AN.ANAL¥SIS OF SEX.ROLE BEHAVIORS (li(II®EEKH£1.TELEVISION By Marcia A. Richards . A.THESIS Suhnitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTEROFAKI‘S Departnent of Cannmication 1980 I //&/-" _, ,/ AN ANALYSIS OF SEX ROLE BEHAVIORS ON COM'ERCIAL TELEVISION By Marcia A. Richards Sex role portrayals on prime time and Saturday morning television were content analyzed for two behavioral dimensi -- daninance/ deference and mumme/ecigerxce. Three years of data were analyzed and viewed from a social learning perspective. Daninance/deference was operationalized as the giving of orders. Orders were defined as directives to do, say, or think sanething. Nurturance/exigence was operationalized as the need for support. Data was analyzed with t-tests for a difference of means and z-scores for differences of proportions . Results showed differences in all categories across all three years with high consistency. Post hoc analyses were performed with breakdowns in program types and broadcast times. Results were discussed in light of the availability of stereotypa, televised sex role models for learning by child viewers. Accepted by the faculty of the Departmmt of Carmmication, College of Cannmication Arts , Michigan State University, in partial fulfillmmt of the requirements for the M9M» Director of ThesTsf Faster of Arts Degree. Guidance Cannittee: M W ”W?“ Thanks and gratitude are due many people for their various roles in the canpletion of this work. First and foranost, many, many thanks go to Laura Lee Henderson and Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg. Laura not only originated and developed this content analysis , but also guided me through many rough spots both in Michigan and long distance after she moved to Maine. Dr. Gremberg provided invaluable guidance-- both academic and pasonal for the completion of this project. Dr. Greenberg knows rather well whether a pat on the shoulder or a kickin the rear is necessary and adninisters than both expertly. Serving as my committee Chairman while I was a student, Dr. Greenberg always was there with an answer for me and contiunes to be supportive of my efforts now as a professional working person. Thanks also go to Dr. Charles K. Atkin, my other cannittee manber, for helpful couments. SandyHautanakiandSteveVondalearetobe thankedfor their persistence and single mindedness in coding at least half of the sample of prograns for Year 3. Thanks also to Nora and Marie for their coding efforts. Mary Taber provided desperately needed assistance with the "wide world of canputers" and for this I am to her forever indebted. Mylea Rich keypunched thousands of data cards for me and will probably ii iii. never be the same again. My apologies, Myles, and thanks for being so supportive and such a close friend. Betty Holmer typed all of my tables and she should probably receive a medal for that feat. Tharnks also to typists Clara and Elaine for their help here in New York City. Thanks to Alan for his artwork and to Louie for his "theoretically pure" insight. This research, as part of Project C.A.S.T.L.E., was funded by Grant 90-C-635, to Michigan State University by the Office of Child Development, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C. . TABLE OFCON'I‘ENI’S CHAPTERONE - 'I‘HEORETICALANDRESEARCHPERSPECI‘IVE Daninance/Deference Nurturance/Ebcigence (EAPIER Tm - PERIODS The Sample Definitions Common to All Dimensions ORDERS SUPPORT PLANS Coding Forms Training and Reliability Analyses CHAPTER THREE - RESULTS Daninance/Deferaice: ORDERS Post Hoc Analyses: Program Types Broadcast Time Ntmturance/Exigence: SUPPORT Post Hoc Analyses: Program Types Broadcast Time GiAP‘I'ER FOUR - DISCUSSION iv 10 13 l4 14 16 18 21 21 22 28 29 35 35 45 57 78 93 APPENDICES Appendix A - Coding Category Instructions for the Use of Coding Forms Coding Forms Appandix B - Viewer Training Packets Appendix C - 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 Sample of Television Programs REFERENCES 115 118 120 126 138 TABLElA-lC: TABLEZA-ZC: TABIEBA-3C: TABLElu TABLE5A-5C: TABIE6A-6C: TABLE7A-7C: TABIESA-SD: TABIE9A-9D: TABLE 10A - 10D: TABLE 11: TABIE 12A - 12D: TABIE 13A - 13D: TABLE 14A - 14D: TABLE 15: LISI‘ OF TABLES Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Category, ALL Shows Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Category, Situation Comedies Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Orders Orders Orders Category, Action-Adventure/ Crime Dranas Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Orders Category, Saturday Cartoon Profile Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Category, Saturday Pbrning Means, t-tests and z-scores: Category, 8-9 p.m. Means, t-tests, and z—scores: Category, 9-11 p.m. Means, t-tests, and z—scores: Category , ALL Shows mans, t-tests, and z-scores: Category, Situation Canedies mans, t-tests, and z-scores: Orders Orders Orders Support Support Support Category, Action-Adventure/ Crime Dramas Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Support Category, Saturday Cartoon Profile Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Category, Saturday Pbrning mans, t-tests, and z-scores: Category, 8-9 p.m. Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Category, 9-11 p.m. Support Support Support Direction of Difference: Orders Category, AIL Shows , Order Types 32-34 36-38 40-42 44 46-48 50-52 54-56 60-63 66-69 72-75 77 79-82 84-87 89-92 94 TABLE 16: TABLE 17: TABLE 18: TABLE 19: TABLE 20: Direction of Difference: Orders Category, AIL Shows , Receivers of Orders Direction of Difference: Orders Category, ALL Shows , Order Outcomes Direction of Difference: Support Category, ALL Shows , Physical Support Types Direction of Difference: Support Category, ALL Shows , Emotional Support Types Direction of Difference: Support Category, ALL Shows , Support Respondents 98 101 103 105 107 CHAPTERI THEORETICAL and RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE Mass media effects research in recent years has been rooted predaninately in the tenets of social leaning theory. This theory has spurred research into the possible effects of violence on television, and, of late, into the possibility of learning sex role behaviors from televised character portrayals. A necessary theoretical addition to the analysis of sex roles has been the process of stereotyping---due to the fact that a "sex role" is a stereotype. A stereotype consists of polarized attitudes and judgments held in cannon by menbers of a group toward menbers of another group over a period of time. Stereotypes are used to classify people in narrow and confining categories. For instance, persons of white ethnic origin (members of a group) may attach the judgment of "lazy and shiftless" (a polarized attitude since certain whites may consider themselves to be "industrious and hardworking") to persons of black ethnic origin (members of another group). The stereotyped judgment will be clustered with other, like judgments. "Lazy and shiftless" may be found to accanpany concepts like "stupid", "supertitious", etc. The stereotype will persist over a long period of time, and will often be handed down fran generation to generation. The statements: "Men should work, be breadwinners for their families, be aggressive, tough, and unemotional." "Females should be wives and mothers, soft, gentle, loving and emotional." are examples of stereotypes that fit into society's notions of appropriate behaviors and attributes for each sex. Opposite, inflexible behaviors are prescribed for each sex-- these are sex roles. Social learning theory, as articulated by Bandura (1971) , involves the observation of behavior performed by a model and the consequences of that behavior for the model. Nbdels may be real (i.e. a parent of a peer) or they may be televised (as in the case of a program character). The consequences or reinforcement that occur as a result of the model's behavior affects subsequent learning of the behavior. Positive reinforce- ment of the model for performed behavior greatly facilitates learning. Conversely, punishment received by the model for his / her behavior results in less potential performance (Bandura, Ross and Ross, 1961) . The observation of a model receiving reinforcement for a given behavior results in vicarious reinforcement for the observer. Bandura has denonstrated that agressive responses can be learned fram film-mediated models (Bandura, et. a1. , 1963) and went on to demonstrate that no reinforcement need be present for learning, par— ticularily when positive incentives are 'offered to the observer prior to observing the behavior to be modeled (Bandura, 1965). For the majority of mass media consumers, television is the most available medium for models. The stereotyping process as explained by Bowes (1977) and Carter (1962) involves three elements: Homogenization, polarization, and fixedness. Homogenization occurs when the characteristics of a situation (or, for our purposes-- a portrayal) become so similar that they are predictable fran each other. The statement "A woman's duty is to be a wife and mother" is an example of homogenization. Homogenization has been denonstrated for several content areas , e. g. demographic character- istics. Barcus and Wolkin (1977) found that in Saturday morning program- ming, 77% of the characters were male, 23% were females. For after school programming, 71% were male, 25% were females. Simmons, et.a1. , (1978) found in 1975; 73% mnales, 27% females, in 1976 and 1977 ; 71% males, 29% females. Other demographic studies include Tedesco (1974) , long and Simon (1974) and Katzmnan (1972). Occupational portrayals and status have been shown to be homogeneous. McNeil (1975) found only 44% of females (21% of whom were married) worked outside the home, while 72% of males were gainfully employed. Dominick and Rauch (1972) reported similar findings. Finally, hmogeneity has been demonstrated for sex role portrayals: Streicher (1974) found fenale characters to be less visible than male characters, females were less numerous, less rnoisy, made fever appearances, held less responsibility, etc. A hemogeneous stimulus should be easier to model due to its relative lack of ambiguity. Polarization may or may not accompany homogenization. It is the attribution of the polar extremes of a given characteristic to members of groups. For instance, "Democrats are liberals, Republicans are Conservatives" is one example. "Men are irrational, wumen are rational" is another. Polarization has been demonstrated in content character portrayals . Tedesco (1974) found females to lack independence in prime time television while males were found to be adventurous. Males were most often unmarried, while females were most often married. Polarization often takes the form of onne sex possessing a characteristic while the other does not, i.e. Men are ambitious, women are not ambitious. Other media studies which deronstrate polarization of the sexes are: Sternglanz and Serbin, (1974) Turow, (1974) and Brovermnan, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosenkrantz, (1972). Fixedness occurs when homogeneous and/ or polarized characteristics persist over time. Over several seasons it may be found that males consistently appear more frequently and consistently are more physically aggressive than females. Fixedness has been demonstrated for denographic characteristics (Simmons, et. a1. 1978) and in the documentation of pro- and anti-social behaviors (Greenberg, et. a1. 1979) . It has not yet been denonstrated for sex role behaviors in television. Sex role stereotypes in the media may provide stimuli which, through their hmogeneity, are particularily easy to model. Nbdeling is further encouraged if positive incentives are offered prior to observationn. Broverman, et. a1. (1972) state tl'et "Sex role perceptions are carried by all of us; considered healthy by therapists" (p. 61) . As children, part of the normal socialization process in this society involves the learning of sex roles. We are encouraged to take on physical and behavioral characteristics considered appropriate for our sex by society. It is conceivable this encouragement provides the positive incentives to observational learning as outlined by Bandura. Clnildren are aware of sex-typed characteristics from an early age. Beuf (1974) found that children aged 3-6 years chose stereotyped careers for themselves. O'Bryant and Corder-Bolz (1978) and Miller and Reeves (1976) found similar results. The tendency to stereotype and the ability to learn by observation have been demonstrated in children. The homogenization and polarization of sex role portrayals on television have also been found. What has yet to be documented is the fixedness of sex role portrayals over time. When dealing with the possible effects of a conntent area in the mass media, it is generally advisable to perform content analyses first. Content analyses are used best when applied to specific content areas (denographic characteristics , violent behavior, personality attributes) which then are studied further for their possible effect on the viewer. Content analysis serves to describe and categorize a body of material to facilitate understanding of the area and to provide information with which to do further study. Content analysis tells us "what is there" in a given body of data. Content analyses dealing with sex roles have covered five main categories: Head counts , derography, occupations , physical characteris- tics, and personality traits. (For a discussion of specific study results in each of these areas, see Henderson, 1978.) Briefly: Head counts have found that males outnumber females in tele- vision programming. Overall fenales make up between 28%-~33% of the characters on television. Simmons, et. al. (1978) found an average female representation of 28% across a three year period. Demographic content analyses have generally found that women tend to be married, with children, and younger that their male counterparts (Tedesco, 1974) . Occupational studies have shown that more men than women work, and that men almost always hold positions of authority. When women do work, they fill jobs that are stereotypically held by females-- that of secretary, nurse, or housewife (Seggar, 1975). Dominick and Ranch (1972) found, in their study of calmercials, that 56% of women were l'ousewives and 70% overall appeared in ”feminine occupations". McNeil (1975) found that while 72% of prime time males were gainfully employed, only 42% of females were employed outside of the home. McNeil also found that 56% of working females were closely supervised (usually by males) but that only 33% of working males were similarly supervised. Investigations into physical characteristics show that wunen are often portrayed as decorative (Dominick and Ranch, 1972) as attractive and youthful, (Tedesco, 1974) and as smaller than men (Busby, 1974) . Personality trait studies have often leaned toward polarity of characteristics assigned to males and ferales . Streicher (1974) found fenales to be less physically active and to hold less responsibility than males. Busby (1975) found males to be aggressive, females submissive; males more dominant; and males were portrayed as self-reliant whereas females were shown to be dependent on others . McNeil (1975) found that 35% of ferales' problems were family oriented, while onnly 18% of males ' problems were family oriented. 74% of females' conversational topics involved personal relationships , but only 38% of males ' conversations covered that content. While all the studies previously mentioned describe models whose behaviors are available to be learned on television, none take into account consequences of the model's actions, an element considered imnportant by Bandura in facilitating observational learning. Sternglanz and Serbin (1974) report that males were most likely to be rewarded for their behavior, while females most often encountered no consequences whatsoever as a result of their behavior. Nolan, et. a1. (1977) found similar results in Saturday morning programming. Males received higher. rates of verbal approval and disapproval while females again received little attention for their efforts. Henderson contents analyzed two behavioral dimensions: Dalfinance/ deference and nurturance/exigence and their consequences for differences between males and females in prime time broadcast television. These categories were chosen for analysis based on Sternglanz and Serbin's (1974) finding that males were frequently in need of support (exigence) and that females were often found to be deferent characters. Turow's (1974) discovery that males frequently offered advice and gave orders to others inspired Henderson to look at order giving behavior as symbolic of power and dominance: The person who gives an order (and is consequently obeyed) is a person who controls others. (The reader is encouraged to consult Henderson, (1978) for a complete discussion of the development and origin of these dimensions.) A third behavioral dimension used by Henderson but not by this investigator will be discussed in Chapter 2. Henderson's schema was used in this study for purposes of camparison across a three year period. Henderson collected the firat two years of data, and the third was collected by this researcher for this thesis. MENANCE/DEFERENCE Several researchers have specified the dominance/ deference dichotomy as it related to males and females (Sternglanz and Serbin, 1974, and Busby, 1975) . In the "real world" , male children have been found to be slightly more dominant in terms of influence attenpts than female children. With adults , it appears that only a general statement can be made about daminance-- males generally have a higher formal status than do fenales and therefore take dominant roles more often (Henderson, p. 12). Turow's (1974) study of advising and ordering behaviors in prime time television provided the basis for the categories and definitions used by Hendersonn in her study. Two types of orders were identified: Authority orders are directives given by a person in authority to a subordinate. This authority may be conferred on the person by his/her occupational status, e.g. a doctor ordering a nurse; but the nature of his/her position as a social agent; e.g. a police officer ordering a citizen; or by parental status, as when a parents orders a child. Simple orders are directed toward peers. Peers are defined as persons interacting with equal status along any dimension, e.g. marital, as husband/wife; social, as friends; occupational, as co-workers. The orders dimension was expanded with the addition of Explained orders . Explained orders are orders, either Authority or Simple, modified by the inclusion of a justification for why an order should be followed. Since Explained orders are expansions of the previsouly mentioned Simple and Authority orders, four types of orders can be coded: Authority orders , Authority Explained orders , Simple orders , and Simple Explained orders . "General hypotheses concerning the giving of orders were formulated based on these connceptions. Due to the unequal proportions of male to female television characters, hypotheses, in all categories, are stated with the assunption that "more" or ”less” is used with respect to the relative frequency of males and fenales on televisionn. That is, chance occurence is based on doing a behavior more or less than the expected proportionn of occurence." (Henderson, p. 14-15). Expected proportion of occurence for males is 71%, for females, 29%. This is based on Simona, et. a1. (1978) derographic analysis. In keeping with previous studies, males were generally expected to be domninant, fenales deferent. Males would be expected to hold more positions of authority (hence give authority orders) and would not be expected to be concerned about that authority being threatened (males would give fever explained orders). To the contrary, females would be expected to be more willing to justify or explain their orders (since female authority is less accepted in this society, thereby less accepted on television) . Four hypotheses were developed: H1: Male characters will give proportionately more Authority ordersthann thanfemale characters. : Male and female characters will give proportionately equal nunb s of Simple orders. d2}: Fenale characters will explain proportionately more of their or 3, Authority or Simple, than male characters. H : Orders given by male characters will be followed propor- tionately e often than orders given by ferale characters . 