Is the Stereotypical Portrayal of Males in British Television Advertising Changing the Attitudes and Behaviours of Women in Society Towards Men ?

Mary Hedderman, Newport Business School, University of Wales, Newport

Abstract

This paper explores the stereotypical portrayal of men in British Television advertising, determining the impact of such representations on the attitudes and behaviours of women within society. An examination of the extant literature finds a tradition of research from the feminine perspective and evidence of a backlash against men, observed through the portrayal of negative male stereotypes. Literature concerning the power and role of advertising as a communications tool is considered, as is the specific impact of the use of male gender stereotypes. Whilst key thinkers remain divided on many issues, qualitative primary research finds compelling evidence to support several of the widely debated contemporary issues. Focus groups reveal that whilst females aged above 35 tend to be less influenced by advertising, younger females appear to be heavily influenced and this has started to shape their attitudes and behaviours. Of particular concern is the stereotypical portrayal of perfect male bodies, which evidence suggests appears to have changed young females’ attitudes to what is realistically desirable in a male body, putting pressure on males to conform. One of the most intriguing discoveries of this research, however, is that all participants of the focus groups, without exception, believed that it would be deemed unacceptable to replace any of the stereotypical men portrayed as incompetent or as sex objects in nine contemporary advertisements shown as part of the research, with a woman. One wonders how negative portrayals of men as dimwits or sex objects can persist with barely a complaint filed, whilst the literature review and primary research indicate that if women were portrayed in the same way there would be a public outcry.

Keywords: Stereotyping, Television Advertising, Feminism, Attitudes, Behaviours, Misandry

Introduction

The intention of this research is to investigate the extent to which the stereotypical representation of males in British Television advertising is changing the attitudes and behaviours of women in society towards men and to determine the possible implications of this.

The first large scale advertising survey, commissioned in 1972 by the National Organization of Women, found that in almost half of 1,200 American television advertisements scrutinised, women were depicted as ‘household functionaries’, ‘decorative objects’ and ‘unintelligent’. Men on the other hand were shown primarily in positions of authority (Gill, 2007). Whilst research suggests that the practice of gender stereotyping still continues four decades later, there is evidence of a role reversal, with suggestions that it is now men who, according to Gauntlett (2008), ‘have the worst deal’ (pg.3). However, studies have tended to focus on the incidence of female stereotyping with a tradition of research from the feminist perspective (Milner and Collins, 2000) and scant research being devoted to the commercial representation of men.

The inspiration for this paper was the reaction to an advertisement for an oven-cleaning product, ‘Oven Pride’, aired on British televisions in spring 2009. Repeating the strap line, ‘So easy, even a man can do it’ the advertisement shows a man as a ‘simpering idiot’ trying to get to grips with an oven-cleaning product whilst his capable wife looks on in disgust at the ‘inadequacies of men’ (TV’s worst adverts, 2009). 673 complaints were received from the public (The Advertising Standards Authority, 2009) and the topic was much debated in the media with deeply contrasting views being expressed. Attention was also drawn to a range of other advertisements that depicted men in a similar fashion. There is also evidence to suggest that in addition to being portrayed as unintelligent and helpless, men are also being portrayed as sex objects (a practice that was traditionally the reserve of women in advertising).

Gender issues are widely acknowledged as worthy of research and debate. The Office for National Statistics, for instance, produces a ‘Focus on Gender’ report, monitoring the sexes in terms of employment, childcare and other issues. The media also regularly discusses gender issues, such as in 2009 when government minister Harriet Harman was praised and vilified in equal measure for controversially claiming that Lehman brothers might not have failed had it been ‘Lehman sisters’ and had it been run by women (Sunderland, 2009). Similarly, in January 2012, newspapers debated the story of a British couple, who raised their child as ‘gender neutral’ until the age of five. It is important, however, to justify why gender stereotyping within advertising warrants specific investigation. Oderken-Schroeder et al (2002) believe advertising to be one of the most influential sources within society in perpetuating stereotypical ideas. Interestingly, Cohan (2001) refers to advertising as a ‘pervasive presence in society’ (pg. 324) suggesting that there is simply no way to avoid it, it is everywhere. In this sense, if all individuals within society are exposed to advertising, the effect that this has is worthy of investigation. It also became apparent in 2008, that this issue is of concern at an institutional level, when members of the European Parliament requested that official guidelines be established to prevent the reinforcement of gender stereotypes within commercial advertising (Irvine, 2008).

