in radio advertisements
3. Language Issues inAdvertising
3.1 Gender and languageusage
3.2 Differences inlanguage usage and worldview
3.3 Voiceover characteristics
3.4 Word choice
3.5 Use of ArgumentsConclusionConclusion
References
/>Introduction
Gender issuesin communication have attracted attention of many researchers. There has beenconsiderable interest in the possible contributions of the mass media to the origins and maintenance of gender roles (Courtney &Whipple, 1974; Culley & Bennett, 1976; Dominick & Rausch, 1972;Furnham, Abramsky & Gunter, 1997; Furnham & Skae, 1996; Kolbe &Langefeld, 1993; O'Donnell & O'Donnell, 1978). Studiesusing educational books (Lobban, 1975), picture books(Weitzman, Eiffer, Hokada, & Ross, 1972), and comic strips (Potkay &Potkay, 1984) have shown that men and women areportrayed in stereotypic fashion, suggesting that the media are by and largeconsistent in their gender role stereotyping,[1] whichunderlies the importance of the present research.
The purpose ofthis research is to reveal gender stereotyping in advertising. Grounding on theaccessible sources survey, the paper offers an overview of the significant rolethat mass communication plays in contemporary gender issues. At a closer look,the communication perspective allows us to examine gender communication as aform of intercultural communication. It can be assumed then that, having gaineda considerable part of the communication process, mass media are subject togender stereotypes, which is examined on TV and radio advertising. Focusing onthese two types of media is dictated by their primary impact channel — auditory,which makes TV and radio advertisements more difficult to be ignored by the audiencethan similar messages in the printed types of mass media. The analysis considersboth social and linguistic issues, aiming at detecting some general features ofhow gender bias is manifested in advertisements.
The paperconsists of the introduction, three chapters, conclusion, reference list (sourcesdirectly quoted) and the list of works consulted (sources used during theresearch but not referred to in the text of this paper).
1. Cultural Preconditions of GenderStereotypes in Communication
1.1 Intercultural perspective on gender andcommunication
Cross-gender communication is seen by manyscholars (such as Porter, Samovar,[2] and Penington[3])as a form of intercultural communication. The constituents of interculturalcommunication are points at which significant differences may occur incommunication patterns, habits, and traditions across cultures.
Communicative practices not only reflectnotions about gender, but they also create cultural concepts of gender. Messagesources privileged by society as legitimate knowledge generators create a webof socially compelling discourses. Thus, religious, mythic, philosophic, andscientific discourses teach us, among other things, about society's values andrules related to gender. It is no accident, then, that American stereotypes focuson the active male and the supporting female, or that Plato defined women as«lesser men,» or that Aristotle described women as «a deformity,a misbegotten male,» or that St. Thomas Aquinas argued that god should nothave created women, or that craniologists of the nineteenth century argued thatwomen's smaller heads justified their subordinate position in society (thusinitiating all the «pretty little head» rhetoric about women), orthat Freud believed women had «little sense of justice,» and so on.[4]
In addition, mass mediated messages offerthe most contemporary, powerful, technologically and rhetorically sophisticatedstereotypes for shaping cultural reality. The beauty, diet, and advertisingindustries are the most obvious, best researched examples of contemporary,self-conscious myth-makers who control cultural concepts (and acceptable images)of gender (of what it takes and means to be male or female, masculine orfeminine).[5] Theopportunities for generating (and receiving) mass mediated messages isstaggering. So too is the opportunity for abuse.
Communication is of central concern whenaddressing gender issues. Rhetorical messages in large part determine what weconsider knowledge, what knowledge we privilege, and what values we espouse.Furthermore, the role of culture in communication practices directs us to anintercultural perspective on gender and communication.