10 The fourth hypothesis was developed by Henderson in response to Sternglanz and Serbin (1974) and Nolan, et. a1. (1977) findings that males are more regularly rewarded for their behavior on television. Therefore, it may be possible that males are rewarded for their order giving behavior by having their orders followed. Henderson felt that it would be important to determine "Whether female characters are more often cast in roles deferent only to male characters. or whether they are cast in roles deferent to domninance in general." (p.16) In other words, it is important to know whether females as characters M exhibit deferent behaviors (i.e. even amongst theraelves) or whether females exhibit deferent behaviors most often when they interact with male characters. Thus: : Proportionately, male characters will order other male characters e often than ferale characters will order male characters. Ferale characters will be the receivers of orders pro— portionnatel more than males will be the receivers of orders , regardless of the sex of the order giver. NUKI‘URANCE/EDCLGENCE As Henderson reported, the nuturance/exigence dimension has not been studied, except peripherally. Nolan, et. al. (1977) found that males received higher rates of approval and disapproval and frum this it may be inferred that males receive more support than females, but this is merely a speculation, since this specific idea was not tested. Busby (1975) found men to be self-reliant (not nading support) and women to be dependent on others (in need of support). Long and Simon (1974) showed that women were portrayed as dependent on others . In general , 11 men are portrayed as self—reliant and non-family oriented; females are portrayed as dependent on others and highly family oriented. An exigent person, in this analysis, as well as Hendersonn's, shows a need for supportive behavior. A nurturant person atterpts to relieve the danger or distress experienced by an exigent person. Sternglanz and Serbin (1974) found males to be more exigent. Henderson hypothesized that males would be likely to be in need of physical nurturance more often than fennales (due to males' orientation outside the hone) and that females would more often be in need of erotional support than males (due to females' orientation within the home). "If television stays true to the cultural stereotypes of active, adven- uIrous men and dependent, emotional women, there will be differences in thewaysmenandwomenare portrayed in terms of exigence. Male characters will be more likely to find themselves in physical danger, while female characters will be more subject to erotional distress." (Henderson, p. 19). Therefore: : Male characters will be portrayed in physically exigent conditions oportionately more than ferale characters. I : Female characters will be portrayed in erotionally exigent ’tions proportionately more than male characters. In keeping with the culturally held stereotype that women are warmer -- hence more nurturant than men (Tedesco, 1974) , Henderson added: H2. Female characters will respond to exigence with nurturance proportiona ely more than male characters. 12 As mentioned earlier, Henderson's schema was adopted in order to provide results spanning a three year period. Carter' 3 concept of fixedness may be denonstrated with a three year cemparison, as well as more sharply fulfilling the descriptive goal of content analysis. QIAP'IER II PEDiODS This thesis serves two functions. First, it provides a continuation of work begun by Laura Lee Henderson, who analyzed the first year of the CASTLE Sex Role data, and collected the second year data. Project CASTLE (Children and Social Television learning) consisted of l) a series of content analyses of prime time programing over a three year period, and 2) field studies concerning television effects and parental mediation . In addition to sex role content analysis, Project CASTLE studied denography, pro- and anti—social behaviors . substance use, sexual behavior. and family interaction patterns . This thesis will present the third year (1977-78) sex role data for the first time. Second, data from all three years will be presented to examine trends among the content variables. Became the first (1975-76) , the second (1976-77) and the tlnird (1977-78) year research was intended to be comparable for the purpose of overtime analysis. variables and methods used in the first year were largely duplicated in the seconnd and third years. However, improverents and deletions were made in methods used and variable cunposition. Henderson began with three conceptual categories or dimensionns , ORmRS, an operational category used to measure duninance/ deference. SUPPORT, operationally used to measure nurturance/endgame, and PLANS, a category desiened to measure independence/ dependence. 13 14 The Sample The sample consisted of one videotaped episode each of prime time (8-11 p.m.), and Saturday morning (8-12 am.) fictional series on commercial network programming. Variety shows , movies , special program- ming and docunentaries were not included. Combining all three sample years, 237 program episodes or 180.5 television hours were analyzed. Specifically, in the 1975-76 sample week, there were 79 episodes and 59.5 television hours analyzed. The 1976-77 week contained 77 episodes and 57.5 television hours. The third sample year, 1977-78, contained 81 program episodes and 63.5 television hours. In terms of characters analyzed, Year 1 yielded 1212 characters , 73% male and 27% female. Year 2 contained 1120 characters with 71% male composition and 29% ferale. Year 3 contained 1217 characters with the same proportionate breakdown of the sexes as was found in Year 2. For a more conplete discussion of the demographic dimension, see Greenberg, Simmons, Hogan and Atkin, (1978). Definitions Common £9 All Dimensions Henderson made two major changes for the second year coding which were retained for the third. The first was that coding was aoconplished in "scenes" rather than in time segments as in the first year. Coders in that year recorded data in two minute segments. This was found to be distracting and often interrupted codable behavior sequences. Instead of time segments, "scenes" were found to be more useful. 15 §_c_e_n_e: A scene is defined as a dramatic whole, a series of acts continuous in time and space, not broken by the addition or departure of characters, or bv a change in setting. A commercial alwavs marks the beginning of a new scene, even if the characters, setting. topic of conversation, etc. are identical before and after the comercial break (Katzman. 1972) . Scenes did serve the same purpose as time segments, however. They organized coding, made it easier to refer to, and helped coders to clear their thoughts of previously coded acts and attend to the coding at hand. Character: A person portrayed in a dramatic television role. This person must have a speaking role. Only characters with speaking parts were coded (as order givers, plan makers, or persons in need of support) but recipients of codable behaviors could be non-speaking characters. Characters served as the unit of analysis for this study. Groups of people were also coded as receivers (of orders, or as persons who carried out a plan) or a respondents (persons who responded to a need for support). However, coders were instructed to pick out of a group any speaking characters who might be present and then simply code those characters as receivers or as respondents. Onnly a speaking character could be the initiator of an act (only a speaking character could need support, give an order, ormake a plan). 16 Conceptually and operationally , ORDERS remained nearly intact across all three years of coding and analysis. Henderson developed a behavior sequence for ORDERS: Woo gave what kind of order, to whom was it given, and, was the order followed? Second and third year methods expanded the behavior sequence by also asking "What reaction was shown by the receiver?" The character (who gave the order) always serves as the unit of analysis . Gives Orders: The character gives a directive for other (3) to do, say, or think sonething. Henderson used four types of orders in both years of her analysis, and these were used throughout the three years of data collection and analysis. However, one order type, "threats" was not found often enough in either of the first two years to report its occurrence. This pattern held true for the third year data as well, even thongh the order type was retained. Henceforth, "threats" will no longer be treated. The surviving order types were: Authority: An order to be complied with because of occupational position (e. g. boss), social agent (e.g. police officer, muse, doctor), or parent. If a character has been explicitly made a delegate of any of the above s/he is capable of giving an authority order. 17 Simple: An order given among equals or peers: Husband/wife, brother/ sister, friends, co—workers, etc. An order given by someone in an authority position may be considered a simple order if the characters are interacting as peers, e.g. in a social setting. An order is simple unless clearly given as a threat or an authority order. glamed: Either of the above order types (authority or simple) may be further modified by the inclusion of a justification for why an order slnould be followed. This justification must be made immediately prior to, or following the giving of an order. Other variables used in the coding of ORDERS were: Receiver: The receiver in the orders behavior sequence is the character(s) to whom the order was given. As mentioned earlier, a character receiving an order does not have to be a speaking character. However, for an order to be coded, a character must have been present and aware of the order giver and the order as it was given. Therefore, an order giver speaking to a receiver who was not within hearing distance was not engaging in a codable behavior. Followed: An order was considered to have been followed if the receiver carriedout theorderas itwasgiven. Iftheorderwasnot carried out by the receiver as given during the course of the program, the order was not followed. ReaCtion: The receiver ' 3 evaluation of the order and/ or order giver constitutes the Reaction. A verbal and/or a non-verbal reaction of the receiver was coded for each order given. Verbal and non-verbal 18 reactions were coded as positive, neutral, or negative. The two often contradicted each other. A sarcastic retort delivered with a smile might be coded as a negative verbal reaction, but as a positive non—verbal reaction. No reaction was always coded as neutral. Henderson used a category called "Consequences" in the first year which served as a forerunner to the more specific "Reaction" category. "Reaction'i was used in both the second and third years of coding. "Reaction" was not retained for analysis because it was fond that most orders did not inspire a reaction in the receiver (i.e. most orders were met with a nentral response in the receiver). SUPPORT With this dimension, coders recorded instances when a character was seen to be in need of support. The reminder of the behavior sequence is as follows: What kind of supportwas needed andbywhom, if someone was available to respond, who was it: and if support was given, what type? Needs Support: A person is in danger or distress. This dimension does not include routine requests for assistance or social coIrtesies. It does include non—routine requests or needs which are relevant to program plots , subplots , and character development . Henderson revised her Year 1 SUPPORT categories for Year 2, often simply by renaming them. Year 2 categories were used for Year 3 without revision. 19 Physical External: A person is in danger of being killed, injured or beaten. The threat of physical harm cones from outside the character. Physical Internal: A person is suffering from a disease, illness, or internal malady. The threat of physical harm comes from within the character. Physical Confinenent: A person is jailed, trapped, or held against their will. A character' 3 movenents have been restricted by another. The confinenent is involuntary. Egg M: A person states that s/he has a problem that s/he cannot solve, that s/he will be disliked or held in low esteeem by others. The sorrce of enotional distress or self-inadequacy for the char- acter comes from within the character. Concern for Others: A person discusses help for a friend, relative, or associate with a third person (person needs support because scueone else is in trouble). Note that at least three people are involved: The person expressing concern, the person to whom concern is expressed, and the person in tronble. Psxcl‘nOIOgiCal SuppOrt: A person has a problem because of the actions of others but does not express a need for Ego Support or Concern for Others. ‘ Cognitive Snppdrt: A person needs help in performing a task, thinkingontaproblen,makingadecision. Thedesiredsupportccmesin the form of instruction, direction, or "thinking out 1o1d". 20 The renaining behavior sequence variables are: Asks for Support: The character in need of support may ask or not ask for aid in relieving the need. Therefore, coder identification of a snpport need is not dependent on the character asking for help. Resgnndent: A respondent is defined as a character who recognizes that another character is in need of support. The responding character shows in some way, through physical and/or verbal action, that s/he knows that another character has a problem. A respondent need not proVide support in order to be identified as a respondent. Support Given/Not Given: Support is given when the respondent attempts to provide aid to relieve that particular need for support. Support is not given when the repondent does not or cannot provide the aid necessary to relieve the character's need. A_i_d: The nature of the support given. Direct support occurs when the support given is through cooperation or problem solving. The person needing support receives it directly. Indirect support is given when the responding character provides the means for the character in need to solve the problem. Indirect aid frequently takes the form of advice, instruction, or direction. The Aid category was added during the second year analysis, but was not retained for the third year analysis because it was generally found that the need for physical support almost always was met with Direct support (respondent directly aids person in need) and that the need for enotional support was almost always met with Indirect support (respondent discusses or comnsels person in need of support). Little variation in this trend 21 was uncovered and therefore further discussion of this variable was thought to be unnecessary. Henderson used a category, PIANS, to measure independence/dependence in character interaction. This category proved to be difficult to code due to its conplec’nty and also occurred with low frequency in the sample. Henderson encomtered simnilar problem in attempting to use PLANS for Year 2. Due to low frequency, low intercoder reliability scores, and resultant lack of significance in analyses, PLANS was dropped from the Year 3 analysis. Year 3 coders were trained only to code ORDERS and SUPPORTS. For a discussion of PLANS and a presentation of its Year 1 data, see Henderson, (1978). ' Coding Forms AnexampleofanORlERScodingformusedinboththesecondand third years of coding may be fomnd in Appendix A. Instructions for its use are included. The form differs most significantly from the first year formin its provision ofmore spaceandroomfor thecoderandhis/ her cements. Instead of marking an "X" in appropriate columns as in thefirstyear, coders inthesecondandthirdyearsusedcodesand word descriptions for each category. Names of the order giver and receiver were recorded in the "Character" and "Receiver" columns. Codes were used in the "Sec", "Order", ‘T‘ollowed", and "Reaction" columns . 22 A copy of the SUPPORT coding form can be fomnd in Appendix A also. As in the ORDERS form, letter codes were used instead of check marks beginning with Year 2 coding. The SUPPORT form for Years 2 and 3 differs from Year 1 in its allowance for the coder to elaborate. The Year 1 "Consequences" category was revised into the Years 2 and 3 "Aid" category. Training and Reliability As in other phases of this project, care was taken to train the Year3 coders inthesame fashionas theYearlandYeachoders. First, six coders met with the investigators to discuss conceptual and operational definitions for each category. Second, instruction was given in the use of the coding form as will as talking through hypothetical codable behavior sequences. The process up to this point took about a week, enconpassing three or four six-hour sessions. Coders were then given practice in coding programs from previous years . Reliability problems developed. Reliability scores were marginal resulting in two coders being dropped from the coding team. Unfortunately, this action was not sufficient. Henderson coded Year 1 and Year 2 data using irndividual coders. The primary reason for this was speed. Due to unusually low single coder reliability scores for the Year 3 teamn, pair coding was instituted. Two coders coded each show together, with discussion, producing one set of coding forms per show. Reliability scores , calculated by the percent agreement method, were conputed between pairs as well as between members of a pair. Between pairs, 23 reliability ranged across categories from . 