Whilst it was important to review the available literature, as stated by Williams (2002), ‘we can only understand what advertisements mean by finding howthey mean and analysing the ways in which they work’ (pg.17). It was therefore important to observe and discuss female reactions to real life television advertisements. The author thus focused on finding relevant contemporary advertisements, to fit within two broad categories: Incompetent and/or Lazy Male and Objectified Male, that could be presented to females for discussion. Recognised relevant sources such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) were consulted, as well as more popular sources, such as TV’s worst adverts and You Tube. Nine advertisements were selected: they were chosen to reflect a range of different creative treatments, for example, humour and stylised. It was felt that this would broaden the scope of the findings, in that the author could perhaps find subtle, yet key differences in reactions to varying creative approaches. Questions were then designed to direct rather than lead discussion and were focused on the overall aim of the research and the literature review findings.

Literature Review

Okigbo et al (2005) argue that advertising dictates what values and social ideas are ‘normal’ for certain groups of people. According to Barker (1999) cited in Oderken and Schroder (2002) ‘A stereotype involves the reduction of persons to a set of exaggerated, usually negative, character traits....stereotyping reduces, naturalizes and fixes differences’. Interestingly, Schroeder and Zwick (2004) describe stereotyping as ‘prescribing sexual identities’ (pg. 21). With such negative definitions, it is of concern that gender stereotyping seems to be a ‘routine feature’ of television advertising (Nassif and Gunter, 2008) and that according to Bakir et al (2008) advertisers now rely on the use of gender stereotypes. Even with the proliferation of digital and web-based channels, television continues to have a dominant role within society. Indeed, according to Schroeder and Zwick (2004) evidence suggests that advertising not only mirrors what is going on in society, but actually directs behaviour. They cite Lippke(1995), who argues that: ‘the ways in which individuals habitually perceive and conceive their lives and the social world, the alternatives they see as open to them, and the standards they use to judge themselves and others are shaped by advertising, perhaps without their ever being consciously aware of it’.

Gill (2007) suggests that feminist concerns regarding the representation of women within advertising, have led the industry to respond by focusing on a reversal of what were perceived as traditional gender roles. Solomon (2006) believes that feminists have raised consciousness as to how women can be depicted with the ad business concluding: ‘if we can’t have women in these old fashioned traditional roles, at least we can have men being dummies’ (pg. 221). Clare (2000) believes that negative portrayals of men in advertising have contributed to a ‘crisis’ amongst males who now question their roles within society.

The turning point is widely regarded as the mid 1990’s when advertisers finally began to portray women in more positive and varied roles and this seemed to simultaneously trigger a trend for men to replace women as the target of negative stereotypical representation. Research conducted by the Chartered Institute of Marketing in 2001 revealed that men tended to be depicted as ‘pathetic and silly’ in British advertising and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) reported an increase in complaints regarding the negative portrayal of men in advertising. This trend for negative male stereotyping has spawned several high profile ‘Men’s advocates’, such as Glenn Sacks, an American who leads targeted campaigns against what he perceives to be ‘anti male’ advertising and Nathanson and Young (2001), who accuse advertisers of perpetuating misandry (i.e. a hatred of males). Jones (2007) summarises these views when he tells us ‘what most concerns Sacks, Nathanson and Young is the potential impact on boys growing up surrounded by images that tell them there is no acceptable or dignified way to be a man’.

