
S1: i just wanted to revisit this issue of when a positive portrayal, is negative. <P :07> and the case here is uh, the study that you had to read by Innocent Fagan, on the Cosby Show. <P :26> okay, so when positive portrayals are negative Innocent Fagan the Cosby Show talking about different views, whether the Cosby Show was a good thing, for, portraying a counter stereotypical view of African-Americans or whether it was a bad thing. so does somebody wanna summarize for me, twenty-five words or less, what the positive view is here? the positive view of the Cosby Show in this article? <P :06> remember you will be anonymous... yeah? 
S2: show a professional black family in a way that, um, a very white-collar family had been shown before. 
S1: why is that positive? 
S2: um well [S1: wha- ] counter stereotypical um this's the kind of family that'd been mostly limited to white people, um 
S1: so what should that do? you know wha- what should that do for African-Americans as a group? 
S2: well it should change, or contribute to the change of stereotypes by uh, you know letting, letting other, letting out-groups know that there's another side to, (the story)
S1: right excellent. the the first argument is that, you know out-groups that is non-African-Americans, watching the Cosby Show, should get the idea that, African-Americans are not all, you know name your portrayal criminals, um i'm thinking of Sanford and Son junkmen, um blue-collar workers and so on. it's a counter stereotypical portrayal and should be teaching, white Americans that African-Americans can make it, you know up high as well. so, positive view, counter stereotypical <P :08> challenge existing views, you know the idea that, if you come to the screen thinking, that all African-Americans are poor or criminals when you watch the Cosby Show, that should tell you, that that's not the case. <P :04> also, you know the positive view... includes the idea that, um, that this was th- this wasn't a typical portrayal. this was a kind of groundbreaking portrayal. it stood out. um it was kind of a it's-about-time argument. it's about time, African-Americans are portrayed positively. okay so there's sort of a relief with it, well thank goodness finally there's a good there's a good por- portrayal. what about the negative view? does anybody wanna, bravely, summarize, what the argument was against, the Cosby Show? <P :12> why could this be bad? yes? 
S3: it ignores like, the problems of discrimination (and stuff)
S1: why_ what would it do that was bad? what was the argument that the Cosby Show would be doing, to white American's views of African-Americans? 
S3: it'd make it seem that, African-Americans who didn't succeed to that level, are just lazy 
S1: okay, great. um, the negative view is that it, supports stereotype because <P :05> if African-Americans, can reach, that level <P :05> those who don't must be lazy. <P :06> okay? the argument against the Cosby Show was, it's not necessarily realistic, it may lead white viewers to think that if African-Americans can all reach the level that the Cosbys have reached, then those who aren't, doctors and lawyers, must just be lazy. <P :07> so you have these two, you know counter- countervailing uh, views of this show. does anybody have any thoughts on this? i mean do you think that one of these, prevails over the other? do you, agree with one of these more than the other? <P :09> you know these microphones can pick up your whispering too. just kidding, um <P :05> do you buy one of these arguments more than the other? yeah? 
S4: i guess i would say, that i, i believe them, but i think that it's kind of unfair to criticize the show, on those terms because, it is, a sitcom and i think that, it has the positive characteristics so, why should one show have to embody all of these characteristics? why not say, you know this show is good because this shows that black people can reach this, this height in society, but then we should have other shows that also, portray other things.
S1: okay i'm gonna i'm gonna carry that comment on because i think it's a very valuable comment here. um, the the question is is it fair, to jump on one show and to say that this show should embody everything, that's needed for, a positive portrayal of a group? um and i'm gonna recall, your article that you had to read by Graves, just some thoughts from the Graves article, to try to frame your thoughts about the Cosby Show... the first thought, is... Graves makes a distinction between fiction and fact. <P :07> one thing we should think about, when we're thinking about, all the portrayals not just one show, but the aggregate of portrayals of a given group is, how are the fictional portrayals constructed and how are the factual ones constructed? um i went over that Armstrong Neuendorf and Brentar article in class where they looked at entertainment versus news. entertainment television had this positive portrayal of African-Americans whereas news had this negative portrayal. so one thing Graves brings up in kind of a roundabout way is, um, fact may carry more weight. <P :04> first of all. so, if i see fictional portrayals of African-Americans as, ambitious, high achieving and so on, but all of the factual ones, the news ones, are negative, well what does that say? you know it basically says in the real world, blacks are this, in the fake world they could be like this. um so overall it may cast a negative light on the group. so it's just one thing to keep in mind, fiction versus fact. but the other thing, um, that Graves brings up is the importance of considering the aggregate, and this is, i'm not gonna say any names but this is, related to the comment that came over here... um, can we even win, if we try to make every portrayal perfect? think back to, Clark's notions of recognition and respect. recognition is our, is the group present at all respect is, is the group, are portrayals of the group um, do they span as wide a range of roles as the group occupies in real life? well, we could probably argue that it's impossible to do that within a given show. you know we don't have that many characters in a given show. we can't span as a wide a range of roles as a group occupies in real life in one show. so maybe we should looking be looking at, the collection of shows, collection of programs <P :05> does it approach... respect? <P :07> so let me ask you a question then... as somebody who worked in the creative end, as somebody who has a writing background and who's talked to people who've had_ who who write for a living, one thing that writers are told, again and again is to write well, write what you know. write what you know, cuz you'll you'll be true to it. so, if writers, are writing what they know, and what they know turns out to be, uh a very strongly white, world, then what might be a solution, to uh, to these sort of s- you know sporadic portrayals of African-Americans or any other group. what might be a solution? what might be a way to get these groups portrayed, with more respect? yeah? 