67 to . 70 on the ORDERS dimension, and from .54 to .89 on the SUPPORTS dimension. Between menbers of a pair, reliability scores nearly always exceeded . 90. An explanation for this might be that when coders work together without discussion (as in the reliability tests) they still cue each other as to when a codable act appears. In this situation, coders do not cone up with different numbers of codable acts and therefore their reliability scores are higher. Six possible pair conbinations coded approximately two-thirds of the sample. The coders were a mixed grop; three ferales, one male. 'Dne most reliable pair during the reliability trials then coded the remainderof the showsandthiswas amixedpair. Acodertraining packetcanbe fomnd inAppendixB. Analfies Analyses used for Year 3 were identical to those used for Years 1 and 2. Additive indices were created Within each category to allow for the use of inferential statistics. As Henderson notes, there are two populations of interest in this content analysis. The first such population is concerned with the exhibition of main category behaviors by the two grops under study, males and fetales. This issue involves differences between the sexes in terms of the m__m_b_e£ of behaviors each exhibits. The following hypothesis is an exanple of the type of hypothesis that applies to this population: "Male characters will need physical support more than female characters. " 24 "Assuming a normal distribution for this population, the t-test for difference of means Will answer the questions these hypotheses pose. The results of these t-tests will show Whether there is a difference in the per character rate of behavior exhibition. Or, more simply. a significant t-test of these hypotheses will allow the inference that the rate (or average nunber per character) of a behavior by one sex isverydifferent fronthe rate ofbehaviorby theother sex. Themeans in each category of behavior will show which sex has a higher rate." (Henderson, 1978, p. 42) The second population of interest is not normally distributed. It is the population of television characters with speaking parts. Of 1217 characters with speaking parts, 818 appear in the Sex Role content analysis for the third year (506 for ORDERS, 312 for SUPPORTS). Statistical tests used in this analysis were applied only to characters exhibiting variable behaviors. A population subset is used to test each hypothesis. Assunptions about the total population (per year and across all three years) are made from the population subsets. For instance, let us consider the giving of authority orders. The pop— ulation subset beirng tested is that grop composed of characters Who gave at least one order each (of any type). Of the 1217 characters (for Year 3) with speaking parts, 506 appear in the subset of order givers. Therefore, the population subset is that of order givers, the grozp specifically being examined is that of authority order givers . This second population (N=1217) possesses an unequal representation of the sexes-- males, 71%, females, 29%. An inferential statistic assuming a normal distribution would be misleading. Hypotheses dealing with this population must ask whether the sexes are exhibiting behaviors in proportion to 25 their representation in the population. An exanple of this type of hypothesis: ' 'In general , physical support needs will be proportionately overrepresented as a male behavior and proportionately underrepresented as a fenale behavior." "The statistic used to test these hypotheses is a z-statistic. This 2 is a normal approximation of the binomial distribution and similar to a Chi-square with 1 degree of freedom (see Hays, 1963, p. 585, for a full discussion of this statistic.) No population distribution assunptions are made." The formula for this 2 is: fol *fen 4“ J (fel) (fez) / N Where: fol = observed frequency of female acts fe1 = expected frequency of female acts (29% of total) fe2 = expected frequency of male acts (71% of total) N = total number of acts This 2 tests Whether one group is overrepresented or underrepresented in the population. A negative z-score for this test will indicate that female behaviors are proportionately underrepresented. A positive z-score shows that ferale behaviors are proportionately overrepresented." (Henderson, p. 44). 26 Two specific hypotheses: H : Orders given by male characters will be followed proportion- ately more 3ften than orders given by fenale characters. and : Female characters will respond with support to characters who need support proportionately more than male characters . deal not only with variable behavior exhibiting characters, (order givers and snpport readers) but with a subset of those characters. Not only must a character exhibit order giving or the need for support to qualify for this analysis, but the order giver must give a successful order, and the need for support must be successfully responded to. The most direct test of these hypotheses is a simple test of proportions. The proportion of successful orders given by males will be conpared to those given by females. The proportion of female support respondents will be conpared to the proportion of male support respondents. These proportions will then be compared with the actual distribution of the sexes in the total population. For instance, in Year 1, the total population (composed of all speaking characters) showed a distribution of 73% males to 27% females. This is roughly a ratio of 3:1. We can then expect that any given male character will give at least three times as many orders (for the purposes of H4, successful. orders) as will any given female character. If, however, upon analysis, we find that males gave two successful orders to every one successful order given by females, Hypothesis 4 does not find support. To receive support for Hypothesis 4, males would have to give more than about three successful orders for every one successful order given by a female. 27 In sumary, then, three statistics have been computed for these data: The t-test, which tests the difference in mean rate of behavior performance by the sexes, the z-test. which tests the difference in proportion of behavior performance by the sexes, and a comparison of proportions, to be applied specifically to Hypotheses 4 and 9. TWO exploratory post hoc tests were also performed. One, a program breakdown, compared situation comedies , action—adventure/ crime programs, and Saturday cartoons. These three showtypes were selected because they were the categories containing the most number of shows (hence, the most number of characters). A broadcast time breakdown was also performed. The three time periods were: Saturday morning, 89 p.m. , and 9-D. p.m. . The results section will first address itself to tests of the main hypotheses. Data from all three years will be tabled together in order to facilitate the discussion of trends and changes across the years. Then, the post I'oc analyses Will be discussed. CHAPTER III RESULTS Two kinds of evidence will be presented in response to the hypotheses developed in Chapter I. The t-test for difference of means Will conpare the behavior rates of males and females for each content category. The z-test for difference of proportions will point out over- or underrepresentation of behaviors (as compared to the expected occurrence of those behaviors in the total sample) performed by males and females. A negative z-score will indicate that male behaviors are overrepresented, while a positive z-score will show overrepresentation of female behaviors. Of the total population of television characters in Year 3, 71% was male, 29% female. Therefore we can expect 7 % of any given behavior to be performed by male characters, by chance. In addition, as mentioned previously, ratios of behavior rates will be presented in order to most directly test the questions posed by Hypotheses 4 and 9. The two tests can be relied upon to provide support or non- support for each hypothesis. While Henderson's data for Year 1 gave us a profile of sex role behaviors for one year, three years of data may enable us to provide generalizable profiles of television content in terms of sex role behavior. 28 29 ORIERS The "ALL. SHOWS" analysis results are provided in Tables 1A through 1C. Table 1A shows results from the "Order Type" analysis. A stable portrait of order giving is denonstrated across a three year period. On the average, women gave 2 ,2 of the orders, while men gave 78%. The large and negative z-score for each year shows that males were over- represented as order givers in the sample. In general then, it can be said that males give more orders of all types than do females. The first hypothesis that males will give proportionately more Authority Orders than female characters is supported across all three years. T—test and z-scores show significance forthis finding at the (. 0001 level. The second hypothesis that males and females Will give proportionately equal numbers of Simple Orders, receives non-support in Year 1 with an overrepresentation of males giving Simple Orders. Year 3 provided support by showing males and females giving Simple Orders in proportion to their representation in the saple. Non-support was found in all three years for the third hypothesis that female characters will explain proportionately more of their orders, both Authority and Simple, than male characters. Significant t-levels are acconpanied by large and negative z-scores for the first two years for Authority and Simple Explained Orders, but non-significant t-levels and near proportionate representation (see the z-scores) for the Simple Explained category were found for Year 3. Year 3 slnows that males give significantly more Authority Explained Orders. 30 Table 13 slows results for Order Receivers. Hypothesis: Males will give orders to other males more often than ferales will give orders to males. Sipport is given to this hypothesis in all three years. Males order other males at a higher rate and proportionately more often than males order females. In the first year, 76% of the orders given by males were received by males; in the second year 76%; in the third year, 77%. Large and negative z-scores for each year stow males to be overrepresented as receivers of orders in general. With the exception of Year 2, females as receivers of orders are represented proportionate to the expected ocoJrrence in the total sample population. Therefore, the hypothesis that females will be the receivers of orders proportionately more than males regardless of the sex of the order giver is not supported by these data. Table 10 gives results concerning the order effectiveness data. Data concerning orders that have unknown consequences are provided for Year 3 only. Hypothesis: Orders given by male characters will be followed proportionately more often than orders given by female characters. Males, in all three years, do give more effective (yes) orders than do females. This is demonstrated both by the rates of effective (yes) order giving and by a disproportionate representation in the sample. In Year 1, 82% of the effective orders were given by males, in Year 2, 77%, in Year 3, 79%. Males also displayed a higher rate of ineffective (no) and ambiguous (unknown and yes unknown) order giving. Females are conspicuous by their relative absence in this table. In terms of ratios of behavior performance, males gave more successful orders than females gave in all three years. In Year 1, males gave 31 more than fonr times as many successful orders as females, and gave more than tlmree times as mnany unsuccessful orders. Inn Year 2, males gave more that three times as many successful orders, and two and a half times as mnany unsuccessful orders. In Year 3, males gave three and a half times as many successful orders as females gave, and almost three times as many unsuccessful orders. While it was previously stated that in order to receive support for the hypothesis , males would have to give more than three times as mnany successful orders as females (accomplished in Years 1 and 3), the results must be viewed With some restraint since similar patterns were found between males and females when unsuccessful order giving was examined. To summarize: --Across all three years, males gave more orders than females. --Across all three years, males consistently gave more Authority Orders than did females, bu less consistent were the Simple Orders findings. --Males gave more Autl'ority Explained Orders than females, and more Simple Enqnlained Orders in two of the three years. It was hypothesized that females would give more Explained orders of both types. This finding may lead one to believe that the distinction between Authority and Simple Orders is more meaningful than the distinction between Ebcplained Orders and unexplained orders. --Across all tlmree years , males receive orders given by males more often than they receive orders given by females. --Males give more effective orders than do ferales, but both display ineffective order giving at rates not far from the expected proportion in the total sample population. In terms of behavior ratios, the average male gives more ineffective orders than does the average female. ‘wt 32 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 2 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 3 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Table 1A ALL Shows Order Types Females Males (N=294) (N=395) 0.27 1.33 0.06 0.28 0.92 2.12 0.20 0.57 1.45 4.29 (N=196) (N=473) 0.31 0.84 0.11 0.27 2.29 2.55 1.00 1.30 3.71 4.96 (N=142) (N=364) 0.34 1.21 0.06 0.33 1.85 1.89 0.75 0.76 3.00 4.20 a < .05 b < .01 c < .0001 Orders category Significance of t <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 .0001 A .0001 <.001 n.s. <.05 <.001 A <.0001 <.0001 n.s. n.s. <.001 SCOPE .32c .93 .52 .02c 33 Table 18 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: ALL Shows Receivers Year 1 Females Males (N=294) (N=395) Female Receivers 0.41 0.94 Male Receivers 0.91 2.99 Year 2 (N=196) (N=473) Female Receivers 1.20 1.06 Male Receivers 2.33 3.40 Year 3 (N=142) (N=364) Female Receivers 0.97 0.88 Male Receivers 1.87 3.04 Orders category Significance of t <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 2 +1. +0. .87 score .42 50 34 Table 10 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Orders category ALL Shows Orders Followed Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=294) (N=395) of t Yes (followed) 0.94 3.17 <.0001 -7.84C No (not followed) 0.53 1.21 <.0001 -1.43 Year 2 (N=196) (N=473) Yes (followed) 2.54 3.51 <.0001 -6.07c No (not followed) 0.78 0.77 n.s. +1.28 Year 3 (N=142) (N=364) Yes (followed) 1.79 2.61 <.001 96.03C No (not followed) 0.91 0.95 n.s. -0.86 Unknown 0.31 0.53 <.o1 -3.54C (Yes) Unknown 0.06 0.18 <.0001 -3.32c 35 POSI‘HOCANALYSES Progran Babes Two program types, situation canedies and action-adventure/ crime dramas will be discussed. Henderson included a Medical-family story category, but no medical programs and few family stories existed in the third year sample. An analysis of Saturday cartoons is provided for Year 3 only. In situation canedies (Table 2A) the overall rate of order giving shows that fanales are overrepresented (by positive z-scores) as Order givers in the first two year, but are close to the expected rate of order giving in the third year. Across all three years, it is clear that females are overrepresented as givers of Simple Orders. Males are overrepresented as givers of Authority Orders and Authority Explained Orders, most clearly so in the third year data. Table 23 shows results for the analysis of order receivers. Females are overrepresented as receivers of orders given by other fanales. With the exception of Year 3 , males receive orders from males proportionate to their representation in the sample . The data concerning effectiveness of orders is in Table 2C. In general, results show representation proportionate to the expected frequency of acts in the total population. When ratios of behavior rates are ecatrfined, support for the hypothesis is only found in Year 3, when males gave almost three times more successful orders than females gave. In the same year, males gave only twice as many msuccessful orders as females. Year 1 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 2 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 3 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES 36 Table 2A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Situation Comedies Order Types Females (N=32) 0.69 0.13 2.59 0.69 4.09 (N=69) 0.30 0.10 2.65 1.29 4.34 (N=52) 0.35 0.13 2.00 1.04 3.52 Males (N=73) 1.03 0.37 1.55 0.62 3.56 (N=120) 0.72 0.21 2.62 1.73 5.28 (N=99) 1.60 1.78 0.40 0.89 4.67 Orders category Significance of t 333:: mmmmm 333:3 mmmmm <.Ol <.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. z- .20 .93 SCOPE .38 .0361 37 Table 28 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Orders category Situation Comedies Receivers Year 1 Females Males Significance z-score (N=32) (N=73) of t Female Receivers 1.88 0.96 n.s. +4.94c Male Receivers 1.97 2.23 n.s. +0.30 Year 2 (N=69) (N=120) Female Receivers 1.61 1.56 n.s. +3.15b Male Receivers 2.52 3.18 n.s. +1.20 Year 3 (N=52) (N=99) Female Receivers 1.85 0.98 <.05 +6.37c Male Receivers 1.60 3.44 <.01 -4.25c 38 Table 2C Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Yes (followed) No (not followed) Year 2 Yes (followed) No (not followed) Year 3 Yes (f0llowed) No (not followed) Unknown (Yes) Unknown Situation Comedy Orders Followed Females Males (N=32) (N=73) 2.53 2.58 1.63 1.07 (N=69) (N=120) 2.88 3.58 0.88 1.03 (N=52) (N=99) 1.96 2.95 1.19 1.26 0.38 0.40 0.06 0.16 Orders category Significance of t 2 +1 +3. +1. +1. +1. +0. score .20 36 45 18 .37 25 73 .20 39 The results for action-adventure/ crime dramas appear in Tables 3A through 3C. Fanales do not often give orders in this type of program. In every category, across all three years, large and negative z-scores show that order giving is overrepresented as a male behavior. Significant t-levels appear with increasing significance in the “ALL” categories for each year. Males are overrepresented as Receivers of orders given by other males. large and negative z—scores in addition to significant t-levels denonstrate this fact. These data appear in Table 3B. Also, females are over- represented as Receivers of orders given by males in all three years. In terms of the effectiveness of an order, males are overrepresented as givers of both effective (yes) and ineffective (no) orders, but more so for the former. The negative z-scores and significant t-levels indicate that for action-advaiture/ crime dramas , males dominate order giving and receiving in all areas. In Year 1, males gave eight times as many successful orders and slightly less than 7 times as many unsuccessful orders as females. In Year 2, males gave six times as many successful orders, and four times as many unsuccessful orders. In Year 3, males gave five times as many successful and unsuccessful orders as females. As before, support for this hypothesis is found, but the most accurate conclusion to be drawn is that males dominate all types of order giving. 