Recent studies also suggest that, just as women have been presented as sexually desirable in advertising for decades, men are now offered as sex objects to be leered at by women (Solomon, 2006). Interestingly, Rohlinger (2002) claims that there is an economic rationale for this, explaining that images of men as sex objects are created to attract both liberated women and today’s modern males for whom body image is important. It is of concern however, that the majority of male bodies featured in advertising are not what one would consider ‘normal’; instead we are presented with strong, muscular beings being put forward as the ‘physical and sexual ideal’ (Rohlinger, 2002. p. 62). Rosalind Gill of the London School of Economics surveyed 140 men in 2001 and discovered that men felt ‘angry, frustrated and physically inadequate’ when confronted with images of perfect male physiques in advertising (Sunderland, 2009). Objectifying men in this way contrasts sharply with the now established trend for realistic portrayals of women, as epitomised by the Dove campaign for real beauty (Solomon, 2006).

It is of note however, that whilst the objectification of men seems to indicate a kind of reversal in gender relations, there are still incidences of women being objectified. According to Gill (2007), ‘we are all objectified now’ (pg.104). This view is given credence by Pope et al (2002) who using content analysis, tested and proved the hypothesis that the percentage of undressed men in women’s magazine advertising has increased within a generation, whilst the percentage of undressed women remained the same. Figures showed that the percentage of undressed men in magazine advertisements had increased dramatically from 3% in 1950 to 35% in the 1990’s. There was also a noticeable ‘inflection point’ (pg. 56) that corresponded with the achievement of major feminist milestones in the 1980’s. In contrast to these figures, the percentage of women featured unclothed in advertising remained steady during the same period at approximately 20%. In fact, Pope et al (2002) found that men were shown as sex objects in almost 60% of women’s fashion magazine advertisements.

The impact of advertising has been studied from a number of perspectives; sociologists have examined its role modelling effects; psychologists have assessed its cognitive aspects as a means of learning and conditioning and the communications field has reflected upon it propagandistic properties (Wiles et al 1995; Pollay, 1986). More specifically, An and Kim (2006) draw our attention to decades of research where social scientists have endeavoured to determine the ‘social and psychological effects of gender stereotyping in the media’ (pg. 182).

Since advertising is considered to be such a powerful communications tool, there is a view that advertisers have a responsibility to present an accurate view of reality (Royo – Vela, 2007). In fact, Fullerton and Kendrick (2000) warn that if people are subjected to a particular version of the world through advertising images, they start to believe this version to be real. There is even evidence to suggest that an advertising image can still change attitudes, even when a consumer is aware that the content of an advertisement is not ‘real’ (Maheswaran, 1994). It is of note, however, that in spite of the empirical evidence suggesting otherwise, people are unlikely to admit that advertising has any power over them (Cohan, 2001). Pollay (2007) tells us ‘we each and all believe that advertising has little effect on us personally, whether we are sophisticated or simple’. This nearly universal notion of individual immunity to advertising must of course be false for many, if not all people’ (pg. 42). With specific reference to the portrayal of gender stereotypes, advertising not only plays a role in establishing expectations with regard to behaviour, but it also has the ability to determine how the respective sexes are supposed to behave (Carter and Steiner, 2004).

Cultivation theory purports that people tend to absorb media created stereotypes into their own lives, thereby adjusting their concept of reality to ‘fit’ media stereotypes, which inevitably leads to a change in behaviour (Doring and Poschl, 2006). In a similar vein, advertising images are often used as substitutes for a lack of experience, assisting us in ‘filling in the gaps’ and developing the world in which we operate (Borgenson and Schroeder, 2002). It is of particular interest that Doring and Poschl (2006) question whether men and women observe gender stereotypes within advertising in the same way. In fact, Kempf et al (2006) point to a wealth of literature that indicates how men and women process information differently. Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran (1991) put forward a ‘selectivity hypothesis’ (pg. 64) theory which claims that men are more selective in their processing of information and focus on heuristic indicators, whereas women adopt a more comprehensive approach, using all of the information available them. They claim that translates to a ‘heightened sensitivity’ (pg. 68) in respect of the specific content of an advertisement.