1.2 Proxemics and gender
«Space is a primary means by which aculture designates who is important, who has privilege.»[6]Differences in the amount of space given to and taken by women and men reflectsocietal gender roles. So, women are less likely than men to have their ownprivate space within the family home. And, in the workplace, employees in thetraditionally female role, secretary, generally have a smaller space than theemployee in the traditionally male role, executive. Responses to invasion ofspace also differ between men and women. While men may respond aggressively,women tend to yield space rather than challenge the intruder. These are but afew examples of the ways in which differences in communication between thegenders fit categories of primary elements in intercultural communication. Thepoint is that these differences can create problems in communication. JuliaWood devotes a whole chapter of her book Gendered Lives to the ways in whichthese problems are manifest in the educational system. We might assume too thatthe same problems are likely to visit the university library as well. Anabridged list of the concerns Woods discusses includes issues familiar to usall: lack of female role models, curricular content which misrepresents whitemen as standard and renders women invisible, biased communication in theclassroom (in both student-faculty and student-counsellor communication womenare not taken seriously).(Wood, pp. 206-229.)
As it follows from the above said, genderstereotypes occur in communication patterns, habits, and traditions acrosscultures, proving that gender communication is a form of interculturalcommunication.
2. Manifestation of Gender Bias in Mass Communication
Proceeding from the above analysis, it isof interest to assess the extent to which the mass media have responded to culturaltrends in the society. It can be assumed that, having gained a considerablepart of the communication process, mass media are subject to gender stereotypes.There has been considerable recent interest in the possible contributions ofthe mass media to the origins and maintenance of gender roles[7].Studies using educational books[8], picturebooks[9], and comicstrips[10] have shownthat men and women are portrayed in stereotypic fashion suggesting that themedia are by and large consistent in their gender role stereotyping.[11]
In this context it is interesting toexamine if and how stereotypes are reflected in TV and radio advertising. Thechoice of these two types of media for more detailed analysis can be explainedby their nature. Namely, as long as their primary impact on the audience ismade through the auditory channel, the advertisements included into TV andradio programs are more difficult to be skipped by the listeners and/or viewersthan similar advertising in the printed types of mass media. 2.1 Gender Stereotyping inTV Advertisements
advertising gender communication
Studies in this area show that TVadvertisements aimed at men differ from those aimed at women. This is reflectednot only in targeting a particular product at a particular audience. In doingso, we can observe, firstly, using specific day parts (daytime, evening primetimeand weekend afternoon sports) as a framework for the supposed target audience(women, family and men respectively). Secondly, and this is a more seriousissue, the advertisements aimed at one sex tend to portray gender differentlyfrom the advertisements aimed at the other sex.[12]
There is now fairly widespread conceptualagreement and empirical support for the view that television can and doesprofoundly influence the viewers' intellectual development, change theirattitudes, encourage attitudes and behaviours, and spread some stereotypes.[13]
It is as a socializing agent thattelevision is particularly powerful. Because viewing television involves theobservation of others' behaviour and its reinforcement contingencies, televisionis considered to be a major vehicle through which the viewers learn aboutbehaviours, particularly gender-appropriate behaviours, and about the relativedesirability of performing those behaviours.[14]
McArthur and Resko[15]found that overall men appeared more often than women in televisionadvertisements and that men and women differed in terms of credibility (menbeing authorities and women users), role (women portrayed in terms of theirrelationship to others and men in a role independent of others), location (menshown in occupational settings and women in the home), persuasive arguments(men gave more `scientific' arguments than women), rewards (women were shownobtaining approval of family and males, while obtained men social and careeradvancement) and product type (men were authorities on products used primarilyby women).
Despite improvements since the seventies inthe status of female characters, the TV commercials of the early eighties stillrevealed stereotypical gender roles. Male characters for example, were stillmore likely to be portrayed as employed outside the home while women weretypically found working in the home. Males were also given greater credibilitythan were females. Male and female adult characters were also still clearlyassociated with activities traditionally associated with their gender (i.e. menwere associated with mowing the lawn, while women were associated with doingthe dishes). Finally, they discovered that ninety percent of commercials hadmale narrators, and that this was true even in the case of commercials forstereotypically female products. Also, there was a clearly gendered associationof loud music and dark settings with male characters. This is of importance, asthe narrator is considered the voice of authority. By selecting predominantlymale narrators, advertisers are identifying males as the most deserving ofrespect. They are working from the assumption that viewers are more likely tobelieve what they are told by a male voice. Finally, male characters were mostoften shown alone, participating in stereotypically male behaviour.[16]
Manstead and McCulloch[17]assessed the situation in Great Britain using 170 television commercials solegitimate comparisons could be made. The overall results were unambiguous andcomparable to those of the American study, but the portrayal of men and womenon television showed British advertisements at the time to be more gender rolestereotyped.