40 Table 3A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 2 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 3 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Order Types Females Males (N=34) (N=152) 0.47 1.59 0.21 0.32 1.59 2.28 0.50 0.43 2.77 4.62 (N=46) (N=173) 0.30 1.26 0.15 0.33 2.02 2.58 0.65 1.28 3.12 5.45 (N=41) (N=126) 0.39 1.55 - 0.36 1.73 2.17 0.41 0.61 2.53 4.70 Orders category Action-Adventure/Crime Dramas Significance of t <.01 n.s. n.s. n.s. <.05 <.0001 n.s. n.s. <.01 <.01 <.0001 n.s. n.s. <.0001 Z-SCOPE -7.56c -2.42b -6.08c -1.24 -9.66c -7.73c -3.21 -6.02c -5.98c 11.48c -5.87c -3.44c -2.35 -8.19c 41 Table 38 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Orders category Action-Adventure/Crime Dramas Receivers Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=34) (N=152) of t Female Receivers 0.53 0.97 <.05 -4.72C Male Receivers 2.00 3.44 <.05 -8.52c Year 2 (N=46) (N=173) Female Receivers 0.70 0.84 n.s. -3.19b Male Receivers 2.37 4.20 <.001 -10.16c Year 3 (N=41) (N=126) Female Receivers 0.07 1.21 <.0001 -7.46c Male Receivers 2.27 3.29 n.s. -5.30C 42 Table 3C Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Yes (followed) No (not followed) Year 2 Yes (f0llowed) No (not followed) Year 3 Yes (followed) No (followed) Unknown (Yes) Unknown Orders Followed Females Males (N=34) (N=152) 1.91 3.43 0.91 1.32 (N=46) (N=173) 2.22 3.91 0.63 0.71 (N=41) (N=126) 1.66 2.82 0.56 1.02 0.27 0.72 0.10 0.24 Orders category Action-Adventure/Crime Dramas Significance of t <.05 n.s. <.01 <.01 <.05 <.001 2 score 43 Due to the fact that Saturday cartoons represent a significant slice of the total sample of programming (17%) , a profile was drawn for Year 3. Table 4 contains this profile. First, note the ratio of males to female in the sample itself. It is mnre than 5:1. This is patially due to the fact that a large number of cartoon characters are speaking animals. The animals usually speak with male voices, display male characteristics, and so usually are coded as males. While t-tests do not show significance in any category, (probably due to the male-to-famale ratio) the z-scores, usually large and always negative, show males to be overrepresented in all categories . Males are particularily daninant as order givers of all order types, order receivers, and as givers of effective orders. Males gave seven times more successful orders than females, and three times more unsuccessful orders. 44 Table 4 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: 0rde Year 3 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Female Receivers Male Receivers Yes (followed) No (not followed) Unknown (Yes) Unknown Saturday Cartoon Profile Order Types Females Males (N=19) (N=98) 0.31 0.59 0.05 0.14 1.47 1.61 0.79 0.83 2.63 3.17 Receivers (N=19) (N=98) 0.26 0.17 2.21 2.65 Orders Followed (N=19) (N=98) 1.47 2.09 1.00 0.64 0.26 0.43 - - 0.09 rs category Significance of t Z .80 SCOPE .37 .77c .72C .15 45 Broadcast Time Data were analyzed for three time periods: Saturday morning programming, 8-9 p.m. (the family hour), and 9-11 p.m. The results for the Saturday morning analysis appear in Tables 5A through SC. These data appear to follow the same general trend as did the Saturday cartoon analysis. Table 5A shows that males are overrepresented as givers of all types of orders, across all three years (with the exception of Simple Explained orders in Year 2). Significant t-levels accompnay this z-score result for Years 1 and 2 in the Authority Orders category, and across all three years for Authority Explained Orders. As receivers of orders, males are also overrepresented, particularin as receivers of orders given by other males (Table 5B) . Table 5C shmvs males to be overrepresented as effective (yes) order givers. This finding is consistent across all three years for this time period. In Year 1, males gave seven times as many successful orders and four times as many unsuccessful orders as did females. In Year 2, males gave three times as many successful orders and twice as many unsuccessful orders as females. In Year 3, males gave more than six times as many successful orders, and three times as many unsuccessful orders . Year 1 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 2 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 3 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES 46 Table 5A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Saturday Morning Order Types Females (N=25) 0.12 0.04 3.00 0.56 3.72 (N=40) 0.13 0.10 2.43 1.10 3.76 (N=24) 0.29 0.04 1.42 0.71 2.46 Males (N=106) 0.94 0.23 2.43 0.76 4.35 (N=115) 0.72 0.36 2.54 0.90 4.52 (N=108) 0.70 0.25 1.54 0.78 3.27 Orders category Significance of t <.01 <.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. <.0001 <.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. <.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. 2 SCOPE Year 1 Female Receivers Male Receivers Year 2 Female Receivers Male Receivers Year 3 Female Receivers Male Receivers 47 Table 58 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Saturday Morning Receivers Females Males (N=25) (N=106) 0.36 0.61 2.64 3.11 (N=40) (N=115) 0.80 0.60 2.48 3.09 (N=24) (N=108) 0.33 0.33 1.92 2.63 Orders category Significance of t 2 +0. SCOPE 59 .57 Yes (followed) (not followed) Yes (followed) (not followed) Yes (followed) (followed) (Yes) Unknown Table 5C Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Saturday Morning Orders Followed Females Males (N=25) (N=106) 2.56 3.23 1.16 1.18 (N=40) (N=115) 2.67 3.33 0.75 0.65 (N=24) (N=108) 1.50 2.11 0.83 0.64 0.21 0.44 - 0.16 Orders category Significance of t Z .04 SCOPE .10 .50c .38 49 The 8-9 p.m. time slot was officially known as the "family hour". The majority of the programming in this time period is made up of situation canedies. Table 6A shows that males still clearly give more total orders than do females, (particularily Authority Orders) but by and large, order giving behaviors fran 8-9 p.m. seem to be representative or the expected frequency of behaviors in the total population of television characters. Males still proportionately receive more than the expected frequency of orders fran other males . Females, on the other hand, seem to be proportionately overrepresented as receivers of orders given by other females (Table 6B) . Perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that 59% of the programming from 8-9 p.m. is made up of situation cmdies, which feature family life-- i.e. more major roles for female characters. Table 6C shows interesting results concerning the effectiveness of an order in the 8—9 p.m. time period. Males are overrepresented as givers of effective (yes) orders in two of the three years, but the frequencies of ineffective (no) orders are proportionate to the total population in all three years. Males gave four times as many successful orders as females in Year 1, and in Year 3, gave more than three times as many such orders. Other ratios of order giving behavior provided non-support for the hypothesis. 50 Table 6A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: 8-9 p.m. Order Types Year 1 Females Males (N=46) (N=157) Authority 0.83 1.24 Authority Explained 0.22 0.27 Simple ‘ 2.39 1.92 Simple Explained 0.50 0.51 ALL TYPES 3.94 3.94 Year 2 (N=71) (N=163) Authority 0.58 0.74 Authority Explained 0.13 0.23 Simple 2.46 2.39 Simple Explained 0.86 1.38 ALL TYPES 4.03 4.74 Year 3 (N=52) (N=124) Authority 0.29 1.35 Authority Explained 0.10 0.39 Simple 2.31 2.05 Simple Explained 0.85 0.93 ALL TYPES 3.55 4.72 Orders category Significance of t 333:: MMMMU’ <.001 <.01 n.s. n.s. n.s. Z .69 .25 .11 .11 .79 SCOPE .99 .39 .02 .85 .42 51 Table 68 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Orders category 8—9 p.m. Receivers Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=46) (N=157) of t Female Receivers 1.15 0.81 n.s. +0.67 Male Receivers 2.39 2.80 n.s. -3.65b Year 2 (N=71) (N=163) Female Receivers 1.82 1.12 <.05 +4.84c Male Receivers 2.20 3.30 <.05 -3.77c Year 3 (N=52) (N=124) Female Receivers 1.35 0.95 n.s. +2.52b Male Receivers 2.06 3.40 <.05 -4.43C 52 Table 6C Means, t-tests, and z-scores: 8-9 p.m. Orders Followed Year 1 Females Males (N=46) (N=157) Yes (followed) 2.54 2.90 No (not f0llowed) 1.44 1.13 Year 2 (N=71) (N=163) Yes (followed) 2.85 3.34 No (not followed) 0.86 0.77 Year 3 (N=52) (N=124) Yes (followed) 2.10 2.95 No (not followed) 1.08 1.10 Unknown 0.33 0.56 (Yes) Unknown 0.11 0.16 Orders category Significance of t 2 +1. .49 .89 SCOPE .00 .14 12 .05 .74 53 Data fran the 9-11 p.m. breakdown appear in Tables 7A through 7C. The majority of the programming at this time is of the action-adventure/ crime drama type (577,) . Males are largely overrepresented as givers of every type of order with an occasional exception (Simple Explained orders in Year 1 and Simple and Simple Ebcplained orders in Year 3). Across all three years, highly significant t-levels were also reported for Authority Orders, and for Authority Explained Orders in Years 1 and 3. miles are overrepresented as receivers of orders (again, most often in response to orders given by other males). This is deronstrated in Table 78 through both significant t-levels and by large and negative z-scores. While the giving of ineffective (no) orders approaches proportionate representation in all three years, males, in Table 7C, consistently are shown to be overrepresented as givers of effective (yes) orders. This is demnstrated across all three years by large and negative 2- scores as well as by significant t-levels. This is also deronstrated by the fact that males gave four times as many successful orders as females in Year 1, and more than three times as many successful orders as females in Years 2 and 3. Interestingly, this is the first category in which clear support for Hypothesis 4 is found. Males gave less than three times as many unsuccessful orders as females. 54 Table 7A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 2 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Year 3 Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL TYPES Femal (N=22 0.18 0.03 0.38 0.09 0.68 (N=85 0.16 0.11 2.08 1.07 3.42 (N=66 0.40 0.03 1.65 0.68 2.76 9-11 p.m. Order Types es Males 3) (N=132) 1.76 0.32 2.11 0.48 4.66 ) (N=193) 0.97 0.25 2.68 1.47 5.37 ) (N=132) 1.50 0.34 2.02 0.58 4.44 Orders category Significance of t <.0001 .0001 .0001 <.0001 <.0001 A A <.0001 n.s. n.s. n.s. <.01 <.0001 <.0001 n.s. n.s. <.01 2 SCOPE 55 Table 78 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: 9-11 p.m. Receivers Year 1 Females Males (N=223) (N=132) Female Receivers 0.26 1.37 Male Receivers 0.40 3.11 Year 2 (N=85) (N=193) Female Receivers 0.87 1.31 Male Receivers 2.36 3.63 Year 3 (N=66) (N=132) Female Receivers 0.91 1.25 Male Receivers 1.71 3.04 Orders category Significance of t <.0001 <.0001 <.01 <.01 Z I .h .53 .54 SCOPE .02 .46c .77 .52C 56 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Yes (fOTlowed) No (not followed) Year 2 Yes (followed) No (not followed) Year 3 Yes (followed) No (not followed) Unknown (Yes) Unknown Table 7C 9-11 p.m. Orders Followed Females Males (N=223) (N=132) 0.43 3.43 0.27 1.33 (N=85) (N=193) 2.21 3.71 0.73 0.84 (N=66) (N=132) 1.67 2.71 0.80 1.06 0.33 0.58 0.03 0.22 Orders category Significance of t <.0001 <.0001 <.001 n.s. .60 .25 .77 SCOPE .49 57 SUPPORT The data regarding the first support hypothesis: That male characters will be portrayed in physically exigent conditions proportionately more than female characters" are in Table 8A. Across all three years, males are proportionately overrepresented (as shown by large and negative z-scores) as characters in need of physical support. In only one category, Physical Confinement, can non-supportive data be found. In Years 2 and 3, males and females were fomd to be in need of support for Physical Confinement in proportion to their expected representation in the total population of television characters, but this behavior occurred very infrequently. Significant t-levels were found across all three years (with the exception of Physical Confinement in Years 2 and 3, and Physical Internal in Year 2) . A companion hypothesis to the above is that "Female characters will be fovmd in erotionally exigent conditions proportionately more than male characters". Data regarding this hypothesis are in Table 88. In general, the evidence favors the hypothesis in all three years (consult the "ALL" categories). Females are overrepresented (shown in large and positive z-scores) in all emotional support categories in Year 1. In Year 2, females were overrepresented as persons in need of Psychological Support and in the Concern for Others category (where a significant t-level also appears). In Year 3, a significant t-level accanpanied by a large and negative z-score in the Psychological Support category and in the "All." category completes the picture. However, representation proportionate to expected levels in the total population was found for Ego Support in Years 2 and 3, and for Concern 58 for Others in Year 3. These conclusions rest on findings provided by the z-scores since significant t-levels were generally not found in this body of data. Table 8C contains data relating to whether a characters asked for support, and if the request could have been responded to (i.e. was support available). Across all three years , females are overrepresented as characters who ask for support (accampanied by significant t-levels in Years 2 and 3) and males are imderrepresented as characters who do not ask for support (accompanied by significant t—levels in Years 1 and 3). A combination of this finding with the findings of the previous two tables allow us to say that characters exhibiting a need for physical support (males) do not usually ask for it. Characters showing a need for eiotional support (females) do ask for it. Table 8C also show that females are overproportionately placed in situations where support is available to them while males are overproportionately portrayed in situations where response to a need for support is not available. This finding is supported by significant t-levels and z-scores in all three years. Finally, see Table 8D. Across all three years, females are overrepresented as characters who receive support when in need, and are also overrepresented as support respondents when the person in need is a ferale (Years 1 and 2). In Years 1 and 3, males are overrepresented as support respondents when the person in need is a female, too. While respondent sex data did not show consistently significant t-levels, significant z-scores were found for respondent sex. This provided same support for the Given/ Not given data. Behavior ratios show that 59 males respond to females' need for support slightly more often than females respond to males' need for support. None of the ratios are high enough to provide support for the hypothesis being tested (H ). Males were slightly more likely to be support respondents. 9 Conclusions: --Whe1 male characters are shown to be in need of support, it is physical support. This holds true across all three years. --Female characters, when in need, require erotional support. This is also true across all three years of analysis. --Male characters are overrepresented as characters who do not ask for support , but female characters are overproportionately represented as characters who do ask for support. --Support is disproportionately available more so to female characters but is underproportionately available to male characters . --Female characters are overrepresented as characters who receive support. IVhle characters are overrepresented as characters who do not receive support. --Female and male characters respond to other female characters' need for support proportionately more often than male characters ' needs. 