Nassif and Gunter (2008) express concern about the possible effect of gender portrayals on behaviours within society and believe that repeated exposure to certain gender specific characteristics can influence and distort perceptions. Cohen (2001) for instance, suggests that if men are surrounded by stereotypical images of unrealistically beautiful women from an early age, this shapes their perception of the ideal woman and distorts their view of reality. In this sense, Schroeder and Wick (2004) specifically criticise advertisers for using photographic technological expertise to produce unreal stereotypical body images. With specific reference to sexual objectification, Schroeder and Borgenson (2005) maintain that when a gender identity is eroticised in an advertising image, this can harm the reputation of the gender group and ‘manipulate their being for the consumption of others’ (pg. 585).

Whilst there is a huge body of evidence to suggest that advertising can have a powerful and damaging influence, there is also a school of thought which suggests that advertising is being judged too harshly (Pollay, 2007). Goldstein (1999) defends advertising, saying that consumers are selective in what they respond to and he discusses the potentially positive psychological and social value of advertising, since it can encourage laughter through the use of humour. Mane (2000) argues that the public do not perceive male and female interpretations in advertising to be realistic and suggests that using stereotypes is quite simply a ‘tried and tested’ method for selling products. Schroeder and Borgenson (2005) suggest that as marketing literate new consumers we are less influenced by such images and more inclined to reject them through sceptism or be angered by them on ethical grounds. In fact, Crane and Matten (2004) specifically dismiss any harmful effects of stereotyping in advertising, saying that today’s consumers are marketing literate and well aware of the role of advertising. If this is true, is it the case for both genders? According to Pope et al (2000) after years of experience women have perhaps learnt to reject unrealistic images, but men, on the other hand, can feel inadequate when faced with perfect images. In fact, Pope’s et al’s (2000) work, ‘The Adonis Complex’ provides disturbing evidence of the impact of unrealistic male body images. When studying a group of teenage boys they found that given a choice of body images to aspire to, most boys selected an image with a level of muscularity that could only be achieved with anabolic steroids. Beard (2003) suggests that such unrealistic advertising images have made men increasingly dissatisfied with their bodies possibly triggering drug use and eating disorders.

In sharp contrast, Gauntlett (2008) believes that this objectification of the male body is not offensive to men and ‘is done with a smile’ (pg. 197) as a light-hearted attempt to give men a taste of their own medicine, treating them as they have treated women for decades. He maintains that ‘men’s rights’ groups who complain, tend to look pretentious. This view greatly concerns Nathanson and Young (2002) who suggest that it is unfair that misogyny is closely observed and considered unacceptable yet misandry is largely ignored by being defended, trivialised or even excused by males and females alike. They argue that misandry is apparently considered morally and legally acceptable within what they refer to as ‘our gynocentric world’ (pg.5).

Methodology

The need to explore female attitudes and behaviours in response to contemporary advertising featuring males lends itself most appropriately to a qualitative methodology. As suggested by Smith and Fletcher (2001), a qualitative approach would allow participants to be asked ‘about what they do and think’ (pg.52) allowing for careful listening and interpretation. Focus groups were selected as the most appropriate method, as the synergy proffered by the group situation, as described by Stokes and Bergin (2006) was likely to generate a breadth of information that would be difficult to obtain through an alternative route such as an in-depth interview. Positive group dynamics also allow members to spark off each other, stimulating the whole exercise (Smith and Fletcher, 2003).

Six focus groups were organised, each with eight female participants, since with less than eight people the amount of interaction is likely to be limited and too great a number (more than twelve for example) would be difficult to manage. The groups were evenly split between age groups 19-35 and 35 plus. Questions were designed to relate specifically to the underpinning theory presented in the literature review, such as opinions on stereotypical male representations in advertising, whether individuals believe that advertising influences them to change their attitudes and behaviour and whether it would be appropriate to present women in a similar way to the way men are currently presented within advertising.