More recent studies have been done,specifically on television advertisements, in Australia[18],Kenya[19], as well asAmerica[20], Canada[21],Italy[22] and GreatBritain[23].Replications over time have shown surprisingly few differences. The researchersregarded six features: the product advertised, gender of the voice-overannouncer, gender of the on-camera product representative, setting, age, andoccupation of the characters.
The results of studies indicate that menand women appearing in television commercials were portrayed in not independentways. The nature of these associations were systematic and in line withtraditional gender-role stereotypes. These findings reveal that televisioncommercials manifest traditional gender role stereotypes.[24]
The male figures' typical credibility basisas an authority of the advertised product complements previous findings.
Men were most likely to be portrayed asinterviewers, narrators, or celebrities in occupational settings or inunspecified locations, while women were most likely dependent on others. Howeverthe difference between the two (males and females) was not as great as expectedconcerning the professional role.
Location is still a significant predictorof gender stereotyping. Females are more often portrayed at home while malesare more frequently portrayed during leisure/outdoor.
Age is often one of the best indicators ofsex-role stereotyping. Although studies define «young,»«middle-age,» and «old» on slightly different scales, aprevalent picture is indicated: females are consistently shown as younger thanmales. Most studies show that central figures are dominated by middle-agedmales and young females. The depiction of female figures as young is a typicalfeature of advertisements from Australia and United States[25].This implies that advertisers consider it important for women to be portrayedas youthful and consequently attractive, whereas this is not as important formen. Instead male figures are depicted as being older — most male figures aremiddle aged — which may enhance this commonly presented image as authoritativeexperts.
The content category «rewardtypes» showed many gender role effects. There is a significant associationbetween gender of product user and reward type. The general pattern is thatmales are shown to be associated with pleasurable rewards, while females are moreportrayed as rewarded with social approval and/or self-enhancement.
Women were more likely to appear in advertsfor body products and most likely to be associated with food products.
2.2 Gender role stereotyping in radio advertisements
Less work appears to have been done ongender roles on radio.[26]
A study by Furnham and Schofield[27]compared the extent of gender role stereotyping in commercials on British radiowith that of the content of commercials on television content. They found thatin radio advertisements men were more often portrayed as authorities onproducts and women as users of products; men were more likely to be portrayedas narrators or celebrities than women; and women were more likely to beportrayed in the home than man. Furnham and Schofield concluded that, comparedwith advertisements on British television, British radio advertisements weregender role stereotyped on fewer dimensions. Hurtz & Durkin[28]replicated the study using 100 Western Australian radio advertisements. Theyfound that males were more often central characters; more often in authorityroles. Females were most often portrayed in dependent roles and in their home,while they were portrayed as customers or girlfriends in the workplace.
The research was concentrated on the followingparameters.
Credibility. Central figures were,categorized as «user» when they were depicted primarily as users ofthe advertised product, while those who were depicted primarily as sources ofinformation concerning the product were categorized as «authority.»Central figures depicted as neither use nor authorities were categorized as«other.»
Role. Central figures were classifiedaccording to one of the following apparent roles: «dependent,»meaning primarily financially dependent (spouse, home-maker, girlfriend),«narrator/celebrity,» «professional,» or «other»(including «worker»).
Location. Central figures were categorizedaccording to the location in which they were depicted, either:«home,» «occupational setting,» or «other.»