60 Support category Significance of t .0001 A A .0001 .0001 A <.0001 <.05 <.01 <.0001 Table 8A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: ALL SHOWS Physical Support Types Year 1 Females Males (N=251) (N=357) Physical Internal 0.21 0.62 Physical External 0.25 0.85 Physical Confinement 0.10 0.28 ALL TYPES 0.56 1.75 Year 2 (N=125) (N=320) Physical Internal 0.18 0.26 Physical External 0.33 0.53 Physical Confinement 0.12 0.18 ALL TYPES 0.63 0.97 Year 3 (N=87) (N=225) Physical Internal 0.09 0.18 Physical External 0.34 0.65 Physical Confinement 0.06 0.11 ALL TYPES 0.49 0.94 a < .05 b < .01 c < .0001 Z .02 .56 SCOPE .75a .57 .81C .96al .40 61 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES Year 2 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES Year 3 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES Table 88 ALL SHOWS Emotional Support Types Females Males (N=251) (N=357) 0.68 0.70 0.34 0.27 0.58 0.75 1.60 1.72 (N=125) (N=320) 0.34 0.36 0.26 0.12 1.12 0.89 1.73 1.37 (N=87) (N=225) 0.31 0.23 0.10 0.06 0.95 0.61 1.36 0.90 Support category Significance of t 2 +6. +6. +3. +8. +3. +1. +2. +1. +1. +2. +3. SCOPE 62 Support category Significance of t <.0001 <.05 <.0001 <.01 <.05 <.0001 <.05 .05 A Table 80 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: ALL SHOWS Support Asked For and Available Response Year 1 Females Males (N=251) (N=357) Yes (Asked for) 1.20 1.35 No 0.67 1.66 Yes (Response available) 1.61 2.10 No (Response not 0.26 0.91 available) Year 2 (N=125) (N=320) Yes (Asked for) 0.87 0.55 No 1.38 1.76 Yes (Response available) 1.74 1.37 No (Response not 0.51 0.94 available) Year 3 (N=87) (N=225) Yes (Asked for) 0.98 0.64 No 1.01 1.32 Yes (Response available) 1.71 1.35 No (Response not 0.28 0.61 available) .001 A +7. +3. +6. .41 .32 .35 SCOPE .85c 63 Table 80 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Year 2 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Year 3 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Support Given: Females (N=251) 1.16 0.70 0.39 1.14 (N=125) 1.41 0.33 0.59 1.02 (N=87) 1.20 0.84 0.41 1.13 Males (N=357) 1.52 1.44 0.44 1.50 (N=320) 0.94 0.43 0.32 0.98 (N=225) 0.79 1.18 0.28 0.91 Support category Sex of Respondent Significance of t <.05 <.0001 <.05 <.01 n.s. <.05 n.s. <.01 <.05 Z +5. I 0 +4. +4. +2 +1. +2 .96 .01 .52 SCOPE 57 Program Types Tables 9A through 9D refer to data collected concerning situation comedies. In Year 1, males were overrepresented as persons in need of physical support across all categories (as shown by significant t-1evels and z-scores) . By Year 3, males and females exhibit expected rates of behaviors for the total population in all categories . Across the three years, the need for physical support starts out as a male behavior and evolves into a behavior represmtative of the total population of characters in situation comedies. The need for erotional support (Table 9B) is clearly a female behavior in situation comedies. In all categories, across all three years, (with the exception of Ego Simport and Concern for Others in Year 3) females were overrepresented as characters in need of Emotional Support as shown by the z—scores recorded. An explanation for this may be that many situation comedies' plots revolve around a character' 3 need for emotional support. There are also more females in situation camedies (roughly 357.) than in any other program type. Across all three years, as in the main analysis, females are overrepresented as characters who ask for support, as characters who are responded to when in need of support, and as those who do indeed receive support when in need (Tables 9C through 9D) . Females are also overrepresented as respondents—— characters who respond to another's ' need for support (most often when the person in need is a female). Characters who do not ask for support show expected levels of representation across all three years. Males respond more often to females' need for 65 support in Year 1, but in Years 2 and 3 show expected levels of re- presentation. Characters who do not receive support because it is not available approach expected levels of representation in Years 2 and 3 , but females were overrepreseited for this behavior in Year 1. Behavior ratios show that males respond to females' need for support twice as often as they respond to males' need for support, but this ratio of 2:1 is not sufficieit to provide support for the hypothesis. 66 Table 9A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Year 2 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Year 3 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Situation Comedy Support category Physical Support Types Females Males (N=38) (N=70) 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.49 - 0.09 0.13 0.83 (N=37) (N=70) 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.30 0.16 0.06 0.32 0.56 (N=31) (N=57) 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.12 - 0.02 0.17 0.21 Significance of t <.05 <.05 <.01 Z - SCOPE -2.0Ba -2.21a -3.41 -O.61 -2.21a -2.0Ba -0.91 +0.55 +0.26 +0.14 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES Year 2 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES Year 3 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES 67 Table 98 Situation Comedy Emotional Support Types Support category Females Males Significance (N=38) (N=70) of t 1.47 1.21 n.s 0.74 0.34 n.s 1.34 1.27 n.s 3.55 2.83 n.s (N=37) (N=70) 0.65 0.53 n.s 0.32 0.19 n.s 1.41 .0.96 n.s 2.38 1.68 n.s (N=31) (N=57) 0.35 0.46 n.s 0.10 0.09 n.s 1.19 0.79 n.s 1.56 1.34 n.s 2 +3. +4. +2. +5. +1 +2. +3. +4. +0. +0. +3. +2. SCOPE .78a 00 53 36c Means, t-tests, and z-scores: 68 Table 90 Support category Situation Comedy Support Asked For and Available Response Year 1 Females Males Significance (N=38) (N=70) of t Yes (Asked for) 2.42 1.84 n.s. No 0.82 1.20 n.s. Yes (Response available) 3.08 2.56 n.s. No (Response not 1.58 0.50 <.01 available) Year 2 (N=37) (N=70) Yes (Asked for) 1.22 0.79 n.s. No 1.43 1.49 n.s. Yes (Response available) 2.22 1.86 n.s. No (Response not 0.41 0.41 n.s. available) Year 3 (N=31) (N=57) Yes (Asked for) 1.19 0.72 <.05 No 0.93 0.91 n.s. Yes (Response available) 1.87 1.42 n.s. No (Response not 0.26 0.21 n.s. available) 2 +4. +4. +7. +3. +1 +3. +0. +3. +1. +3. +1. SCOPE 58 .29 11 82 69 Table 90 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Support category Situation Comedy Support Given: Sex of Respondent Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=38) (N=70) of t Yes (Given) 2.42 1.70 n.s. +6.43c No (Not Given) 0.82 1.34 n.s. -0.60 Female Respondent 1.21 0.47 <.01 +6.36c Male Respondent 1.79 1.97 n.s. +1.88a Year 2 (N=37) (N=70) Yes (Given) 1.81 1.29 n.s. +3.75C No (Not Given) 0.41 0.56 n.s. -0.18 Female Respondent 1.08 0.59 n.s. +4.00C Male Respondent 0.97 1.16 n.s. +0.39 Year 3 (N=31) (N=57) Yes (Given) 1.22 0.74 <.05 +3.60c No (Not Given) 0.97 0.93 n.s. +1.44 Female Respondent 0.71 0.33 <.05 +3.51c Male Respondent 0.90 0.95 n.s. +1.00 7O Action-adventure/ crime program type data appear in Tables 10A—10D. Physical support patterns in this category are similar to those in situation camedies. Males, in Year 1 and in Year 2, are overrepresented as characters in need of physical support, but in Year 3, the need for physical support by mnales and females approach enqnected levels of representation. Emotional support (Table 10B) is overrepresented as a female behavior in Year 1, conforms to expected levels of representation in Year 2, and in Year 3, becames distinctly a female behavior once again. Females, in Year 3, are overrepresented as characters in need of emport in general (" " categories) and for Ego Support. These conclusions are made on the basis of significant z-scores. Table 10C shows females to be overrepresented as characters whoaskfor support (inYears 1 and3) andas characterswhohave the potential to receive support (Year 1). Males are overrepresented as characters who do not have needed support available to then (Years 1 and 2) . Males are also overrepresented as characters who do not ask for support (Year 2) . All other categories show non-significance. Finally, in Table 10D, which summarizes data concerning whether support was given or not and the sex of the person responding to a need for support, all categories save one deionstrated expected levels of representation in the total population. A significant t-level was found in Year 1 for differences in the rate of receiving support between males and females (not accompanied by a significant z-score) and also for respondent sex when the character in need was a female; and the support respondent was a mnale. Behavior ratios show that 71 males were four times more likely to be support respondents than were females. In Year 3, they were three times more likely. The proportion of males to females in the sample population is (across the three years of data collection) about 3:1. This may account for the respondent ratio in part. 72 Table 10A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Support category Action-Adventure/Crime Dramas Physical Support Types Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=40) (N=125) of t Physical Internal 0.60 0.54 n.s. -0.23 Physical External 0.60 0.95 n.s. -2.81b Physical Confinement 0.10 0.34 n.s. -2.68b ALL TYPES 1.30 1.82 n.s. -3.23b Year 2 (N=46) (N=133) Physical Internal 0.22 0.14 n.s. +0.74 Physical External 0.50 0.75 <.05 -2.51b Physical Confinement 0.04 0.17 <.01 -2.34b ALL TYPES 0.76 1.06 <.05 -2.67b Year 3 (N=37) (N=82) Physical Internal 0.11 0.27 <.05 -1.52 Physical External 0.65 0.65 n.s. +0.41 Physical Confinement 0.08 0.17 n.s. -1.04 ALL TYPES 0.84 1.09 n.s. -0.77 Year 1 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES Year 2 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES Year 3 Ego Support Concern for Others Psycho Support ALL TYPES Females (N=40) 1.25 0.60 0.85 2.70 (N=46) 0.15 0.20 0.89 1.24 (N=37) 0.35 0.13 0.78 1.26 73 Table 108 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Action-Adventure/Crime Dramas Emotional Support Types Males (N=125) of t 0.38 <.01 0.29 n.s. 0.60 n.s. 1.27 <.01 (N=133) 0.22 n.s. 0.13 n.s. 0.80 n.s. 1.15 n.s. (N=82) 0.16 n.s. 0.06 n.s. 0.62 n.s. 0.84 n.s. Support category Significance Z +5 +2. +1 +4. +2. +1 +1 +2. .49 SCOPE 34 .08 .31 .65 .32 .59 32al .41 .42 71 74 Table 100 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Action-Adventure/Crime Dramas Support Asked For and Available Response Year 1 Females Males (N=40) (N=125) Yes (Asked for) 1.85 1.16 No 1.65 1.59 Yes (Response Available) 2.85 1.92 No (Response not 0.65 0.83 available) Year 2 (N=46) (N=133) Yes (Asked for) 0.70 0.55 No 1.35 1.75 Yes (Response Available) 1.46 1.40 No (Response not 0.59 0.89 available) Year 3 (N=37) (N=82) Yes (Asked for) 0.89 0.62 No 1.27 1.43 Yes (Response Available) 1.76 1.54 No (Response not 0.40 0.51 available) Support category Significance of t <.05 n.s. <.05 Z .00 .75 .14 SCOPE .35 .87 .11 .53 .48 75 Table 100 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Year 2 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Year 3 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Support Given: Females (N=40) 1.98 1.53 0.48 2.35 (N=46) 1.17 0.28 0.28 1.09 (N=31) 1.22 1.05 0.24 1.35 Males (N=125) 1.37 1.36 0.38 1.44 (N=133) 1.07 0.33 0.26 1.10 (N=82) 0.93 1.13 0.26 1.13 Support category Action-Adventure/Crime Dramas Sex of Respondent Significance of t <.05 Z +1 +0. +2. SCOPE .56 .15 28 72 .48 .05 .28 .07 .99 .74 -37 .54 76 The Saulrday cartoon profile for Year 3 appears in Table 11. The need for physical support is clearly a male behavior. This is demonstrated by significant t-1evels and z-scores for both Physical External support and for the overall index. Emotional SLpport needs approximate expected levels of representation in the total population. Phles are overrepresented as characters who do not ask for support. Males are also fonmnd in a disproportionate number of instances where Stpport, when needed, is not available or given to them. Females ask for and receive support at higher rates than do males. This is deIonstrated by significant t-levels for the "Support Asked For" and "Support Given" categories. Males acted as Stpport respondents four times as often as did females. This figure is samewhat mediated by the fact that there were more than four times as many males(in the sample of characters seen on Saturday cartoons) as females. 77 Table 11 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Support category Saturday Cartoon Profile Physical Support Females Males Significance z - score (N=19) (N=86) of t Physical Internal - 0.18 - - Physical External 0.47 1.13 <.01 -4.88c Physical Confinement 0.11 0.10 n.s. -O.68 ALL TYPES 0.58 1.41 <.01 -5.24C Emotional Support Ego Support 0.11 0.03 n.s. +0.76 Concern for Others 0.05 0.06 n.s. -0.73 Psych Support 0.63 0.40 n.s. -O.48 ALL TYPES 0.79 0.49 n.s. «0.45 Support Asked For and Available Response Yes (Asked for) 0.89 0.41 <.05 +0.54 No 0.63 1.56 <.01 -5.54C Yes (Response Available) 1.26 0.87 n.s. -1.04 No (Response not 0.26 1.09 <.0001 -5.25C available) Support Given: Sex of Respondent Yes (Given) 1.16 0.58 <.05 +0.31 No (Not Given) 0.37 1.38 <.0001 -5.78c Female Respondent 0.16 0.14 n.s. -0.76 Male Respondent 0.94 0.53 n.s. -0.15 78 Broadcast Time Saturday morning results, which consist of data collected from Saturday cartoon programs and non-cartoon programming, do not differ significantly from the previous discussion of Saturday cartoons as a program type. A three year analysis is available for Saturday morning, however. These data appear in Tables 12A through 12D. Briefly, physical support needs are generally male behaviors on Saturday morning. Significant t—levels occasionally accampany large and negative z-scores to support this claim. Emotional support needs, in Years 1 and 3, approach expected levels of representation in the total population. Year 2 , towever , shows the need for enotional support to be more so a mnale behavior. Tables 12C and 12D show interesting results: Across all three years, males are overrepresented as characters who do not ask for snpport, and do not have the potential to receive support -- consequently they do not receive it. This is supported by significant negative z—scores in all nine instances and significant t-levels in seven of nine instances . Behavior ratios pertaining to respondent sex show that in all years, males are far more likely (tlmree and a half times more likely in Year 1, five times more likely in Year 2, and four times more likely in Year 3) to be support respondents than are females. 79 Table 12A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Year 2 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Year 3 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Saturday Morning Physical Support Types Females (N=28) 0.75 0.86 0.61 2.21 (N=25) 0.12 0.56 0.16 0.84 (N=19) 0.37 0.10 0.47 Males (N=111) 0.92 1.15 0.41 2.48 (N=90) 0.49 0.47 0.31 1.27 (N=81) 0.11 1.10 0.15 1.36 Support category Significance of t n.s. n.s. n.s. <.01 <.001 - SCOPE -2.44 -3.10 0.00 -4.68c -1.28 -5.17C 80 Table 128 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Saturday Morning Emotional Support Types Support category Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=28) (N=111) of t Ego Support 0.79 0.66 n.s. -1.41 Concern for Others 0.29 0.09 n.s. +1.58 Psycho Support 0.57 0.51 n.s. -1.05 ALL TYPES 1.64 1.26 n.s. -0.66 Year 2 (N=25) (N=90) Ego Support 0.28 0.39 n.s -1.77a Concern for Others 0.16 0.06 n.s +0.91 Psycho Support 0.80 0.96 n.s -2.32a ALL TYPES 1.24 1.41 n.s -2.59b Year 3 (N=19) (N=81) Ego Support 0.10 0.04 n.s +0.48 Concern for Others 0.05 0.05 n.s -0.50 Psycho Support 0.68 0.41 n.s -O.15 ALL TYPES 0.83 0.50 <.05 -0.16 81 Table 120 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Saturday Morning Support category Support Asked For and Available Response Year 1 Females (N=28) Yes (Asked for) 1.93 No 1.50 Yes (Response Available) 2.54 No (Response not 0.89 available) Year 2 (N=25) Yes (Asked for) 0.52 No 1.24 Yes (Response Available) 1.16 No (Response not 0.60 available) Year 3 (N=19) Yes (Asked for) 0.84 No 0.58 Yes (Response Available) 1.26 No (Response not 0.16 available) Males (N=111) 1.04 2.32 1.85 1.48 (N=90) 0.37 2.17 1.00 1.52 (N=81) 0.47 1.46 0.90 1.02 Significance of t <.05 <.05 <.0001 2 SCOPE .38 .54 .26c 82 Table 120 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Support category Saturday Morning Support Given: Sex of Respondent Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=28) (N=111) of t Yes (Given) 1.68 1.58 n. . -1.96a No (Not Given) 1.75 1.77 n. . -3.29b Female Respondent 0.29 0.41 n. . -1.87a Male Respondent 1.75 1.20 n. . 0.00 Year 2 (N=25) (N=90) Yes (Given) 0.92 0.52 n. . +0.72 No (Not Given) 0.24 0.49 <.05 -2.66b Female Respondent 0.12 0.14 n. . -0.85 Male Respondent 0.88 0.74 n. . -0.86 Year 3 (N=19) (N=81) Yes (Given) 1.16 0.64 n. . +0.16 No (Not Given) 0.26 1.28 <.0001 -5.62c Female Respondent 0.16 0.16 n. . -0.88 Male Respondent 0.95 0.59 n. . -0.28 83 The data collected from the "family hour" (8-9 p.m.) appear in Tables 13A through 13D. Between year consistency was hard to find in this subset of data. The need for physical support appears to be more of a male behavior than female, but not overwhelmingly so. Males were overrepresented in this analysis less consistently: In the Physical Confinement and "ALL" categories in Year 1, and in the Physical External and ”AIL" categories in Year 2. Three of the four instances showed significant t-levels accarpanied by large and negative z—scores. The need for emotional support is largely a female behavior in Years 1 and 3 , but approaches expected levels of representation in Year 2. Large and positive z-scores appear in the "All." categories for Years 1 and 3, and in some sub-categories for those years as well; in Year 2, non-significance in all categories is displayed. Across all three years, females are overrepresented as characters who ask for support. In Years 1 and 2, males are overrepresented as characters who ask for support. In Years 1 and 2, males are overrepresent- ed as characters who find themselves in situations where support is not available. In Year 3, females are overrepresented in this category. In Years 1 and 2, females are overrepresented as characters who receive Stpport; in Year 3, as characters who do not receive support. In Years 1 and 2, females are overrepresented as characters who respond to other females' needs for support, and in Year 2, males are over- represented as characters who respond to other males‘ needs for support. Behavior ratios show that males are three times more likely to be support respondents in Year 1, but no other years show meaningful ratios. 