S5: African-American wr- writers? (African-American) 
S1: writers, okay. the answer was, and there's only one possible answer but i just want you to, think about the possibility of it, creators are taught to write what they know. um, one way to combat this is to get more, African-American writers out there. more, women writers out there, more Hispanic writers out there, more you know and you can go on and on and on especially dealing with the groups who're underrepresented. you know it's the same reason that, i don't have a a content analysis on this so my number could be wrong but it seems to me that about eight out of ten movies that come out are centered in Los Angeles. now you could say oh that's because it's easier to film there and they don't have to travel and it's cheaper. but part of it as well is that, that's the city where most of the people, who write this stuff live, and they're writing what they know. now do we fault them for writing what they know? you know do we say, you should, step out of your comfort zone, and try to write about other people? yeah, we do that. um, but it goes against a lot of what they've been taught. so, the question the issue that i wanna bring up, um is simply, what do producers do? you know usually i don't address this, but then i always have a student a a an astute student come up and say, well basically it's kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't thing. how could anybody write a show, and not be seen as racist or sexist? <P :04> so the question is what do producers do? you know one option is, to write, what they don't know, that is to go against, the advice of their craft. but, possibly a more viable option, is to... get women and people of color... into industry. and that is happening more and more. it's a slow thing... you will see these changes over your lifetime, you'll see major changes over your lifetime that's not gonna happen, anytime soon... okay. any last comments or questions on portrayals of ethnicity before i move into gender? <P :07> okay... i'm gonna kick this off with a quote... by Minna Antrim <READING> when a woman is very very bad she is awful but when a man is correspondingly good he is weird. </READING> i like the quote because not only does it bring up the idea of women having to be, nice and and kind and amicable all the time but it also brings up, what men are expected to be, the male gender role. um, men it s- seems that men in the media always have to be, have s- s- a certain measure of ruggedness. because if they're too good, they're not good they're weird. that's that doesn't fit in with what men are supposed to be. <P :06> okay. so like, gender portrayals, i'm sorry like ethnicity portrayals, most of the research on gender portrayals is on one group. as with ethnicity most of the research i covered was on African-Americans, most of the research on gender is on women. but i will cover work on men. <P :08> okay, um, start with content analysis. lemme give you a little background you don't have to write this down yet. um, first of all, it's a general, generally known thing in the research that are a lat- a lot more men, than there are women, in the mass media. typically three times as many men as women, and on Saturday morning cartoons, four times as many male as female characters. uh, stats for the Screen Actors Guild for the early nineties show that almost three quarters of all acting roles went to men. but keep this in mind when i talk later, about mass media and eating disorders and the thin ideal. if, women make up more than half the population but they're onl- they're competing for twenty-five percent of the roles, what does this say about the extremes they have to go to, to you know fit the ideal? um, okay, women are most often found in comedies soap operas family dramas, um but what about other, other types of media? a study by, Matelski in nineteen eighty-five, looked at, P-B-S <P :07> now you'd think, if you're gonna see women, given equal coverage and people of color and so on you'd see it on P-B-S right? this is what you'd think. um, well on P-B-S Matelski found that, males outnumbered women two to one <P :09> he split u- er, he split up category of programing, males outnumbered women, two to one in each category <P :04> overall the characters were seventy-two percent male. so even P-B-S is giving more time to male characters. <P :10> and then this other study by Ziegler and White, looked at news. and not women in the news not the way um, like Enman looked at, African-Americans as, um, criminals or as suspects, Ziegler and White were looking at, correspondents. who were the news corespondents? who were the journalists? <P :05> eighty-eight percent of the corespondents, were male. <P :05> so the news story, or the i'm sorry the news study, was really looking at, who holds what jobs. so we have almost ninety percent of all corespondents being male. <P :04> so we have something on P-B-S we have something on news, now you might ask what about advertisements? well there's a classic uh book on, on advertisements. an extensive content analysis by Goffman, in seventy-nine and i'll update this for you in a minute. but i wanna give you Goffman's categories. <P :12> Goffman did this extensive, um, content analysis of women in advertising, he was looking at print advertising. and, he came up with, what he saw as recurrent themes in the way women are portrayed in ads. and i'll show you examples of these themes as i go through. the first one is, he said women are very frequently shown lying down or looking up. <P :06> what does that indicate? what's that supposed to indicate when a, character is lying down or looking up? yeah?