Type of reward. Four categories of rewardwere coded: «self-enhancement» where the purported benefit of theproduct was an improvement in health or appearance, «practical» wherethe purported benefit was a saving of time or effort, or where the main emphasiswas on the relative in expensiveness of the product, «social or careeradvancement» where it was suggested that ownership of the product wouldassist progress in some social or occupational hierarchy, «other»where the rewards could not be coded in any of the above (including `familyapproval' and `fun/enjoyment'").
Type of Product. Four categories werecoded: «Body/Home/Food» where the product or service involved bodilyhealth, hygiene, cleansing, the home or housework, food, and drink,«Auto/Technical/Occupational» which included automobiles andaccessories, and technical and occupational products; and «other» ifnone of the above categories was applicable.
Narrator. Central figures were categorizedaccording to whether they portrayed a character, («character») ornarrator/presenter («neutral»).[29]
The analysis of the research data showed that,in all, only three data were significant: role, reward, and product. On twospecific criteria, men and women were portrayed in significantly different wayson British radio advertisements. Overall men were more often portrayedsuggesting practical and social career advancement as a reward for productpurchase, and women as suggesting self-enhancement as a reward for the product.Men were more likely to be portrayed in advertisements for automobile,technical and occupational products and women more likely to appear inadvertisements for body, home and food products. In addition, women were morelikely than men to be shown in dependent roles. Males were also significantlymore likely to have a role of narrator/celebrity than females were.
It is concluded that the amount of genderrole stereotyping in advertisements varies depending on the target audience. Thereare inevitably many other social, economic and political factors that influencegender role development, portrayal and understanding. Further, audiences areselective in terms of when they listen to which station/channel, and why.
3. Language Issues in Advertising
Recognition of the potential influence of massmedia on gender-role development has spurred a continuing interest inmonitoring the degree of gender-role stereotyping in commercials. Beginning inthe early 1970s, researchers assessed the degree of stereotyping by analyzingthe content of gender-role messages.[30] The choice to focus on content is most likely attributable to thelong-established tradition of content analysis. For decades it has been used asan objective, systematic, and quantitative method for analyzing the manifestfeatures of communication. It is based on the assumption that information aboutthe nature of people's psychological states and social roles can be obtained byanalysing their choice of language and other observable, visiblecharacteristics./> 3.1 Gender and language usage
From a very early age, males and femalesare taught different linguistic practices. Communicative behaviours that areacceptable for boys, for example, may be considered completely inappropriatefor girls. Hence, the body of research on women and language reveals that womenexperience linguistic discrimination in two ways: in the way they are taught touse language, and in the way general language usage treats them.[31] So, for example, women reflect their role in the social order byadopting linguistic practices such as using tag questions, qualifiers, andfillers to soften their messages. Likewise, traditionally women were identifiedby their association with men, and we know that occupational titles indicatedwhich jobs were «for men» and which were «for women.» Whilemuch of this has changed today, the society retains a tendency to imply thatmaleness, after all, is the standard for normalcy (a female physician may stillbe referred to as a «woman doctor,» and while a female committeechair may be called the «chair» or the «chairperson,» amale in that role will more likely be called «chairman»).[32] What we are taught about gender, then, is reflected in our languageusage.
Johnson and Young[33] suggest that the way language in advertising is used to link aparticular product to a particular gender polarizes differences betweengenders. While in reality many boys demonstrate feelings and behaviours labelledas «feminine,» and vice-versa, these television ads create theimpression that certain behaviours are exclusive to one or the other gender.Young children exposed to this type of advertising have not yet developed thethinking skills that would allow them to view these ads critically. Johnson andYoung are concerned that such ads present stereotypes that may hinder boys andgirls from recognizing themselves as the complex and multifaceted individualsthat they are. 3.2 Differences in language usage and worldview
Many scholars describe the female worldviewas significantly different from the male worldview. Carol Gilligan states that«female identity revolves around interconnectedness andrelationship.» Conversely, she argues that male identity «stressesseparation and independence.»[34]
Obviously, differences in language usageand worldview are woven together and difficult to separate. Hence differencesbetween female and male worldviews, like differences between Asian and Americanworldviews or European and Native American worldviews, may significantly affectcommunication. Differences in worldviews cannot be discussed without talkingabout language, since our view of the world is expressed through language andother symbol systems. Deborah Tannen argues that «communication betweenmen and women can be like cross cultural communication, prey to a clash ofconversational styles.»[35] This is due to differences in the way men and women generally lookat the world. Therefore, it is no coincidence that women see talk as theessence of a relationship while men use talk to exert control, preserveindependence, and enhance status.[36] The ways in which concepts of social relationships (and theiraccompanying communication patterns) differ between genders are parallel togender differences in worldview.