84 Table 13A Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Support category 8-9 p.m. Physical Support Types Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=51) (N=126) of t Physical Internal 0.26 0.40 n.s. -1.14 Physical External 0.41 0.66 n.s. -1.55 Physical Confinement 0.06 0.25 <.05 -2.33b ALL TYPES 0.73 0.30 <.05 -2.71b Year 2 (N=34) (N=102) Physical Internal 0.24 0.13 n.s +0.93 Physical External 0.18 0.53 <.01 -3.22b Physical Confinement 0.09 0.16 n.s -1.28 ALL TYPES 0.51 0.82 n.s -2.62b Year 3 (N=34) (N=74) Physical Internal 0.09 0.19 n.s -l.02 Physical External 0.38 0.43 n.s -0.02 Physical Confinement 0.06 0.08 n.s -0.21 ALL TYPES 0.53 0.70 n.s -0.59 85 Support category Significance of t n.s. Table 138 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: 8-9 p.m. Emotional Support Types Year 1 Females Males (N=51) (N=126) Ego Support 1.28 0.98 Concern for Others 0.63 0.38 Psycho Support 0.92 1.07 ALL TYPES 2.82 2.43 Year 2 (N=34) (N=102) Ego Support 0.59 0.37 Concern for Others 0.32 0.19 Psycho Support 1.35 0.93 ALL TYPES 2.26 1.49 Year 3 (N=34) (N=74) Ego Support 0.29 0.26 Concern for Others 0.12 0.05 Psycho Support 0.97 0.68 ALL TYPES 1.38 0.99 2 +2 +2. +2. +0. +0. +0. +1 +0. +1. +2. +2. .30 SCOPE 15 .33 33 95 84 94 .53 86 Table 130 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Support category Significance of t 8-9 p.m. Support Asked For and Available Response Year 1 Females Males (N=51) (N=126) Yes (Asked for) 2.02 1.72 No 1.08 1.33 Yes (Response Available) 2.80 2.48 No (Response not 0.31 0.58 available) Year 2 (N=34) (N=102) Yes (Asked for) 1.29 0.60 No 1.62 1.81 Yes (Response Available) 2.38 1.71 No (Response not 0.53 0.70 available) Year 3 (N=34) (N=74) Yes (Asked for) 1.15 0.86 No 1.00 1.01 Yes (Response Available) 1.62 1.54 No (Response not 0.53 0.33 available) 2 +2. +0. +1. +2 .88 .54 SCOPE .05al .95 74 03 87 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Year 2 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Year 3 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Support Given: Table 130 8-9 p.m. Females Males (N=51) (N=126) 2.18 1.69 0.90 1.27 0.78 0.46 2.02 1.89 (N=34) (N=102) 2.00 1.26 0.35 0.45 1.24 0.38 1.06 1.29 (N=34) (N=74) 1.12 1.03 1.09 0.87 0.41 0.37 0.97 1.05 Support category Sex of Respondent Significance of t n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 2 +3. +3 +1 +1 +1 +0. +0. .20 SCOPE 01 .56 .34 .733 .41 .14a .02 .67a 67 18 88 The 9-11 p.m. data appear in Tables 14A through 14D. With the exception of Year 1, in which significant t-levels appear in every category and significant z-scores appear in two of four categories possible, physical support needs for males and females approach expected representation in the total population. While Years 2 and 3 show no significant z-scores, significant t-levels do appear in two cases; in the Physical External support category in Year 2, and in the "All." category for Year 3 . Male rates of behaviors are significantly different from female rates in those two cases. The need for enotional support is, as indicated by z-scores in Table 148, clearly a female behavior. large and positive z-scores appear in nine of twelve possible comparisons across all three years. Again, across all three years, females are overrepresented as characters who ask for support, have the opporttmnity to receive support, and as characters who actually receive support. Females are overrepresented as support respondents, regardless of the sex of the needy character. Behavior ratios are not strong enough to provide support for the hypothesis dealing with respondent sex. 89 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Year 2 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Year 3 Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL TYPES Support category Significance of t <.0001 <.0001 <.01 <.0001 n.s. Table 14A 9-11 p.m. Physical Support Types Females Males (N=172) (N=120) 0.11 0.58 0.10 0.78 0.03 0.20 0.24 1.56 (N=66) (N=128) 0.18 0.20 0.32 0.56 0.12 0.09 0.62 0.85 (N=50) (N=99) 0.12 0.22 0.30 0.45 0.04 0.09 0.46 0.75 <.05 .78 .13 SCOPE .20 .47 .36 .32 .14 .45 .86 .65 .93 .16 90 Table 148 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Support category 9-11 p.m. Emotional Support Types Year 1 Females Males Significance z - score (N=172) (N=120) of t Ego Support 0.49 0.45 n.s. +9.04c Concern for Others 0.26 0.31 n.s. +5.74C Psycho Support 0.48 0.64 n.s. +6.96c ALL TYPES 1.23 1.40 n.s. +12.63“ Year 2 Females Males Significance z - score (N=66) (N=128) of t Ego Support 0.24 0.33 n.s. -0.29 Concern for Others 0.27 0.12 n.s. +3.14b Psycho Support 1.12 0.80 n.s. +3.78“ ALL TYPES 1.63 1.25 n.s. +4.04“ Year 3 (N=50) (N=99) Ego Support 0.40 0.36 n.s. +1.14 Concern for Others 0.10 0.08 n.s. +0.77 Psycho Support 1.04 0.74 n.s. +3.08b ALL TYPES 1.54 1.18 n.s. +3.29“ 91 Support category Significance of t <.0001 <.01 <.0001 Table 14C Means, t-tests, and z-scores: 9-11 p.m. Support Asked For and Available Response Year 1 Females Males (N=172) (N=120) Yes (Asked for) 0.84 1.25 No 0.41 1.39 Yes (Response Available) 1.11 1.93 No (Response not 0.14 0.72 available) Year 2 (N=66) (N=128) Yes (Asked for) 0.79 0.63 No 1.32 1.44 Yes (Response Available) 1.62 1.35 No (Response not 0.47 0.72 available) Year 3 (N=50) (N=99) Yes (Asked for) 0.92 0.62 No 1.18 1.44 Yes (Response Available) 1.94 1.58 No (Response not 0.16 0.47 available) Z +2 +1. +3. .61 SCOPE .88 .44“ .28 12 39 .93 92 Means, t-tests, and z-scores: Year 1 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Year 2 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Year 3 Yes (Given) No (Not Given) Female Respondent Male Respondent Support Given: Table 140 9-11 p.m. Females Males (N=172) (N=120) 0.78 1.30 0.47 1.33 0.29 0.44 0.77 1.38 (N=66) (N=128) 1.29 0.97 0.35 0.37 0.44 0.38 1.06 0.88 (N=50) (N=99) 1.28 0.75 0.90 1.32 0.50 0.32 1.30 1.07 Support category Sex of Respondent Significance of t <.05 <.0001 <.01 <.01 <.05 2 +7. +4. +6. +3. +0. +1 +2. +4. +2. +2. SCOPE 72 71 .63 GIAPTER IV DISCUSSION To begin this discussion, each hypothesis will be dealt with in light of supportive or non-supportive data across the three years of data analysis. Hypotheses will be discussed only for the main "ALL shows" analysis. Directional tables of difference were developed in order to summarize and simplify the findings. These tables will be presented where appropriate. Post lnoc findings will be reviewed last. mews H : Male characters will give proportionately more Authority orders thanlfemale characters. Consult Table 15. Support is given across all three years for this hypothesis. Males not only give proportionately more Authority orders than females, but their rates of Authority order giving are significantly higher than female rates. Post hoc findings show that in Years 2 and 3, males gave proportionately more Authority orders than females in situation comedies. In action-adventure/ crime dramas, the giving of Authority orders is overwhelmingly a mnale behavior. Large and negative z-scores and significant t—levels in all three years constitute this finding. For 93 94 Table 15 Direction of Difference: Year 1 N= 294 (females) 395 (males) Autlnority Authority Explained Simple Simple Explained ALL Year 2 N = 196 (females) 473 (males) Authority Authority Explained Simple Simple Ebcplained ALL Year 3 N = 142 (females) 364 (males) Authority ALLShows OrderTypes Orders category z-soores direction male n. s. n.s. male 95 broadcast time breakdowns , Saturday morning programming shows Authority order giving to be a male behavior with large and negative z-scores in all three years, and significant t-levels in two of three data years. The 8-9 p.m. time period shows Authority orders to be male behaviors for Years 1 and 3. Year 2 shows no difference between males and females. Finally, the 9—11 p.m. time period presents Authority order giving to be a male behavior for both statistical tests in all three years. Firm support is found for this hypothesis regardless of program type or broadcast time. H2: Male and female characters will give proportionately equal numbers of Simple orders. This hypothesis finds support only in the third year data. In Year 1, Simple order giving is clearly a male behavior, as shown by a significant t-level and z—score. In Year 2, no difference exists between rates of Simple order giving, but males give proportionately more Simple orders. In Year 3, no difference was found between mnales and females either in rates of Simple order giving or proportionately. (Table 15) . Situation comedies show Simple order giving to be a female behavior. Across all three years, this is denonstrated by significant z-scores. Action-adventure/ crime dramas reveal a similar pattern. When data are broken down by broadcast time, snpport is not found eitl'er. Across all three years, in the Saturday morning time period, Simple order giving is a male behavior, and in the 9—11 p.m. time period, Years 1 and 2 slnow the sane results. However, in the 8-9 p.m. time 96 period, support was found-- males and females were shown to give proportionately equal numbers of Simple orders. When data are'. broken down into categories of program type and time periods, support is generally not found for this hypothesis. H : Female characters will explain proportionately more of their order: Authority or Simple, than male characters. Across all three years, the giving of Authority Explained orders is clearly a male behavior-- as shown by significant levels in both statistical tests. Males are also the Simple Enqnlained order givers in Years 1 and 2, but in Year 3, males and females do give proportionately equal numbers of Simple Explained orders. In general then, we can safely say that Autlnority and Authority Explained orders are male dominated behaviors. Simple and Simple Explained orders are male daninated in Years 1 and 2, but show no differences between males and females in Year 3. In situation comedies, males and females give proportionately equal numbers of explained orders-except support was found in Year 3, where females give significantly more explained orders of both types. Action-adventure/ crime dramas show that males give more explained orders. In Year 1, males and females give proportionately equal numbers of Simple Explained orders. Explained order giving on Saturday morning is a male behavior, except in Year 2, when males and females slnow no differences. For the 8-9 p.m. time period, males and females give proportionately equal numbers of explained orders except in Year 2, when mnales give 97 more Simple Explained orders than females, and in Year 3, when mnales give more Authority Explained orders. In the 9-11 p.m. time period, explained order giving is clearly a male behavior across all three years. Post lnoc analyses did not provide support for this hypothesis. H4: Orders given by male characters will be followed proportionately more often than orders given by female characters . In terms of successful orders, males gave significantly higher numbers of them and were also overrepresented as successful order givers in all three years. However, one might expect that unsuccessful orders (those that were not followed) would show female overrepresentation. This was not the case. Males gave higher rates of unsuccessful orders in Year 1. No difference was found between males and females for unsuccessful order giving in Years 2 and 3. Behavior ratios slowed that males gave more successful orders than females gave in all three years. In situation caredies , males and females gave proportionately equal numbers of successful (followed) orders . In action-adventure/ crime dramas, males gave significantly more successful orders than females, in all three years. However, males also gave proportionately more unsuccessful orders . Males basically gave all of the orders in this program type. For broadcast time breakdowns , the Saturday morning time period shows that males gave proportionately more successful orders than females 98 Table 16 Direction of Difference: Orders category Year 1 N = 294 (females) 395 (males) Female receivers Male receivers Year 2 N = 196 (females) 395 (males) Female receivers Male receivers Year3 N = 142 (females) 364 (males) Female receivers Male receivers ALL Slows Receivers of Orders z-scores direction female male 99 inYear l and inYear 3, but inYear 2, no difference is found. No difference was also fonmnd for rates of unsuccessful order giving between males and females. Significant t-tests and z-scores slow that males gave proportionately more successful orders in all three years in the 9-11 p.m. time period. No difference is found for proportions of unsuccessful order giving. Behavior ratios show that while males give many more times as many successful orders as females, the same can be said about the rates of unsuccessful order giving. Post hoc data can be said to provide sane support for the hypothesis. H5: Proportionately, male characters will order other male characters more often than female characters will order male characters. This hypothesis tests whether females are deferent to males, and is supported across all three years. The male to male order giving sequence occurs more often than the female to mnale sequence. This is supported by significant t-levels and z-scores across all tlnree years. As a matter of fact, the male to female sequence appears only once-- in Year 1. When females give orders, they are usually either directed at males and females equally, or at females only. (Table 16) In situation comedies, females give orders to other females overproportionately in three data years . The male to male sequence, lowever, _i_s overrepresented in Year 3. In action-adventure/crime dramas, support for the hypothesis is fonnnd. In two of three years, males order other males at disproportionately high rates . Males are also overrepresented, lowever, as givers of orders received by females . 100 In Saturday morning programs , the male to male sequence is overrepresented in all three years, but the male to female sequence is overrepresented in the first year. The male to mnale sequence is overrepresented in all three years in the 8-9 p.m. time period. The female to female sequence is overrepresented in Years 2 and 3. Between 9—11 p.m. , males give orders to males overproportionately in all three years, but males also are overrepresented as order givers with female receivers in Year 2. In general, the post hoc findings provide support for this hypothesis. H : Fennale characters will be the receivers of orders proportionagely more than males will be the receivers of orders , regard- less of the sex of the order giver. This hypothesis tests whether females are deferent to dominance in general, or whether females are deferent to males only. (I.e. could other variables: Status in occupation, age, expertise, be the determinant of deference to daminance.) The hypothesis was not supported. Males receive higher numbers of and proportionately more orders than females when the order giver is a male. When the order giver is a female, mnales and females receive those orders proportionate to their respective representation in the total population. In Year 2, females were overrepresented as receivers of orders given by females. (Table 16) . Therefore, from Table 16 and H5 and H6, we can conclude that females are specifically deferent to males, but not to daminance in general. lOl Table 17 Direction of Difference: Orders category ALL Slows Order Outcames Year 1 z-scores direction N = 294 (females) 395 (males) Yes (followed) male No (not followed) n.s. Year 2 N = 196 (females) 473 (males) Yes (followed) male No (not followed) n.s. Year 3 N = 142 (females) 364 (males) Yes (followed) male No (not followed) n. s . 102 One possible explanation (and confounding factor) here is that order giving and receiving is a male behavior and females do not often participate in the process itself. In situation cannedies , females are overrepresented as receivers of orders given by other females. This is also true in the 8-9 p.m. time period for Years 2 and 3. Action—adventure crime (hares always slow males to be over- represented as order receivers, regardless of the sex of the order giver, and the Saturday morning, 8—9 p.m. , and 9-11 p.m. time periods also slow males to be overrepresented as order receivers . Snpport was not found for this hypothesis in the post lnoc findings. H7: Male characters will be portrayed in physically exigent conditions proportionately more than female characters. Sipport is found for this hypothesis across all three years. The most notable exception to this firnding is in the Physical Confinement category, where, in Years 2 and 3, no difference was found between males and females. This may be becanse Physcial Confinement ' occurs rarely in comparison to the other two categories. The need for physical support is, by and large, a mnale behavior (Table 18) . In sitauation camedies and action-adventure/ crime dramas, males were found to be in physically exigent conditions proportionately more than females inYears l and 2, but not inYear 3, where no difference was found. Saturday morning generally portrays the need for physical support tobeamalebehavior inYears land2, butnot inYear 3, whereno difference was found. Direction of Difference: Yearl N = 251 (females) 357 (males) Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement AIL Year 2 N = 125 (females) 320 (males) Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement ALL Year3 N = 87 (females) 225 (males) Physical Internal Physical External Physical Confinement All. 103 Table 18 ALL Slows Plnysical Support Types Support category z-scores direction male male male male male n.s. male male n.s. male 104 The 8-9 p.m. time period slows only two instances each in Years 1 and 2 of male overrepresentation. In Year 3, no difference was found. The 9—11 p.m. time period slows two cases of male overrepresentation in Year 1. Years 2 and 3 show no difference between males and females needing physical support. Post loc data provide selective support for this hypothesis. H8: Female characters will be portrayed in emotionally exigent conditions proportionately more than male characters . Consistent support is found for this hypothesis in the " " analysis and categories. In three years of data, females are overrepresented as needers of emotional support in nine of twelve possible instances. In Years 2 and 3, Ego Support was not needed by either sex disproportionate to the expected representation in the total population. Concern for Others in Year 3 slows similar results, but in Year 2, this support type is clearly a female behavior. Overall, the need for emotional support is a female behavior. The need for emotional snpport is a fennale behavior in situation comedies in Years 1 and 2. In Year 3, this is also the case, but in tm expcetions, no difference was fonmnd. Action-adventure/ crime dramas show female overrepresentation in Years 1 and 3, but slow no difference overall in Year 2, and no difference in two categories in Year 3. Saturday morning slows no difference between males' and females' need for enotional support across all three years, except in Year 2, wlnere males are overrepresented as enotional support needers in three of four categories. The 8-9 p.m. time period slows a similar pattern 105 Table 19 Direction of Difference: Support category ALL Slows Emotional Support Types Year 1 z-scores direction N = 251 (females) 357 (males) Ego Sipport female Concern for Others female Psyclological Support female ALL female Year 2 N = 125 (females) 320 (males) Ego Support n. s. Concern for Others female Psyclological Support female ALL female Year 3 N = 87 (females) 225 (males) Ego Support n. s. Concern for Others n.s. Psychological Support female ALL female 106 of results. The 9~11 p.m. time period slows the need for emotional SLIpport to be a female behavior in most categories with one exception inYear 2 andtwo exceptions inYear 3. Post hoc findings are marginally supportive of this hypothesis. H9: Female characters will respond to exigence with mirturance proportionately more than male characters . This hypothesis receives inconsistent support across the three years. In Year 1, the hypothesis is not supported since botln females and males respond to females' need for support in disproportionate ammmnts. In Year 2, females responded to other females' need for snpport, but no difference was found for male respondents. In Year 3, females respond to males and females' need for support at pro- portionate levels , and males are overrepresented as respondents to females' need for support. l’bst importantly and directly, behavior ratios slow that males were three times more likely than females to be support respondents. To support the hypothesis, males would love to be more than three times as likely to be respondents. This was achieved in Year 2, but rot overwhelmingly so. Based on behavior ratios, the hypothesis does not receive support. In situation conedies , females and males are overrepresented as support repondents to females' need for support in Year 1. Females overrespond to females in Years 2 and 3. Representation approaches expected levels in action-adventnn'e/crime dramas in all cases but one-- males are overrepresented as snpport respondents to females in Year 1. Saturday morning data resembles the above in that all cases approximate expected distribution except one case-- females Direction of Difference: Year 1 N = 251 (females) 357 (males) Female Male Year2 N = 125 (females) 320 (males) Female Male Year3 N = 87 (females) 225 (males) Female Male 107 Table 20 ALL Slows Support Respondents Support category z-scores direction female female female n.s. n.s. female 108 are overrepresented as support respondents to males in Year 1. The 8-9 p.m. time period shows the female to female sequence as overrepresented in Years 1 and 2, and the mnale to nnale sequence as overrepresented in Year 2. The 9-11 p.m. time period slows the female to female sequence as overrepresented in Years 1 and 3, and the female to male sequence as overrepresented in all tlnree years. Behavior ratios do not slow overrepresentation in situation canedies . Action—adventure/ crime dramnas shml males to be support respondents fonm: to five times as often as females. The uneven and disproportionate distribution of the sexes in this category may contribute to this , however. Saturday morning analyses slow the same results and suffer from the same irregularies of sex distribution. The remaining two time periods, 8—9 p.m. and 9-11 p.m. , do not slow disproportionate representation in the respondent sex category. This hypothesis does not find support in the post lnoc data. 1mm: Henderson developed two support hypotheses dealing with outcomes of support behaviors that were not discussed in the Results section nor introduced in the first chapter of this thesis. At best, only indirect evidence can be applied to either of the hypotheses. For the sake of continuity: Male clnaracters will be rnurtured for physical exigence pro— portionately more than female characters. 