S6: submission or passivity 
S1: right submission, submission, passivity, that's what Goffman argued too. so let me show you examples of this. this is from Goffman's book okay this is a little bit old and i, pho- photocopied it right from the book so it's a little fuzzy, but it's for a suit a man's suit. <SS LAUGH> you know there's some, sex going on here obviously her skirt's all the way up by her leg but, she's lying down with her hand out to him he's standing up looking at her it's kinda hard to figure out what, what this corresponds to in real life but, anyway uh Goffman uses it. it says <READING> some men are suited for games and some men are just better suited. </READING> so it's for a suit. example lying down or looking up from Goffman's um, Goffman's collection. i found a more modern one by opening up about two or three, women's magazines, this is for, cigarettes obviously, same basic idea lying down looking up. <P :05> okay the next one, smiling. women are disproportionately shown smiling.... according to Goffman. they can be shown smiling at men or just smiling in general, or smiling, for ads where you you wouldn't think somebody would necessarily smile. here's um, Goffman's example. this is for a man's cologne. the woman is sort of looking approvingly at him smiling. <P 05> that was Goffman's. here's a more recent one that i found. um this is an ad for, breast augmentation. and, she's talking about how it's her choice and all this kinda stuff well it's really about surgery, which you might think would, be associated with a picture of somebody serious, um but she's even smiling in this one. <P :05> okay, my favorite part here is pet peeve people who pressure you into doing things. so anyway. okay what's next? Goffman said the next characteristic that comes up a lot is that women tend to be portrayed in childlike or whimsical poses. <P :08> and really most of this comes out in, nonverbal, body language. what is childlike or whimsical? here's Goffman's example. it's obviously a- an ad for socks, women's socks. but it's the way the feet are crossed in sort of a shy childlike pose. and here's my more recent example of this. it's for Hanes underwear. but it's the pose again that's meant to be sort of childlike.... the next one is a little bit more, complex. Goffman called it licensed withdrawal. <P :13> this is, wha- what you might look at as expressions of shyness. um Goffman also called it, women sort of getting um, permission from the camera end to withdraw themselves emotionally, from the action. they're showing expressions of emotion <P :07> it may be better understood when i show you, images of it. um the woman is shown kind of withdrawing from the action but res- she's, responding to the action but she's not carrying it forth. and often it comes out in, this sort of sh- of what appears to be shyness but it's like withdrawal from the situation. here's Goffman's example. it's for a hand cream <READING> who's thirty and who's twenty-two? </READING> so, supposedly their hands are supposed to_ the thirty-year-old's hand isn't all wrinkled yet thanks to the hand cream. but, even though it's for hands, you know they're sort of, they're putting their hands up over their face and they're, giggling at something. um, and they're not actually talking to the viewer they're not, uh pushing forth the action themselves. a more recent version of this, is this ad for nail polish. where again she's sort of responding to something she's not, looking at the camera, she's withdrawing from the situation by kind of covering up her face. <P :10> uh the next one is, Goffman said gleeful. women are often shown not just happy or approving but absolutely gleeful. in situations that, wouldn't normally provoke glee. for example, buying a new toaster. <SS LAUGH> i think that one's kind of funny too. it's kinda hard to see but here's the new pop-up toaster. and she's you know delighted, that she's got the pop-up toaster. so this is what, Goffman was saying was you know glee not just happiness but utter glee. and, a more, recent, example, is this cigarette ad, where yeah it looks like everybody's happy the woman is especially, kind of out of her mind happy. um you know popping a Christmas tree in the car. so it's just this expression of glee. <P :06> okay. number six, women often shown hiding behind objects. <P :10> and some of these have kind of a veil-like quality to them, the object she's hiding behind goes right up above her nose and she peeks out from the top of it. Goffman's example, is also a cigarette ad. i think this woman looks like um... is it Malcolm McDowell who's in uh, A Clockwork Orange? you ever see this movie? he's got these false eyelashes that go like that. he's kinda strange looking. but anyway, you know this is from the mid-seventies and she's peeking out over, the cigarettes. (you know that's an) example of hiding behind something. here's a more recent one. it's J-C Penny. this is really veil looking. it's like she's holding it up as a veil hiding behind it... okay and finally, Goffman says, when women and men are shown together, very frequently the men are in charge. now what does that mean? it can mean leading, the woman... doing something to her, or leading the action.... so either he's leading her bringing her some place, pointing something out to her teaching her, he's doing something to her and she's, receiving that, you know or he's leading the action and she's kind of, watching. um, his example, is, i don't remember what this ad is for he's got it in the, text of his book, but not right under the ad. but it's just the man is, telling her he's informing the woman. and then a more recent version... is for, you know it's meant to be playful but still he's doing, the action, she's the recipient of the action. okay, so these are, what Goffman came up with as, characteristics of advertising with women, print ads. so your question would logically be, okay so what's gone on since nineteen seventy-nine? well, Mian Kang who used to be a grad student here at the Universi- here in the Comm Studies Department, did a replication. um, it was Goffman's Gender Analysis Updated. whoops sorry. <P :07> from nineteen seventy-nine through ninety-six i think ninety-five ninety-six. <P :05> basically what she found was, no significant change. so she used the same categories she did the a content analysis, of print ads, and really over the o- generally no significant change. one thing just, if you're interested uh that she found was more women shown in licensed withdrawal positions. so more likely to be sort of, responding emotionally but not to the camera. and then she also had, looked she added a an additional... additional coding um, category. which she called body display... where she's looking at how much skin is shown basically. Goffman didn't look at this. and, Kang showed that yeah, there's a lotta body display. <LAUGH> okay, so that's just, she updated it no real significant change so even up until the early to mid-nineties, women are still being portrayed with these same sorts of um, characteristics. and there's, a lotta body, a lotta skin shown as well. <P :04> okay so that's