The difference in the spoken accent wasalso polarized between genders. The accent used by central figures inadvertising was coded into two categories «standard» (for theresearch on radio advertisements it was when an English BBC type accent wasspoken), or «other» if it was any other accent (including«Londoner» and «regional»).[37]
Language also reflects differences insocial status between genders. Research on gender and language reveals thatfemale language strategies invariably emulate the subordinate, nonaggressiverole of women in Western society. And, language about women does no better. 3.3 Voiceover characteristics
The observations show that in advertising malesare likely to appear as voice-overs and females to be depicted visually. Thehigher proportion of males comprising the voice-over category suggests that itis men much more than women who are considered to have knowledge aboutproducts. Thus, the male bastion of authoritative voice continues unscathed.[38]
Contemporary research by Fern Johnson[39]shows that even ads for children feature male voice-overs. Ads for girlsusually, but not always, used female voice-overs. Usually an adult voice wasused for the male voice-overs, but about one-sixth of the girl-oriented adsused a girl's voice for the voice-over. Voices, whether male or female, werecaricatured in the majority of ads, with male voices often sounding unnaturallydeep, husky or loud, and female voices unusually high-pitched, squeaky, orsing-song.
Although women have a reputation for beingmore verbal than men, boys were more likely to be speaking in ads showing bothboys and girls.
Levingstone and Green's[40]also report that silence is presented as a particular feminine quality./> 3.4 Word choice
Verbs provide clues to the type of actionbeing expressed, the agent of the action, and the activity being undertaken.Johnson and Young[41] classifiedthe verbs used in the ads into five categories:
· Action verbs relating to physicalmovement or motion.
· Verbs indicating competition ordestruction.
· Agency/control verbs indicating that thechild consumer can exercise power or control.
· Verbs indicating limited activity or astate of being.
· Feeling and nurturing verbsFeeling/nurturing verbs were used solely in girl-oriented ads, whilecompetition/destruction verbs were used almost exclusively in ads directedtowards boys.
· Action verbs were more evenly distributedbetween ads for boys and girls, but agency/control verbs were more likely to beused for boys and limited activity verbs in ads for girls. The word«power» was used in 21% of the ads oriented towards boys, but onlymentioned once in ads for girls.
It can be assumed that advertising forchildren reflects the general tendencies of mass mediated commercials for theadult audience, and a special research may prove that language issues will worksimilarly in the whole bulk of the examined material./> 3.5 Use of Arguments
Central figures were categorized accordingto the type of arguments they presented in favour of the advertised product.Arguments were classified as «scientific» if they contained orpurported to contain factual evidence concerning the product or as «non-scientific»if they simply consisted of opinions or testimonials, and as «none»if the central figure offered no argument.[42] The examination shows that in using persuasive arguments men gavemore `scientific' arguments than women.[43]
A review and comparison of fourteen studiesdone on five continents of sex-role stereotyping in television commercials over25 years[44] show that «end comment» is still highly indicative ofsex-stereotyping. Males more frequently offer an end comment in anadvertisement, whereas females frequently do not give any end comment.
As we can conclude, language is a vivid reflectionof gender stereotypes in mass mediated advertisements, manifesting the bias on thelexical, phonetic, semantic and pragmatic levels./>
Conclusion
The given study makes it possible toconclude the following.