109 . Female characters will be tortured for enotional exigence proportionately more than male characters. The need for physical support is a male behavior, but no trend emerges except that females are overrepresented as characters wlo receive support in all three years. From that data, mnales are not matured for physical exigence more than female characters . The need for enotional support is a female behavior and females are overrepresented as persons receiving support in all tlnree years . This researcher would speculate that the first hypothesis was not supported, and that the second hypothesis was supported. Critigu_e 9f Nethods For the third year research, large problems were encountered in obtaining acceptable reliabilities from the coding team. Training procedures were duplicated as carefully as possible across the tlmree yearperiod. Whenpaircodingwas finallyusedinthethirdyear it worked so well that several questions care to mind. Why would two years of coding and reliability go smoothly, wlnile one year never stopped creating problems? One answer of course is that the coding team members were more alike (witlnin teams) for the first two years while the third year team was probably the case. It is also highly possible and not unknown for coders to "fudge" reliability results. Reliability checks are often performed by assigning coders to code a particular slow by a specific date. The investigator tlnen deals with the results of that clneck when they are turned in carpleted. Having been a coder 110 at one time herself, this investigator chose to do reliability checks with observation. Coders coded programs in separate rooms at the same time. Poorer reliability scores may have resulted from this. When pair coding was finally used, reliabilities were excellent. In essence, pair coding allows the coders to "cheat", althougln wlno is to say tlet data collected by one person are more or less valuable than data collected by two people? The only true handicap that pair coding involves is that of speed-- coding the data set using pair coders may take twice as long as it would using single coders. This is rot a problem to be taken lightly. Should future researchers desire to use pair coding, a larger coding team (hence more possible pairs) should be considered. After data were collected for each character in the analysis, additive irndices were created to sum all acts per character so that computer tests could be performed on the data. This task was cumbersome and incredibly time comsoming. Raw data is first numerically coded on computer transcription sheets, and is then punched onto cards. Characters with four or fewer cards of codable acts are separated from clnaracters with five or more cards and two decks are therefore created. The computer is then instructed, through a lengthy string of commands, to count like pieces of data and sum tlnem. This process is a separate task for each dimension. Raw data keypunching usually took fifteen minutes per slow. The sanple consisted of 81 slows. A future study of this type might well institute methods wherein a coding form is filled out per character as the show is actually coded. Keypunchers couldthenindexdatawhenaslowwas finishedso that coding oftlne 111 data set and indexing of data could be conpleted simultaneously. Both tasks could be conpleted in the time of one. One content area rot covered by this study was that of TV movies (made for television). This content area covers a large clmmnk of TV viewing time. While these programs usually appear from 9-11 p.m. , the content may or may not be conparable to fictional series in that time period. Content analyzing a month's worth of TV movies for sex role behaviors and pro- and anti-social behaviors would be a wortlmhile task. This program type, often acconpanied by discretionary warnings, tobeexamined. Theoretic issues What is the possible relationship between the data presented here , social learning theory, and the stereotyping process? First let us discuss the television content available to be modeled. Males outmmber females by 3:1 on television. Males often are in positions of authority, are rarely seen performing louselold tasks. They possess a wider variety of occnpations than do females. When they are found to be in need of support, it is support of a physical type. Males order other characters at higher rates than females do. Males often take advantage of their authority and give orders as authority figures. Males usually give orders to other males. Females are usually young, married, attractive, not enployed outside of the home, and are generally mothers. When enployed outside the home, females fill "feminine" jobs like that of a nurse, secretary, or teacher. When females give orders, they are to other females, but this does not 112 occur frequently except in situation comedies . Females never give orders as autlority figures. When females are in need of support-- it is support of an enotional type, and support is usually given to tlnem. The profile of male and female television characters is a homogeneous one. The elements of this image are predictable from one aother: i.e. persons in need of enotional support are usually female; persons wlno give autlority orders are usually male. Exceptions to this homogeneous profile are rare for this data set. Therefore, ambiguity is low, and the behaviors may be relatively easy for an observer to model. The images portrayed in the profile are polarized: Men need physical support, women need enotional snpport. Men give orders to others, women do not. ‘ Across a three year period, findings for this data set (in the main analysis) are relatively consistent. Therefore, we may now suggest that these images demonstrate fixedness. They persist over time. The images of male and female Dominance/ deference and Nurturance/ exigence are honogeneous, polarized, and, through consistency over time, possess fixedness for these specific attributes. What does all of this mean in terms of learning? The stereotyping process just mentioned basically pertains to stimulus description. In light of this analysis and social learning theory, the behavior avail- able to be modeled is homogeneous, polarized, and fixed (consistent over time). As mentioned before, this slould make the behaviors easier to model. 113 Reinforcement , (or behavior outcomes) if favorable, also facilitates learning. Orders (given by males) are usually followed, therefore reinforced. Even tlough this is basically a male behavior, its potential for modeling is high. Both boys and girls have been found to wish to model male characters (Reeves and Miller, 1978) . Altlough in another study, it was found that boys and girls most often cloose models of the same sex, (Miller and Reeves, 1976) this may mean that girls may model male characters and give orders (in this case) or they may model female characters and be deferent. Perhaps the female observer wcnuld be more likely to mndoel male reinforced behaviors if she has not yet fully internalized the "female role". Female reinforced behaviors may be modeled when the observer lnas internalized her sex role, becanse there now exist incentives for learning that set of behaviors. It is impossible to predict which would happen, even when other factors are held constant. It is also impossible to say wlnether a child or adult viewer would recognize that females give fewer orders than males, or that females are always in need of emotional support (as opposed to males, who are always in need of physical support). It is not known at this time at what point the disproportionate representation of any behavior on television becomes significant to the viewer. As mentioned above, modeling is further facilitated if positive incentives are offered prior to observation. Perhaps the socialization process and its offer of societal acceptance if "appropriate" sex behaviors are performed is perceived by a child, and carried with her to the television. Girls may learn that it is appropriate to exhibit deferent behavior and may even be reinforced for such behavior in daily 114 living. Reinforcement in this case could take the shape of an absence of punislment. Domninant female children are not generally reinforced for their behavior in society and are not the TV norm. A child, armed with society's view, may be more likely to model TV sex role belnaviors, becanse they are reflective 3f M. Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) found that nurturance and the power to control resalm'ces (dominance) were two important qualities in the behavior of models imitated by children of pre-school age (Sears, 1965). Dominance/ deference and Nurturance/exigence behaviors are the two dimensions studied for this project. According to Sears and to Banana, et. a1. , the potential to model these dimensions is high. These dimensions slnow evidence of all pluses of the stereotyping process. Two factors that facilitate observational learning, 1) reinforcement of modeled behavior and 2) positive incentives for modeling, are present. Together, these facts present a strong possibility that sex role behaviors on television can be modeled. APPENDICES 115 APPENDIX A CA'IECDRY INSTRUCTIONS All Categories Scene-- Enter the rmmber of the scene in which the codable act occurs . All scenes (regardless of whether they contain codable acts or not) slould be marked with slashes on a scrap piece of paper. Character-- Enter the name of the character needing snpport or giving an order. gag“ Enter the sex of the clnaracter just named in the previous box. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS: ORDER CATEGOIU Give Orders-- In the box marked "Order" enter the following codes for the appropriate order given. Consult viewer training packet if in doubt as to the order type. Authority Ordm A Simple Order = S Authority Encplained Order = AE Simple Explained Order 6E Enter also a slort quote, paraphrase, or action to describe the act. This isnecessaryincasetheactneedstobereferredtointhefuture. Bole“ Enter here the role of the agent to the receiver. Choose from: Autlority = A Peer = P Criminal =C Next, in the small box also in the "Role" category, include a directional arrow to indicate whether the interaction was one-Lp (an arrow pointing upward), one-down (an arrow pointing downward) , or one-across (a horizon- talarrow). 116 Receiver-- Enter the name of the receiver of the order, or the person providing needed support. §_e_c_-- Enter the sex of tlne person mentioned above. Role-- Enter the same type of code used in the previous "Role" decription. If the interaction was one-dam, the arrow in the first box is likely to be upward, in this box, it is likely to be pointing downward, etc, In the small box also in the "Role" category enter the actual arrow. The "Role" description should always include a word (Autlority, peer, criminal) and an arrow (one-up? , one-down J, , or one-across-)). Followed-- Indicate whether the order was carried out or obeyed . Use the following codes: Followed (Yes) = Y Not followed (N0) = N Probably followed (Yes unkrown) = YU Notkromiftheorderwasfollowed = U, Reaction-- Indicate whether the verbal reaction was positive, negative, or neural. Use the following codes: Positive = + Negative = - Neutral = 0 Repeat the above procedure, using the same codes, for the nonverbal reaction. 117 SPECIFIC EnlSI‘RUCI‘ICXlS: SUPPORT CATECDRY Needs Support-- Enter the following appropriate letter codes to indicate which type of support is needed by the exigent person. Physical Internal = P1 PC ES II II II II a Psychological Support PS Concern for Others CO Cognitive-Support = CS Role-- See instructions on the ORIER Category. Asks Snpport-- Indicate whether or not the exigent person asked for support by penciling in a "Y" for Yes, or a "N" for no. Rem—- Indicate whether or rot someone else was present orable tomake aresponse to the exigent personwitha'Y' or a"N". Write in the persons name in the "WHO" column. Sign Indicate the sex of the respondent. _R_olg-- See above. Support Given/Not Given-- Indicate whether or not support was given or not given to the exigent person by the support respondent. "G" slould be entered for Given, ”N" slould be entered for Not Given. Aid-- Use one of the following codes to indicate which type of support was given to the exigent person. NOTE: If no one was present to respond to the exigent person's need for support, a slash mark will appear in this box. Direct Cooperation= DC Indirect Snpport = I Direct Substitution == TB 118 i iiiiiiiii . ....... r iiiiiiii .iiiiiiiL TTTTTT e iiiiiiiiiii .nniiiie iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii IIIIIIIII .v'|'|||.l.llulul.ll|'l. lll'Illl-ll.-.l||mul"nll.lII'IAfiII.|'I-Il'llllu'l'llll|'II..I|I.III|I IIIIIIIIII slulI-nll-ll.II'III-I'II..wIIlII.II.IIuI-|l.l|1Il'lll'II-IlamlL-III' 'U'I'I‘II'I'I'I'I'I'Ivl .......... .----------------.--------------e----------e------e------e--------------- IIIIIIIIII 'I|I.l||.l TIIll-ll..l.|4"I..IIIIIII'3'I'nleI55Illllan'lll| IIII'lrIIII'l-IIII|I..I.I1 mono>ooz Hmouob ooBOHHom oHom xom Ho>wooom mace Hoouo xmm Hmuomhmou mooom ooeuomom momma mo mwmm ”meme "mono ”no 00 "o co mmmnmo o o "mono "Ho3mfl> ”Boom 119 lllll liuiilinuuiiiiiiiriiilufinial:iiilwliuiiulieiiinnn:Tuiiiiiiiifiuiii-unuininuii IIIII fillllllllllfitllll'l.III-II. lI-IIIJIII'IIIIIIIII1.|IIIIIIfilnllllllllulVII-II TI'IIIIIIII ..... all iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii insulin:iilneliliniiinii:liiilieiiiiiiuiuiiiniiiinull:.iliiiiiiia Illllin llllllllll at lllll l lllllllllll IIIII IIIIIIII 4 IIIIIIII .I IIIIIIIII lllll IIIIIIIIII I QH< uoz\oo>eu . mace .xmm omB z w_uuoomom mace uhommom . xom Houomumso. mfioow. unooeom omoo mom mxm< Munoz Hmommbm momma mo owmm "meme Momma "Hooou "mooo “moon "Hosoq> "zoom t 120 APPENDIX B VIEWERTRADlING PACKETS The following materials were used by coders in training and the actual coding of the programs in the sample. The materials included in this appendix apply to Years 2 and 3 only. If information concerning Year 1 is desired, the reader is enolraged to consult Henderson (1978) . Coders were allowed to carry these materials with them during coding in order to permit tlnem to consult definitions and classifications when ambiguities arose. 121 Definitions conmon to all dimensions: SCENE: A scene is defined as a dramatic wlnole, a series of acts continuous in time and space, not broken by the addition or departlre of characters, or by a change in setting. A conmercial always marks the beginning of a new scene, even if the characters, setting, topic of conversation, etc . are identical before and after the commercial break. CHARACTER: A person portrayed in a dramatic television role. Only speaking characters are included in the analysis. Cknly speaking characters are included in the definition of a scene. SEX: Gender— male, female, or unknown, of the pertinent character. ROLE: A role is defined as a mode in which the character is interacting with another clnaracter (s) . Role is defined along two levels: 1) role type and 2) interaction characteristic. 1) Role Type: the category in which the character is interacting with another. There are three broad categories of role type: Peer: The character is interacting with anotlner as an equal, e.g. husband/wife, brother/sister, friends , co-workers . Authority: The character is speaking or acting from a position of superiority, e. g., parent/child, employer/ employee doctor/nurse, police officer/ citizen . The autlority may be real or perceived. Criminal: The character portrays him/herself from within an illegal role to others who are in non-criminal roles, e. g. bank robber/ teller mnrderer/ police officer. A criminal/criminal interaction would be considered a peer role type unless one character is exerting autlority over another. 2) Interaction Characteristic: The position (one-up, one-down, or one-across) from which the character is conducting a specific interaction. One-Up: General definition: A movement toward gaining control of the exchange. INITIATOR: Seeking control of the interaction at the outset. RECEIVER: Attempting to gain control of the interaction after its initiation. One-Down:General: A movement toward yielding control ‘1’ by seeking or accepting the control of the other. 