something on advertisement, advertising but what about portrayals in entertainment? <P :09> i'm gonna summarize, the research for you by, domain. one is age. what do content analyses say about, women and men's age, in portrayals? in uh entertainment, T-V entertainment. <P :04> now keep in mind with age when you're coding it, you don't actually necessarily have the age of the character you just have to make a judgment, when you look at them. so these are coded by, you know coder's judgments. you look at somebody they've got wrinkles all over they've got, wiry gray hair, you probably put them, maybe above sixty seventy eighty. there's gonna be some leeway. so, on average how are females' ages coded compared to males? on average, females, ten years younger, than males. females on average, appear to be ten years younger than males. <P :07> you could probably chalk this up to, the overabundance of young, you know sort of s- uh sex object roles... so on average females younger than males. what about relationship status? you know you get background of characters when you're learning about a character, in an entertainment portrayal. how are they defined? what's their relationship status? females, more likely, to be identified... as involved. that could mean, in a relationship or married. so you could look at this the other way. men are less likely to be identified by their relationship status. in some way this makes sense cuz we still live in a culture where women's titles, reflect their relationship status but men's don't. Miss versus Mrs a man is Mr for his entire life. so even in, media portrayals, we get, this definition of a woman by her relationship status more so than we get for men. we find out that she's married she's involved or she's single, for the man we may just know his job, and they may not give us information about his, relationship status. okay, attire. what are they wearing? <P :09> Davis nineteen eighty-six. a slightly older study. what Davis wanted to look at was whether women and men were dressed to a different degree, provocatively. so how did Davis define provocatively? either showing the body shape or showing, skin. um, for example swimwear, shorts, tight clothing these are all things that were s- meant to be provocative. and Davis found that women, four times, more likely, to be dressed provocatively. <P :08> now you may expect this to be, similar or even, stronger now, with the way, women on, prime time programming are dressed, even in a professional realm, like the Ally McBeal type portrayal, or the Melrose P- Place portrayal where the jacket's there, but the skirt cuts off, just at th- at the, highest possible point it can cut off, you could call that provocative as well. even though it's professional. so women more likely to be dressed provocatively, and finally what about occupations? <P :13> women are identified as being employed, much less often, than men. <P :06> now again you can look at this as, you know, we live in a world where producers are, conceptualizing women as, dependent on men, not likely to be employed, and so on. remember though you can also look at it as, men's characters, may be disproportionately shown as being employed that is, we don't know how to categorize a man unless we know his job, in this country. so you have to find out what he does for a living. that is his identity. so men reading this could look at it and go well you may think that's, negative a negative portrayal of women but maybe it's a negative portrayal of men too. you gotta know your job or else you're not, you know you're not a real man unless we know exactly what your job is and we can put you in some, mental category. okay, so these are some general trends in portrayals of women, relative to men. <P :06> now what about effects of exposure? and i'm gonna talk about a couple studies in more depth here. <P :16> okay, the first one is a study by Morgan. and the study's on television and adolescent sex role stereotypes. <P :11> sixth through tenth grade. and the study's longitudinal. let's see two years i believe. so Morgan followed, sixth through tenth graders for two years until they were eighth through twelfth grade. w- females and males. and what Morgan wanted to see was, Morgan was one of these cultivation researchers by the way, Michael Morgan, what he wanted to see, was whether, exposure, early on, you know when they were in sixth seventh eighth ninth and tenth grade, predicted, their sex role stereotyping, two years later. so does earlier viewing predict later, stereotyping? <P :05> let me give you a little more detail here. what they wanted to know, was does earlier, what he wanted to know was does earlier T-V viewing predict later sex role stereotypes? um, but also does earlier, se- sex role stereotyping predict later viewing? this is kinda like these Huesman studies i mentioned to you where, if you're gonna follow something longitudinally, you can make a stronger causal argument than if you're just doing cross-sectional, one time only research, if you can show that, something that happened earlier is related to something that happened later. this is one of our, conditions of causality it's a necessary but insufficient condition but it's necessary. so, you know does early, violence viewing, is it related to later, aggression? but one of the things you gotta show, is that, early aggression is not related to later violence viewing because tha- what that indicates is, that, in this case with sex role stereotyping that people with, who already had sex role stereotypes just happened to seek out more T-V to begin with. and it's not that T-V is causing sex role stereotypes. so this is what they gotta look at here. uh, for stereotyping, just to give you an indication of what kind of questions these kids were asked, um five questions, and a sp- just to give you an example, of how explicit these are. they give them true or false, questions, and one is true or false, by nature women are happiest when they are making a home and caring for children. so they're, pretty explicit, you know traditional gender stereotype questions. so what are the findings? <P :06> now we're looking at correlations between earlier viewing and later sexism. and this is controlling for, earlier sexism... the first is for girls, earlier viewing predicted later sexism, what they would expect. <P :15> just so you know the size of this correlation's R equals point-one-four. significant? it was but, not super huge. <P :05> i- in contrast, for boys, earlier sexism predicted later viewing. <P :06> and here the correlation's point-one-five. <P :11> so in other words for girls, those who watched more T-V earlier in the study, had higher sexism scores later. but we didn't have the same thing, for boys. early viewing didn't predict later sexism for boys and for boys in fact, earlier sexism predicted later viewing. so any ideas on how to explain this, this difference? <P :15> finding with the girls is what Morgan expected. how might you explain the finding with the boys? <P :14> just to let you know i don't have a right answer floating around in my mind, Morgan didn't really know how to explain it. yeah? 