1. It is proved that gender stereotypes incommunication are culturally preconditioned. That is, cross-gendercommunication can be considered as cross-culture communication, includingissues of behaviour traditions and proxemics. The tendency to evaluateanother's culture as inferior to our own is perhaps the most difficultstumbling block to avoid, especially when applying it to gender communication.So, instead of becoming annoyed by a male's aggressive communication style, weshould recognize that it is a style which is as much a part of his identity asan ethnic cuisine or a religious tradition is part of a culture.
2. It is shown that mass communication, andspecifically TV and radio advertising, is a reflection of gender stereotyping insociety. Mass mediated messages offer the most contemporary, powerful,technologically and rhetorically sophisticated stereotypes for shaping culturalreality. Moreover, mass media do not only actively exploit biased models, but theyalso negatively influence the audience by implanting the gender stereotypesinto the viewers and listeners' conscience.
3. Analysis of language usage inadvertising proves that it also reflects culturally preconditioned gender biasmanifested on the lexical, phonetic, semantic and pragmatic levels.
By learning not to assume that men andwomen are the same, we can become more sensitive to the fact that men andwomen's values and goals may differ, and generally their verbal and nonverballanguage will vary as well. Conversely, awareness of societal preconceptionsand stereotypes which portray the other sex as «different,» or«opposite,» can help us to avoid such stereotypes. As long as thetask in improving intercultural communication is awareness and respect ratherthan evaluation, this awareness can help to develop effective communicationwhen speaking across genders. Ultimately, guidelines from this study may beuseful in improving gender communication in mass media and, more specifically,in advertising./>/>
References
1. Aquinas. Summa Theologica. – Quoted inWomen in Western Thought. – Ed. Martha Lee Osborne. – New York: RandomHouse, 1979. – P. 68.
2. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Quoted in Miles,Rosalind. The Women's History of the World. – Topsfield, MA: Salem House, 1989.– P. 57.
3. Arliss, Laurie P. Gender Communication.– Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991. – P. 12-33.
4. Bandura, A. Social learning theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
5. Courtney, A. E., & Whipple, TW. Women in TV commercials. Journal of Communication, 1974, 24, – P. 110-118.
6. Craig, R. Stephen. The Effect ofTelevision Day Part on Gender Portrayals in Television Commercials: A ContentAnalysis, in Sex Roles 26(5/6), 1992. – P, 197-211. – www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/lmg9309.html
7. Craig, R. Stephen. The Effect ofTelevision Day Part on Gender Portrayals in Television Commercials: A ContentAnalysis, in Sex Roles 26(5/6), 1992. – P, 197-211. –http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/lmg9309.html
8. Culley, J., & Bennett, R.Selling women, selling blacks. Journal of Communication, 1976, 26. – P. 160-174.
9. Dominick, J. R., & Rausch, G.E. The image of women in network TV commercials. Journal of Broadcasting, 1972,16. – P. 259-265.
10. Freud's letter toMartha Bernays, quoted in Miles, Rosalind. The Women's History of theWorld. – Topsfield, MA: Salem House, 1989. – P. 222.
11. Furnham, A.,& Bitar, N. The stereotyped portrayal of men and women in Britishtelevision advertisements. Sex Roles, 1993, 29. – P. 297-310.
12. Furnham, A.,& Schofield, S. Sex role stereotyping in British radioadvertisements. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1986, 25. – P. 165-171.
13. Furnham, A.,& Skae, E. Changes in the stereotypical portrayal of men and womenin British television advertisements. European Psychologist, 1997, 2. – P.44-51.
14. Furnham, A.,& Voli, V. Gender stereotypes in Italian television advertisements.Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 1989, 33. – P. 175-185.
15. Furnham, A., Abramsky,S., & Gunter, B. A cross-cultural content analysis of children'stelevision advertisements. Sex Roles, 1997, 37. – P. 91-99.
16. Furnham, Adrian.Gender role stereotyping in advertisements on two British radio stations. –http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_1_40/ai_54250825/print
17. Gilligan, Carol.In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. – Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982.
18. Gilly, M. Genderroles in advertising: A comparison of television advertisements in Australia,Mexico, and the United States. In Journal of Marketing, 1988, 52. – P. 75-85.