122 INITIATOR: Seeking the other to control the interaction at the outset . RECEIVER: Yielding or accepting control after initiation of the interaction. One-Across: General: A movement toward neutralizing control, which has a leveling effect. INITIA'I‘OR: ___.) control is not sought by self or in other. RECEIVER: Attempting to neutralize control exerted by other. Interaction characteristics depend on situational tone, not content. ORDERS: Codes, Definitions, Ebcamples DRIER TYPES: A— Authority: An order to be camplied with because of occupational position, social agent, or parent. Example: Get back to work, Jones. S- Simple: An order given among equals or peers. mample: Hurry up! AE- Authority Enqnlained: An authority order midified by the inclusion of a justification for why the order should be followed. SE- Simple Ebcplained: A justified simple order. ExaIple: Cane back here, I want to tell you why I said that. W?: Is the order carried out by the receiver as directed by the order giver? Yes: The receiver is shown, or heard, canplying with the order given. No: The receiver is shown, or heard, disobeying or ignoring the order. U: Don't Know: The receiver is not shown or heard complying with or disobeying the order. The order is not portrayed as having been carried out or disobeyed. YU: Yes-Unknown: The order is portrayed as having been cemplied with but the receiver is not sham or heard carrying out the order. 123 NU: No-Unknom: The order is portrayed as having been disobeyed of igrnored but the receiver is not shown disobeying or ignoring the order. REACTION: The evaluation by the receiver of the order and/ or the order giver. Reaction may be verbal, nonverbal, or both. Verbal and rnonverbal reactions may contradict each other, i.e. one may be positive and the other negative. Code only obvious nonnverbal reactions. No reaction is always coded as nentral. (+)— Positive Reaction: The receiver expresses "g " feelings about the order and/or order giver, Maple: Verbal: Okay, that's fine with me. I'll be glad to do it. Nonverbal: A smile, a nod. (O)-Neutra1 Reactionn: The receiver expresses no feeling toward the order and/or order giver. Example: Okay, no, I won't. facial expression, no change in facial expression. (-)- Negative Reaction: The receiver expresses "bad" feelings about the order or the order giver. Example: Verbal: Who do you think you are? Nonverbal: frown, sidelong glance . SUPPORT: Codes, Definitions, Examples TYPES OF NEED FOR SUPPORT: PE - Physical External: person is in danger of being killed, injured, or beaten. Examples: person is about to be shot, knifed, etc. person is in danger of being caught in a cave-in, landslide, etc. person is being chased by potential assailant. PI — Physical Internal: person is suffering fran disease, illness, or internal mlady. Ebcamples: person has cancer person has hepatitis android has malfunctiong circuits . 124 ES - Ego Support: Source of enotional distress comes from within the character; expressed feelings of self-inadequacy, inability to cope, humiliation, being put-dam, etc. Ebramples: person can't get along with boss, parents, spouse, etc. person needs money person feels that others will think s/he is dumb, irresponsible, or funny looking. person fears that sameone will reveal that s/he is hemosennal, has a criminal record, has an illegitimate child, etc. CO - Concern for others: person discusses help for a friend, relative or associate with a third person. Examples: person notes that sameone is late and expresses worry that s/he is lost. person asks ideas to help a friend who is depressed person seeks assistance in rescuing someone who is trapped or captured by others. PS - Psychological Support: Person has a problem because of the actionns of others but does not express inability to cope, fear of humiliation, or concern for others. The source of emotional distress is the circumstances of the situation the person is in. Examples: person's son or daughter has flunked out of school person's spouse has left then peson's dog is causing trouble in the neighborhood. CDG- Cognitive: person needs help in performing a task, thinking through a problem,making a decision. Examples: I can 't figure out how to get this piece to fit. Can you tell me the way to Iogan Street? There is something wrong with this furniture arrangement. ASKS SUPPOKE: Yes: The character asks another for aid or help in resolving the problem, trouble, or support situation. No: The character does not, or cannot, ask for aid or help. RESPONSE: The capability to respond to a need for support. Yes: A person, or group, recognizes the need for support evidenced by another character. Other characters realize that the person needs support. Intentionally ignoring a character in need of support is a response. 125 No: There is no recognition, or no possible response, by others to the character's need for support. If a character asks for support and is ignored unintentionally there is no response; there is no recognition. SUPPORT: GIVEN/NOT The character is or is not provided with needed support. If there is no response, support is not given. Given: The requested or needed support is provided by the responding character. Not given: The requested or needed support is not provided or is denied by the responding character. AID: The nature of the support given. Direct: The responding character (8) gives support or help directly to the person needing support. DC - Direct Cooperation: The support given is through coopera- tionn between the two characters to meet the need. The r ' character works with the character in need to solve the problem. Example: A hiker with a broken leg leans on his/her partner to walk to a doctor. DS - Direct Substitution: The support is given by the responding character solving the problem for the character in need. The responding character settles the problem instead of the cluracter in need solving the problem. Example: Another talks to her husband about the problem he is creating for their son. A doctor sets a broken leg. Police officers rescue a child being held hostage for the child's parents. Indirect: The responding character provides the emans for the character in need to solve the problem. Indirect aid may be given through advice, instruction, or direction. Example: A pedestrian tells a motorist how to find a local motel. The motorist finds the motel on his/her own. 126 APPENDIX C 1975-76 SAMPLE 0F rliEIIEVISION PROGRANS _Nare 2:: §Lw_. 1m 1222 All in the Family Sitcom 8-9 Barbary Coast ActAdv 8-9 Beretta ActAdv 9-ll Barnaby Jones ActAdv 9-11 Barney Miller Sitcom 8-9 Beacon Hill Medfan 9-ll Bionic Woman ActAdv 8-9 Bob Nevhart Sitcom 9-ll Bronk ActAdv 9-ll Bugs Bunny Cartoon Sat. Cannon ActAdv 9-11 Chico and the Man Sitcom 8-9 Doc Sitcom 8-9 Doctors Hospital In’bdfam 9-ll Ellery Qneen ActAdv 8-9 Emergency Medfam 8-9 Emergency Plus 4 Cartoon Sat. Family Holvak Medfen 8-9 Fat Albert Cartoon Sat. Fay Sitcom 8-9 Good Times Sitcom 8-9 Ghost Busters Noncart Sat. Happy Days Sitcom 8-9 1975-76 Program List cont. Joe Forrester Josie and the Pussycats KateiMcShane Kojak ‘Land of the.Lost Laverne and Shirley Little House on the Prairie Lost Saucer 'Marcus‘Welby thy'TyleriMbore NHA$S*H* MbttiHehm ZMaude Medical Center thical Story Nbbile One ltnfirfl On 127 ActAdv ActAdv ActAdv Sitcom Sitcomn ActAdv ActAdv ActAdv Sitcomn Mbdfam PEXHiIn Sitcomn Sitcomn ActAdv Sitcnmn Medfam Pkrflirm ActAdv ActAdv 9-11 9-11 Sat. Sat. 8-9 8-9 8-9 9-11 Sat. 9-11 9-11 Sat. 8-9 8-9 Sat. 9-11 8-9 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 8-9 128 1975-76 Program list cont. Fkn£29§_Show Nequdventures of Gilligan Oddball Couple On the Rooks One Day at a.Time Pebbles and.BammnEEnnn Phyllis Pink.Panther Police anEmn ReturntothePlanetoftheApes Rhoda Rockford.Files Rockies Run, Joe, Run, Sanfbrd and Son Scodby Doo, Where.Are Ybu Secret Lives of waldo Kitty Shazzamn Sigmund and.the Sea Monsters Six:Rfillion.DollariMan Space 1999 SpeedBuggy StarSky'and.HUtch Streets of San.Francisco Cartoon Sitcomn Sitcomn Sitcoun Sitcom ActAdv Sitcnmn ActAdv ActAdv ‘ Sitcomn Cartoon ancart NOncart ActAdv ActAdv Cartoon ActAdv ActAdv Sat. Sat. 8-9 9-11 Sat. Sat. Sat. 9-ll Sat. 9-11 9-11 Sat. 8-9 Sat. Sat. Sat. Sat. 8-9 8—9 Sat. 9-11 9-11 129 1975-76 Program List cont. wean-w; Swiss Family Robinson Switch That ' 3 My Mama Three for the Road Tcm and Jerry/ Grape Ape Valley of the Dinosanrs Waltons Welcome Back Kotter When Things Were Rotten Medfam ActAdv Sitcom Nbdfam Cartoon Pbdfan Sitcom Sitcon 8—9 9-11 8-9 8-9 Sat. Sat. 8-9 8-9 8-9 130 1976-77 SAMPIE 0F TELEVISION Pm Name f Show ,Alice All in.the Family .All's Fair Baa.Baa.B1ack Sheep Ball Four Beretta Barnaby’Jones BarneyiMiller Best Sellers Big JOhn'Little JOhn Bionic‘Wbman Bob NeWhart Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner Charlie' 8 Angels Chico and the Man Clue ClUb CPO Sharkey Delvecdhio Doc matey Executive Suite Family Fat.Albert 32E. Sitcom Sitccmn Sitcomn ActAdv Sitcon ActAdv ActAdv Sitcom Constory ActAdv Sitcomn Satcart ActAdv Sitcomn Satcart Sitcomn ActAdv Sitcomn ActAdv Canstory Constory Satcart Time 9-11 9-11 9-11 8-9 8-9 9-11 9-11 9-11 Sat. 8-9 9-11 Sat. 9-ll Sat. 8-9 9-ll 8-9 8-9 9-11 9-11 Sat. 76-77 Program List cont. m a agw. GeminiIMan Gibbsville Good.Times Happy Days Hawaii Five-O lkflmeenand.YOyo Jabber Jaw Jeffersons Kids fromnCmAnP.E.Rr Kojak Krofft Supershow Land of the Lost IaVerne and Shirley Little House on the Prairie 'Mary'TyleriMbore Pflvflfihfihk IMaude iMbDuff the Talking Dog iMcLean Stevenson ‘Monster Squad Nbstfwanted Nku T andnTina messy 131 ActAdv Constory Sitcomn Sitcom ActAdv Sitcomn Sitcoun ActAdv NOncart Sitcom kaflizm Sitcom Sitcom Sitcom Sitcom ActAdv Sitcom Time 8-9 9-11 8-9 8-9 9-11 8-9 Sat. Sat. 9-11 Sat. Sat. 8-9 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 8-9 Sat. 9-11 8-9 Sat. 76-77 Program List cont. Name f Show Nancy”Walker One Day at a.Tmme Phyllis Pink.Panther Police Story Policewoman Practice Quest Quincy Rhoda RithIMan.PooriMan Rodkfbrd.Files Sanford and Son Scooby Doo/Dynomutt Serpico Shazzam/Isis hSirota's Court SixfiMillion.DollariMan Spencer's Pilots StarSky and.HutCh Streets of San Francisco Switdh Sylvester and.TWeety 132 Sitcom Sitcom Sitcom ActAdv ActAdv Sitcom ActAdv ActAdv Sitcomn Constory ActAdv Sitcomn ActAdv Noncart Sitcomn ActAdv ActAdv ActAdv ActAdv ActAdv Cartoon Time 9-11 9-11 8-9 Sat. 9-11 9-11 8—9 9-11 9-11 8-9 9-11 9-11 8-9 9—ll 9-ll Sat. 9-11 8-9 9-11 9-11 9-11 Sat. 76-77 Program List cont. NameofShow Tarzan Tan and JerrY/ Grape Ape/Mmbly Tony Randall Wally Gator and Friends Waltons Welcome Back Kotter What ' s Happening Wonder Woman Woody Woodpecker 133 Cartoon Cartoon Sitcom Cartoon Constory Sitcom Sitcom ActAdv Cartoon Sat . Sat . 9-11 Sat . 8-9 8-9 8-9 Sat . 134 1977-78 SAMPLE 0F TELEVISION PRIERAIVB mean»; Adventures of MUhammed.Ali Alice AllintheFaInily Ardhie/Sabrina.HOur Baggy Pants and the Nitwits Beretta Barnaby'Jones Batman/Tarzan The Betty White Show Big‘Hawaii The Bioniclmxmmn The Bob NeWhart Show Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Hour BustingiLoose Carter Country CB Bears Charlie's Angels Chico and the Man Chips CPO Sharkey Eight is Enough Family Fat.Albert DIE Cartoon Sitcom Sitcomn ActAdv ActAdv Cartoon Sitcomn ActAdv ActAdv Sitcomn Sitcom Sitcomn ActAdv Sitcomn ActAdv Sitcom Constory Constory Cartoon Time Sat. 9-11 8-9 Sat. Sat. 9-11 9-11 Sat. 9-ll 9-ll 8-9 8-9 Sat. 8-9 9-11 Sat. 9-11 8-9 8-9 8-9 8—9 9-11 Sat. 135 1977-78 Program List Cont. mama; m are Fish The Fitzpatridks Good.Times Happy Days Hardy Boys /NancyDrew Mysteries Hawaii Five-O Isis James at Fifteen The Jeffersons Kojak Krofft Supershow Laff-a Lympics Laverne and Shirley The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams Little House on the Prairie Iogan's Run Lou.Grant The Love Boat TlmnbkmnfitunAtlantis NHA$S*H* Rhude Ptflligan's Stew The Nequdventures of‘anderlMoman Sitcomn Constory Sitcom Sitcomn ActAdv ActAdv NOncart ActAdv Sitcomn ActAdv NOncart Cartoon Sitcom ActAdv Family ActAdv ActAdv Sitcom ActAdv Sitcom Sitcom thfily ActAdv 9-11 Sat. 9—1l 9-11 9-11 Sat. 9-11 8—9 8—9 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 8—9 136 1977-78 Program list cont. L e are On Our Own One Day at a Time Operation Petticoat The Oregon Trail Pink Panther Police Woman Quincy Rafferty Red Hand Gang Rhoda The Rockford Files Rosetti and Ryan The San Pedro Beach Buns Sanford Arms Search and Rescue The Six Million Dollar Man Skatebirds Soap Starsky and Hutch Superfriends Switch Three's Company Thnmnder Tony Randall Show Sitcom Sitcom Sitcom ActAdv Cartoon ActAdv ActAdv ActAdv Sitcom ActAdv ActAdv‘ Sitcom Sitcom ActAdv Cartoon Sitcom ActAdv Cartoon ActAdv Sitcom Sitcom 9-11 9-11 9-11 Sat . 8-9 9-11 9-11 8-9 8-9 Sat . Sat . 9-11 9-11 Sat . 9-11 9-11 Sat . Sat . 137 l977-78 Program List cont. NanefSlrnw Valley of the Dinosaxrs Valley of the Dinosarrs The Waltons Welcome Back, Kotter We've Got Each Other What's New Mr. Magoo The Wonderful World of Disney Young Dan'l Boone Young Sentinels Cartoon Family Sitcom Sitcom Sitcom ActAdv ActAdv Cartoon Timne Sat. Sat. 8—9 8—9 8—9 Sat. 8-9 8-9 Sat . REFERENCES 138 References Bandura, A. 1965 Influence of Pbdel's Reinforcement Contingencies on the Accquisition of Imitative Responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1, 589-595. Bandura, A. 1971 SociallearningTheory. b’brristovm, N.J.: General learning Press . Bandura, A. 1978 A Social learning Theory of Aggression. Journal of Conmmication. 28:3, 12-29. Bandura, A., J.E. Grusec, F.L. Menlove 1966 Observational Learning as a Function of Symnbolization and Incentive Set. Child Development . 5 , 449-455 . Bandura, A., D. Ross, S.A. Ross 1963 Imitation of Film-mediated Agg'essive Pbdels . Journal of Abnonmal and Social Psychology. 66, 3-11. Barcus, F.E. , R. Wolkin 1977 Children's Television— An Analysis of Programming and Advertising. New York: Praeger Publishers . Beuf, A. 1974 Doctor, lawyer, Household Drudge. Journal of Communication. 24:2, 142-145. Bowes, J .E. 1977 Stereotyping and Conmnication Accuracy. Journalism Quarterly. 54:1, 70-76. Brovenman, I.K., S.R. Vogel, D.M. Broverman, F.E. Clark, P.S. Rosenkrantz 1972 Sex-role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal. Journal of Social Issues. 28, 59-78. Busby, L.J . 1974 Defining the Sex Role Standard in Conmercial Network Television Programs Directed Toward Children. Journalism Quarterly. 51, 690-696. Busby, L.J. 1975 Sex Role Research on the Mass Media. Journal of (kmmnication. 25: 4, 107-131. 139 Carter, R.F. 1962 Stereotyping as a Process. Public Opinion Quarterly. 26, 77-91. Cohen, DR. 1977 Through a Glass Darkly. Television and the Perception of Reality. National Elementary Principal. 56: 3, 22-29. Dominick, J.R., G.E. Ranch 1972 The Image of Woren in Network TV Commercials. Journal of Broadcasting. l6: 3, 259-265. Fernandez—Collado, C.F., B.S. Greenberg, F. Korzenny, C.K. Atkin 1978 Sexual Intimacy and Drug Use in TV Series. Journal of Communication. 28: 3, 30-37. Frueh, T., P.E. McGhee 1975 Traditional Sex Role Development and Amount of Time Spentl: Watching Television. Developmental Psychology . ll: , 109 . Gerbner, G. , L. Gross 1976 living with Television: The Violence Profile. Journal of Communication. 26:2, 173-199. Greenberg, B.S. , B. Reeves 1976 Children and the Perceived Reality of Television. Journal of Social Issues. 32:4, 86-97. Greenberg, B.S., C.K. Atkin, N.G. Edison, F. Korzemny, G.R. Heald, J.J. Wakshlag 1977 Pro-social and Anti-social Behaviors on Commercial Television in 1975-76. Project CASTIE: Report to the Office of Child Development , HEW. #1 . Haynes, R.B. 1978 Children's Receptions of " 'c" and "Authentic" Cartoon Violence. Journal of Broadcasting. 22: 1, 63—65. Hays, W.L. 1963 Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Henderson, LL. 1978 Sex Role Portrayals on Cormercial Broadcast Television. Master's Thesis. Michigan State University. 140 Katman, N. 1972 Television Soap Operas: What's Been Going On Anyway? Public Opinion Quarterly. 36:2, 200-212: , M. , R.J. Simon 1974 The Roles and Statuses of Women on Children and Family TV Programs. Journalism Quarterly. 51, 107—110. Lull, J.T., C.A. Hanson, M. Marx 1977 The Recognition of Female Stereotypes in TV Ccnmercials. Journalism Quarterly. 29:3, 153—7. Maccoby, E.E., C.N. Jacklin 1974 The Psyclnology of Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press . McNeil, J .C. 1975 Feminism, Femininity, and The Television Series: A Content Analysis. Journal of Broadcasting. 19, 259-269. Nolan, J.D., J.P. Galst, M.A. White 1977 Sex Bias on Children's Television Programs. The Journal of Psychology. 96, l97-204. Miller M.M. , B. Reeves 1976 Dramatic TV Content and Children's Sex-role Stereotypes . Jomnal of Broadcasting. 20:1, 35-50. Miller, W.C., T. Beck 1976 How Do TV Parents Compare to Real Parents? Journalism Quarterly. 53:2, 324-328. Mischel, W. 1966 A Social learning Vie/.7 of Sex Differences in Behavior. in Maccoby, E.E. (ed.), The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Rees. 56—81. O'Bryant, S.L. , C.R. Corder-Bolz 1978 The Effects of Television on Children's Stereotyping If szngn'sMWork Roles. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2, 3-2 . Reeves, B., B.S. Greenberg 1977 Children' s Perceptions of Television Characters. Human Comnmnication Research. 3:2, 113-127. 141 Reeves, B., M.M. Miller 1978 A Multi-dimensional Measure of Children' 3 Identification with Television Characters. Journal of Broadcasting. 22: 1, 71-85. Sears, R.R., L. Ran, R. Alpert 1965 Identification and Child Rearing. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Secord, P.F. 1959 Stereotyping and Favorableness in the Perception of Negro Faces. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 59, 309-314. 1975. .Imagery of Women in Television Dramna. Journal of Broadcasting. 19, 273-281. Simmons, K.W., B.S. Greenberg, C.K. Atkin, C.J. Heeter 1977 The Demography of Fictional Television Characters in 1975-76. Project CASTLE: Report to the Office of Child Development . HEW #2 . Simmons, K.W., B.S. Greenberg, L. Hogan, C.K. Atkin 1978 A Three Season Analysis of the Demographic Characteristics of Fictional Television Characters . Project CASTLE: Report to the Office of Child Development. HEW #9. Sternglanz, S.H. L.A. Serbin 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. Tedesco, N. 1974 Patterns in Prime Time. Jonnal of Communication. 24:2, 119-124. Turow, J. 1974 AdvisingandOrdering: Daytime, PrimeTimne. Jonnal of Comunication. 24:2, 138-141.