S7: he uses gratifications? 
S1: how? what would you 
S7: um, if you're see- if they already have these attitudes, they'll seek out things that further them? 
S1: so earlier sexism pu- sexism predicts later viewing, that's basically, what Morgan, would say. you know, well, if there's a causal link between early sexism and later viewing, since T-V tends to be, gender traditional, that for boys, already seeing the world in a somewhat sexist way predicts seeking out, more T-V. alright but you know why wouldn't it work that way for girls too? you know why wouldn't earlier sexism predict later viewing? if they're already more sexist they should be more, willing, to see, to be exposed to this content. they did use Morgan used a bunch of different controls, like, you know socioeconomic status, things like that that that also influence how much you view. but you know you always wanna keep in your mind, earlier sexism predicts later viewing for boys you know are, are sexist boys, less likely to have friends? and so they end up watching more T-V cuz they're not hanging out with their friends? you know there're all sorts of, possible explanations we don't know. whereas sexist girls may have a lotta friends because they're fitting in with this, you know a a desired stereotype for them. you know the way they define sexism was sort of anti-female it wasn't anti-male. it was, you know women don't have ambition, women, can't do certain things. so for a girl, to believe in that she may be, agreeable to others. for a boy to believe in that you know he maybe mean to girls. we don't know. i i actually don't know the answer to this and Morgan doesn't really either. um, Morgan's ex- saying, if there is a relationship, a causal relationship between early sexism and later viewing, i- it's probably a uses and gratifications kind of explanation. but there could be other ones that we, we can't, tell for certain from this study. okay. so there's one <P :07> and that one's on beliefs. there's another one, the second one i wanna mention is Jennings Geis and Brown, and this is on behaviors. <P :15> don't write this down but just so you know the title is The Influence of Television Commercials on Women's Self-Confidence and Independent Judgment. so, how do you measure self-confidence behaviorally? and how do you measure independent judgment, that is not going with the crowd? well this is uh, what Jen- this is the challenge that Jennings et al had um, had... i'm gonna give you the independent variables and the dependent variables. the independent variables <P :07> was you could look at it as, sex role, portrayals, traditional, versus nontraditional. <P :05> that's role portrayals in commercials traditional versus nontraditional. well wha- what did they do? they took four commercials, that were current at the time, with traditional sex roles. and they remade them, with the sex roles reversed. so the first one was, uh, how to handle a hungry man. it was like a T-V dinner. they reversed it so then it was about how to handle a hungry woman, and the man's trying to give her enough food. uh, wine at a bar she orders his brand, cuz he knows wine the sex role, reversal was she's the one who, knows the wine and so he orders her brand. uh third was Stove Top stuffing she didn't realize that he preferred it over potatoes. the reversal is, he didn't realize she preferred it. and then, another package dinner, the idea is <READING> now an exotic meal can be made from a package. </READING> so the woman's usually making it for the man traditionally this reversed the roles. so in one condition they watched the four commercials, in their traditional form, in the other condition they watched the four commercials with the sex roles reversed... then... here's the, the interesting part. what were the dependent measures? <P :05> dependent variables were two tasks. two tasks that, subjects had to perform. the subjects here are women by the way. <P :10> one is rating cartoons, for funniness. this is the independent, judgment. and i'll explain to you how they did this. <P :12> first they had a a complete, completely separate group of people rate, a bunch of cartoons on how funny they were. and let's say there's a score of one to six. one meaning not funny at all, six meaning very very funny. and then they picked out, the cartoons, that were really seen by this previous group of women as very very funny and they picked the ones out that were really seen as not funny at all. so they had some pretty, um, pretty extreme ratings. pretty extreme cartoons. some that were pre- previously rated as very funny, some not funny at all. then with the subjects in this study, what they did was, had them rate the same cartoons. and then they put up, what they call bogus feedback, on the chalkboard in the room. and all that meant was, they showed the women, what the previous subjects had rated. um, what their ratings their mean ratings were. but they lied, with uh, with the cartoons that were rated you know five-point-five, that were really funny, they gave that, they lied and said that was maybe a one-point-five. so it's bogus feedback. the- the- these women in the study, are s- thinking they're reading it and odds are they're gonna think it's funny as well, if this previous group thought it was funny, but they look up at the board, and they see that this previous, this previous group rated it only a one-point-five. so