19. Gilly, M. Sexroles in advertising: A comparison of television advertisements in Australia,Mexico and the United States. Journal of Marketing, 1988, 4. – P. 75-85.
20. Hurtz, W., & Durkin,K. Gender role stereotyping in Australian radio commercials. Sex Roles, 1997,36. – P. 103-114.
21. Johnson, Fern. Asseen on TV: Take Care of Me Twins vs Electronic Karate Fighters.–http://www.clarku.edu/activelearning/departments/english/johnson/johnsonD.cfm
22. Kolbe, R., & Langefeld,C. Appraising gender role portrayals in TV commercials. Sex Roles, 1993, 28. –P. 393-417.
23. Kolbe, R., & Langefeld,C. Appraising gender role portrayals in TV commercials. Sex Roles, 1993, 28. –P. 393-417.
24. Lakoff, Robin.Language and Women's Place. – New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
25. Levingstone, S.,& Green, G. Television advertisements and the portrayal of gender.In British Journal of Social Psychology, 1986, 25. – P. 149-154.
26. Lobban, G. Sexroles in reading schemes. Educational Review, 1975, 27. – P. 202-210.
27. Mazzella, C., Durkin,K., Cerini, E., & Buralli, P. Sex-role stereotyping inAustralian-television advertisements, Sex Roles, 1992, 26. – P. 243-259.
28. McArthur, L. Z.,& Resko, B. G. The portrayal of men and women in American televisioncommercials. Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 97. – P. 209-220.
29. McArthur, L. Z.,& Resko, B. G. The portrayal of men and women in American television.In Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 97. – P. 209-220.
30. Mulvaney, BeckyMichele. Gender Differences in Communication: An Intercultural Experience. –Copyright 1994 by Becky Mulvaney:feminism.eserver.org/gender-differences.txt
31. Mwangi, M. Genderroles portrayed in Kenyan television commercials. Sex Roles, 1996, 34. – P.205-214.
32. Neto, Felix and Pinto,Isabel.Gender stereotypes in Portuguese television advertisements. InSex Roles: A Journal of Research, July, 1998. – P. 45-46. –http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n1-2_v39/ai_21136467
33. O'Donnell, W. J.,& O'Donnell, K. J. Update: Sex role messages in TV commercials.Journal of Communication, 1978, 28. – P. 156-158.
34. Penington,Dorothy L. «Intercultural Communication,» // InterculturalCommunication: A Reader/ Eds. Samovar and Porter. – 4th ed. – Belmont, CA:Wadsworth, 1985. – P. 31-36.
35. Plato. Republic,Book V, quoted in Women in Western Thought. – Ed. Martha Lee Osborne. –New York: Random House, 1979. – P. 15-16
36. Porter, Richardand Samovar, Larry. «Approaching Intercultural Communication,»// Intercultural Communication: A Reader/ Eds. Samovar and Porter. – 4th ed. –Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1985. – P. 20-29.
37. Potkay, C., &Potkay, C. Perceptions of female and male comic strip characters: IIFavorability and identification and different dimensions. Sex Roles, 1984, 10.– P. 119-128.
38. Rak, D., & McCullen,M. Sex role stereotyping in television commercials: A verbal response mode andcontent-analysis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 1987, 19. – P.25-39.
39. Schwindt, David.Searching for the New Boy. – www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/kamimura/130/thesis
40. Sex-Role Stereotyping in Television Commercials:A Review and Comparison of Fourteen Studies Done on Five Continents Over 25Years. –http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_1999_Sept/ai_58469478/pg_1
41. Tannen, Deborah.You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Communication. – New York: WilliamMorrow, 1990. – P. 42.
42. Tavris, Carol andWade, Carol. The Longest War: Sex Differences in Perspective. – SanDiego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984. – P. 14.
43. Weitzman, L.,Eiffer, D., Hokada, E., & Ross, C. Sex-role socialization inpicture books for preschool children. American Journal of Sociology, 1972, 77.– P. 1125-1150.