Jennings et al thought that independent judgment, should make it more likely, independence of judgment means, you're more likely to not pay attention to these pri- previous reading- ratings and rate it as funny as you think it is. so they gave it a one-point-five that's stupid i think it's really funny. lack of this independence, should lead the women to go boy i think it's funny but, but they only gave it a one-point-five i'll rate it lower. okay so it's going with the crowd. so that's the first task. the second task... is this public speaking task <P :04> and by the way the order of these two is rotated so half the women did, public speaking first and then the cartoons, the other d- half did the cartoons and then the public speaking. with the public speaking task... the women came into a room and they were told, now we want you to give a two minute speech on yourself. which usually strikes fear into the heart, hearts of most people. um, and they had a couple minutes to prepare and then they had to go out in front of a group of people and give a two minute speech on themselves. now the group of people in the audience, were instructed to rate, each woman, on how self-confident she seemed. so if she was shaking all over the place if she was saying um ah if she looked like she was about to cry because she was so nervous, they would rate her low on self-confidence. so they were really rating her nonverbal, her nonverbals you know how confident she seems. and they're blind to condition, that is, they don't know whether the woman speaking, saw the traditional ads or the nontraditional ads they're just rating, her perci- the- their perceived self-confidence so how self-confident she looks. so, what do we find? <P :14> first thing was well okay let me just stick it right, here. women who viewed the nontraditional ads first of all were more independent in their judgment. <P :21> they were significantly more independent in their judgment, that is, their ratings, were closer to the true ratings that the other group had given, which they didn't receive remember? it's just that these these cartoons were generally perceived as funny. so the women in the study, reported, that they thought that they were generally funny. um when they saw the nontraditional ads when they saw the traditional, they rated them, more like, the ratings that they saw written up on the board. so there's some evidence that they were a little more independent in their judgment, they rated the cartoons, more along the lines of what they really thought and less along the lines of what the other people had, had supposedly rated them as being. moreover, they were also, perceived, as being more self-confident. <P :07> now again keep in mind <P :05> that, lemme give you a a scale here for self-confidence. one to five, and, the means are three-point-three-eight versus, two-point-seven-three. so it's not a huge difference but it's significantly different. the ones who saw the, nontraditional ads, more self-confident, exuded more self-confidence, than the ones who saw the traditional ads. so, my point here is, that, it's a subtle effect but it's a powerful effect. they're not reporting feeling more self-confident they're actually judged by a group of raters as more self-confident.... so think about, you know where these kinds of things could be operating in the real world. you go to a job interview, you're sitting in the waiting room, and there're a bunch of magazines out there, and you're pouring through them, does it mean, that if you're seeing traditional ads yo- you're gonna be less self-confident in your interview? than you would be if you saw nontraditional ads? i don't know. but it's something to think about. i mean this, particular, study, we can think about ways that it would be externally valid even though it's, an experiment, and it's not necessarily going to be as externally valid as a survey, um, well as a survey. but there really are situations, where, exposure to media, could affect, your behavior in a situation where you're expected to exude self-confidence. yeah? 
S8: as far as this um, like slide is concerned would this have anything to do with like, like the way they do it is like they show you something and then like obviously like they prime it to you, and you're kind of thinking about it, and isn't that maybe the reason for the results? is that like, in general maybe like, it doesn't have as great of effect as like right after it's shown to you? it doesn't necessarily affect your life constantly but like you know for ten of fifteen minutes after you see it it will?
S1: yeah, i think, i think that's probably the best explanation for the process underlying this is a priming one. um, they may forget it. and it's short-term, you know the authors themselves say this is a short-term effect. you know o- o- odds are women, it's, you know when you've got_ and i'll talk about schemes in a moment, when you've got, your world view built up, four ads, may prime, you know more self-confident or more independent behaviors for a while. but four ads are not likely to change your world view. so it's not really, that these women suddenly went, i am powerful. it's that, somehow that was primed in_ it's not like they went i am powerful and i have learned this and now i will always have this with me. um, it probably lasted a short time, and then it went away. is that what you're asking? 
S8: yeah kinda just that um, that they're basing like the results on like how this affects women, you know, in general i would think, [S1: yeah ] on like something that's probably having to do with like priming rather than, like a long-term anything. [S1: yeah ] like whether or not this affects like women, on the whole like, women see themselves as this this and that [S1: right ] because of ads
S1: yeah i think that's a good point w- we do have to look at this as short-term. and it's probably priming that's responsible for it. now the question is, you know are there situations where even this, kind of short-term effect would actually affect, some major event in your life like how you behaved, at um you know a job interview. it may. then again if you're home, and you're not gonna do anything after this, once those thoughts are gone it may not have any effect. um they're really not, Jennings et al, really didn't, make conclusions like, you know this has a profound effect on women for a long time. they said, let's be honest here this is a short-term effect. but if you're exposed to these images, regularly throughout the day, maybe they do affect, you know your behavior mayb- maybe they affect how other people see you. just so you know in this same story_ or the same study, um they later found that exposing women to nontraditional portrayals versus traditional portrayals, made them write different essays concerning where they wanted to be in ten years. and again you can call this a priming effect. um those who were exposed to the, traditional ads, i'm sorry the traditional portrayals in the second part of the study, were less ambitious about whe- where they were gonna be in ten years. those exposed to the nontraditional ones, wrote things like, you know i'm gonna be the president of a company, you know they wrote more ambitious things. now again, does that mean, that these portrayals you know four minutes of portrayals, changed, these women's, aspirations for what they wanted to do in life? probably not. it probably was a priming effect that probably went away. but again the question is, when you're exposed day in and day out through magazines through television um, you know you're catching a portrayal at the airport while you're waiting for a plane. that counts too. so, how does this impact on, people's daily lives? that's something that Jennings et al aren't able to look at because they just did one, study, at one point in time. okay um, i don't wanna leave men out, so, what about men? <P :11> well lemme tell you something. there's not a whole lotta research on men, more and more people are getting interested in studying men, but it's just one of these sort of, truisms of the research world, people like to study, the groups who aren't portrayed so much. so if there're a lot of men oh they're fine, we don't need to study them. but now researchers are starting to study men, and asking this question that i brought up before, we may think that men are portrayed in, respect, that is, representing all the roles that they occupy in real life. but it's also possible that they're not. you know you're probably more likely to see a male doctor or lawyer as a character than you are, a male postal worker, as a character. so what does research say about men? well when a when a, group is beginning to be studied, very often the first people, who start to describe portrayals of that group aren't social scientists. wha- what often happens is that, feminist theorists, cultural theorists, critical studies American culture studies people, will look at, portrayals and describe what they think is going on. and then social scientists will come by and say, let's test if this is really happening. so with men, we're really at the stage now where most of the writing about this, is done by feminist theorists and and cultural theorists. and, this guy Strate, has written about the myth of masculinity <P :05> in beer commercials. <P :10> Strate argues that, the myth of masculinity that is what masculinity is supposed to be is embodied in the beer commercial. so tell me what do you see in beer commercials? how are men portrayed? <SU-F LAUGH><P :04> what are they usually doing? how are they interacting? just tell me, how are men portrayed in beer commercials? <P :08> [S9: working ] you've never seen a beer commercial? 
S9: working or watching sports. 
S1: working or watching sports. right it's Miller time was the whole idea that once you're off work now, it's time for beer. so working hard watching sports. yeah? 
S10: male bonding like just a bunch of guys sitting together like screaming (xx)
S1: okay male bonding it's like, mostly all men. when there are women, what's the relationship between the men and the women? <P :04> do they show a bunch of gay guys sitting around with their female friends? 
<SS LAUGH> 
S11: women are serving the (beer) 
S1: right you're laughing because it's so not the the typical beer commercial right? the women are usually maybe scantily clad, it's a very heterosexual kind of image, this is what Strate is arguing. in fact Strate says, that in beer commercials, the whole idea of masculinity revolves around the theme of challenge. <P :06> alright? sports challenge. they're playing a game or they're watching a game or they're betting against each other somehow. women challenge. you know vying for the attention of women although when you've got the right beer it's usually not hard. <SS LAUGH> um, climbing the corporate ladder, you brought this up as well. and Strate goes so far as to argue that this supports the stereotype of man as hunter. man as hunter woman as gatherer. okay now Strate's not doing, social scientific research to try to, quantify this. so this is a different way of looking at it. but he's arguing that, beer commercials show this myth of masculinity man as hunter, man as you know uh meeting some kind of challenge. and if you think about it it's kind of ironic that that would go along with beer. because how is beer supposed to help you meet a challenge? you know if anything in the real world it holds you back. um, okay. so, oh i d- this brings up one other thing i just wanted to mention, i'm seeing these new Virginia Slims ads for, for women you know they they aim the cigarette at women. and they're all about finding your voice, and it's about the eyes are are the, window to the soul but the voice shows the spirit, find your voice. um, and it's about, you know sort of, stating who you are, through this cigarette. but i just think it's funny because people who smoke a lot, as they get older can get a really, raggedy sounding voice, <LAUGH> so again it's like, what's really the connection between finding your voice and smoking cigarettes? what's the connection between, making meeting a challenge and drinking beer? um, if anything these products would, would hold you back from that. so this is one view of men. another view, is Garst and Bodenhausen... looking at effects of advertising on men's gender role attitudes. <P :21> in this study they had male subjects they're all males, view either traditional masculine, ads or androgynous ads. so in the traditional masculine, the man is either forceful, or he's the leader, um, he's the less emotional one, you know they were trying to embody the different aspects of stereotypes of men. so traditional masculine versus androgynous. and then they measured these men's sex role attitudes afterward... now here's something interesting. if you think about, that Archie Bunker study. Archie Bunker's bigotry. you might expect, that those who already had the most traditional, sex roles, that they would, come away from seeing the traditional sex role ads, feeling especially strongly about traditional sex roles. especially likely to espouse them. whereas those who were the least traditional, initially, would come away from the androgynous ads, feeling, most like, you know, they see the world in androgynous terms. and and that they shouldn't come away from the uh, androgynous men should also come away from the traditional sexual ads r- you know rejecting those messages. but what the authors found here, was instead that, men who were least traditional to begin with, they pretested them <P :07> changed the most, toward traditionalism, <P :08> after viewing traditional ads. men who ha- initially had been least traditional espoused, more traditional attitudes than any other group after exposure to the traditional ads. although they continued to endorse relatively nontraditional views after exposu- after exposure to the androgynous ads. so the nontraditional men, the ones who were initially nontraditional, exposure to the androgynous ads, you know resulted in basically the same views they had to begin with. but exposure to the traditional ads made them actually the most traditional group afterward. so they changed the most. whereas the men who were, initially had been traditional were still relatively traditional but not as much as the men who had initially been nontraditional. so there's some evidence that, the least traditional men, were the most sort of changed over by these ads. now how how might you explain this kind of finding...? the authors, incidentally explained it as, gender role advertising teaches, nontraditional men, to be traditional. it's damaging. you know it's not_ it's damaging because, these men who were already, you know less likely to be gender bigoted, now were, you know especially gender bigoted. uh, can you think of any other reason why they would find what they found in this study? <P :15> what do you think the mechanism is underlying this? social learning? <P :04> cultivation? priming? <P :05> what kind of study does this sound like? a social learning study a priming study, a cultivation study? <P :08> yes? 