44. Wolf, Naomi. TheBeauty Myth. – New York: William Morrow, 1991.
45. Wood, Julia T.Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. – Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,1994. – P. 141-162.WorksConsulted
1. Barkley, R. A., Ullman, D. G., Otto, L., &Brecht, J. M. The effects of sex typing and sex appropriateness of modelledbehavior on children's imitation. Child Development, 1977, 48. — P. 721-725.
2. Bretl, D. J., & Cantor, J. The portrayal ofmen and women in U.S. television commercials: A recent content analysis andtrends over 15 years. Sex Roles, 1988, 18. — P. 595-609.
3. Bretl, D., & Cantor, J. The portrayal of menand women in US television commercials: A recent content analysis and trendsover fifteen years. Sex Roles, 1988, 18. — P. 595-609.
4. Carstarphen, Meta G. and Susan C. Zaviona, eds.,Sexual Rhetoric: Media Perspectives on Sexuality, Gender, and Identity. – Greenwood Press, 1999.
5. Courtney, A. E., & Whipple, T. W Sexstereotyping in advertising. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1983.
6. Craig, R. The effect of television's daily partin gender portrayals in television commercials: A content analysis. Sex Roles, 1992,26. — P, 197-211.
7. Durkin, K. Television and sex roles acquisition:1. Context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1985, 24. — P. 101-113.
8. Fay, Elizabeth. Eminent Rhetoric: Language,Gender, and Cultural Tropes, 1987. – Bergin and Garvey Press, 1994.
9. Ferrante, C., Hayes, A., & Kingsley, S.Image of women in television advertising. Journal of Broadcasting andElectronic Media, 1988, 32. — P. 231-237.
10. Frueh, T., & McGhee, P. E. Traditionalsex-role development and amount of time spent watching television.Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11. — P. 109-114.
11. Furnham, A., & Bitar, N, The stereotypedportrayal of men and women in British television advertisements. Sex Roles, 1993,29. — P. 297-310.
12. Furnham, A., & Mak, T. Sex-role stereotypingin television commercials: A review and comparison of twelve studies done onfive continents, 1998.
13. Furnham, A., & Voli, V. Gender stereotypingin Italian television advertisements. Journal of Broadcasting and ElectricMedia, 1989, 33. — P. 175-185.
14. Gerbner, G. The dynamics of cultural resistance.In G. Tuchman, A. K. Daniels, & J. Benet (Eds.), Heart and home: Images ofwomen in the mass media. – NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1978.
15. Gunter, B. Attitudes to broadcasting in 1984.London: Independent Broadcasting Authority, 1985.
16. Harris, P. R., & Stobart, J. Sex rolestereotyping in British television advertisements at different times of theday: An extension and refinement of Manstead and McCulloch (1981). – British Journal of Social Psychology, 1986, 25.— P. 155-164.
17. Harris, P., & Stobart, J. Sex-rolestereotypes in British television advertisements at different times of the day.British Journal of Social Psychology, 1986, 25. — P. 155-164.
18. Hunter, Dianne. ed., Seduction Theory: Readingsof Gender, Representation, and Rhetoric. – University of Illinois Press, 1989.
19. IBA. Attitudes to broadcasting in 1984. London:Independent Broadcasting Authority, 1985.
20. Jennings, J., Geis, E L., & Brown, V.Influence of television commercials on women's self-confidence and independentjudgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38. — P. 203-210.
21. Kassarjian, H. H. Content analysis in consumerresearch. Journal of Consumer Research, 1977, 4. — P. 8-18.
22. Lovdal, L. Sex-role messages in televisioncommercials: An update. Sex Roles, 1989, 21. — P. 715-725.
23. Lunsford, Andrea, ed., Reclaiming Rhetorica:Women in the Rhetorical Tradition. –University of Pittsburgh, 1995.
24. Murray, J. R, Rubenstein, E. A., & Comstock,G. A. Television and social behavior, Vol 12. Television and social learning.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1972.
25. Ritchie, Joy and Kate Ronald, eds., AvailableMeans: An Anthology of Women’s Rhetoric(s). – University of Pittsburgh Press, 2001.