S12: i'd say social learning or cultivation 
S1: why not priming? <P :04>
S12: well i guess i mean it depends on how long, your effects are lasting if they're only feeling this way for, thirty minutes then you could say priming but (if the effects) last (xx) expecting to be something more like cultivation and (xx) or something. 
S1: yeah? you (go ahead) 
S13: if it was priming wouldn't the, men who had the most traditional roles be, i mean because they have the most networks already be, whereas the more traditional [S1: yeah ] (xx) 
S1: this is this is certainly what you'd expect from a priming perspective. that's right that's what you'd expect. this doesn't seem to fit in with priming. but you know what? these authors didn't follow up the findings, they only looked at immediate, findings, right afterward. so we don't actually know. we can't really distinguish if it's social learning or priming if it's priming, it's going in a different direction than we would expect. if it's social learning as they argue, it would help if they had had, some kind of follow-up measures to see if there was some difference later on. because when you measure it right afterward, you know how do i know the difference in priming or social learning? priming is not going in the direction i'd expect it to but you can't go ooh it's not going in that direction let's just scrap our theory and switch to another one. you know you're not supposed to do that anyway although sometimes people do. um, so anyway kinda hard to explain. don't really know exactly why this happened. not consistent with other, kinds of priming findings. um, Garst and Bodenhausen's argument about n- you know these nontraditional men learning to be traditional, is just something, we're not gonna under- we're not gonna know, whether or not that's really happening without some follow-up. okay. uh so... combating negative effects? what are some considerations in this? <P :10> well, we're thinking again about this issue that i brought up with, ethnic portrayals. what do you do to counteract any possible negative effects? and again negativity here is a value-laden term. you know i may be defining, gender traditionalism as a negative effect you may not. so how do we combat, effects, um, that enforce, gender stereotypes? well, one issue, one consideration that's very important <P :04> is schemas. what are schemas? <P :10> we can describe schemas as ways of looking at the world <P :06> prototypes <P :04> schemas have been defined all sorts of different ways. ways of looking at the world prototypes models, you know, what we define as, typical. what's typical? so a very common schema exercise, is if i say to you describe a chair. tell me what a chair has. how do you describe a chair? what has it got? what features does it have? just shout 'em out. 
SS: four legs 
S1: four legs. what else? 
SU-F: a seat 
S1: a seat. what else? 
SS: a back 
S1: a back. what's it made of? 
SS: wood. 
S1: okay wood. you know this is your schema of a chair. now you know that a throne is also a chair, a stool is also a chair, a La-Z-Boy recliner is also a chair, even though these things don't have four legs, stool doesn't have a back, they can be made of metal not wood, but the point is that this four, four-legged, seat with the back made of wood is your schema of a chair. stereotypes, are defined as schemas. stereotypes are just schemas, of people... there's types of schemas.... so, we develop schemas, very very young. and the fact that we bring schemas to what we're viewing... is going to influence what we take away from what we're viewing. <P :04> and i'll just get through this quickly but, um the importance here is that schemas, have an impact on memory, such that <P :04> when memory fades <P :05> people fill in, schema, consistent, info. when memory fades people fill in schema consistent info. <P :10> for the last thing and i i promise i'll make this quick, you can just write Cordua et al. um, there's one study that demonstrates this with kids <P :04> Cordua McGraw and Drabman, wanted to know, how they could kind of reverse, very young children, three to five... how they could reverse their stereotypes of men and women. so they showed them a portrayal, with a female doctor, and a male nurse. right after the portrayal... when asked what kind of people, can be doctors and nurses, right after they watched it, there was this tendency for kids to think, that females could be doctors and males could be nurses. now Cordua et al could've said wow look at this you know b- by just showing one counter stereotypical portrayal we can take these very young children's views of, sex role occu- you know occupational stereotypes and reverse them. but guess what? later on, the children misremembered, what they had seen, so that the male was the doctor, and the female was the nurse. that is, when their memory of the the video, faded, they filled in, their memory gaps with schema-consistent information. so they're shown a counter stereotypical portrayal but they just remembered it later on, as being stereotypical. so this is a main challenge, in using media to counteract stereotypes. we've got one, portrayal that's counter stereotypical, one portrayal isn't necessarily gonna be able to fight, the schema, which comes in and takes over afterward. okay remember it's a coffee day. and come down to the front, um, if you need to inform the researchers about, what you said. 
<UNINTELLIGIBLE SPEECH UNTIL END> 
{END OF TRANSCRIPT}

