Female attractiveness and eating disorders: Do children's television commercials play a role?

Sex Roles, Vol. 22, Nos. 11/12, 1990

Female Attractiveness and Eating Disorders:Do Children's Television Commercials Play a Role?

Shirley M. Ogletree, Sue W. Williams, Paul Raffeld,Bradley Mason, and Kris FrickeSouthwest Texas State University

The differential rate of eating disorders in males and females has been par-tially attributed to gender socialization. Media influences, even in children'sprogramming, may contribute to the greater emphasis on physical attrac-tiveness for girls compared to boys. Commericals from Saturday morningcartoon programming were analyzed for the number of male/female mainand supporting characters, sex of narrator, sex of intended consumer, andappearance enhancement of person, doll, or animal. A majority of the com-mericals (60.6%) were for food products. Chi-square comparisons revealedsignificantly more male than female main characters and narrators in thesecommercials. Of those commercials (13.8%) scored for appearance enhance-ment, all male/female chi-square comparisons were significant with morefemale supporting characters, female main characters, female narrators, andfemale consumers. With the combined emphases on food and, for girls, onappearance, support for possible influences of commercials in eating disordersis noted.

Central to the traditionally defined role of a woman is her appearance; ifwife/motherhood is of primary importance in the life of a woman, her ap-pearance, at least in her own eyes, is an important factor in achieving thesegoals. That physical appearance is more important for women than men hasbeen supported in earlier studies. Several investigators (Bersheid, Dion, Wal-ster, & Walster, 1971; Krebs & Adinolfi, 1975) have found that attractivewomen, but not men, had more dates than their less attractive counterparts.Men paired with attractive women were rated higher than men paired withunattractive women (Bar-Tal & Saxe, 1976). Attractiveless of partner wasnot a factor in the evaluation of the women.

7910360-0025/90/0600-0791$06.00/0 © 1990 Plenum Publishing Corporation

792 Ogletree et al.

In the last several decades the cultural definition of attractiveness forwomen has included thinness. Garner and his colleagues (Garner, Garfinkel,Schwartz, & Thompson, 1980) as well as Mazur (1986) have documented thedecreased weight of Playboy centerfolds and Miss America contestants; thethinness of female television characters and models in women's magazines(as indicated by bust-to-waist ratios) has also been noted (Silverstein, Per-due, Peterson, & Kelly, 1986). During this same time period an increase indiet and weight-conscious articles has been reported in popular magazines(Garner, et al., 1980).

As a society our attitude toward food is somewhat dichotomous. Onthe one hand enjoying rich, luscious, expensive meals is portrayed as a fit-ting reward for hard work, as a way of socializing, and as a way of beingsensual, indulging a physical appetite. On the other hand, one, especiallyif that one is female, is expected to be fit and attractively thin. Ironicallythe same companies that manufacture highly caloric, exotic food are also theones that produce diet foods ("The Shape-Up, Pig-Out Diet," 1988). Many con-sumers, like the companies, may eat both health foods and highly caloric foods.

These ambivalent attitudes toward food combined with special prescrip-tions for attractiveness may be reflected in eating disorders in women. Tigge-man and Rothblum (1988) sampled college students in the United States andAustralia, finding that women, especially in the United States, were moreconcerned about their weight than were the men. In one recent study (Hesse-Biber, 1989) fewer than half of the college women surveyed had what wereconsidered ideal eating patterns. Even adolescent and preadolescent girls havedemonstrated weight concerns and food consciousness (Johnson-Sabine,Wood, Patton, Mann, & Wakehng, 1988; Seligman, 1987; Stuart & Jacob-son, 1979).

What role does television programming play in females' concerns regard-ing physical attractiveness and their attitudes toward food? The portrayalof male/female characters in television commercials may be one factor im-pacting the reality of children and adults. Previous analyses (for example,Brell & Cantor, 1988; Ferrante, Haynes, & Kingsley, 1988; Mackhn, & Kolbe,1984) have examined general sex differences in commercial portrayals, butonly rarely (e.g.. Downs & Harrison, 1985) have investigations focused onphysical attractiveness stereotyping.

In light of societal attitudes toward food and expectations for physicalattractiveness in females, the present study was designed to examine the con-tent of children's cartoon commercials. As previously found by Cotugna(1988), we expected a high percentage of the commercials to be for foodproducts. These commercials were hypothesized to appeal equally to boysand girls. In addition, however, we predicted that the majority of commer-cials for appearance-enhancement products would be for girls rather thanfor boys.

Female Attractiveness and Eating Disorders 793

METHOD

Cartoons and commercials were recorded during nine Saturday morn-ings, three mornings from each of the three major television networks'programming, during the months of September, October, and November in1988. A total of 675 commercials were recorded, excluding public serviceannouncements, commercials for television programming, and commercialsthat were clearly adult oriented. After eliminating repeats, 160 commercialsremained for analyses.

Commercials were scored independently by a male and female researchassistant who were not blind to the hypotheses, but who had previously beentrained until an interrater rehability criterion (coefficient of agreement) of80% was surpassed for all commercial categories considered together. In ad-dition, a third rater reviewed all commercials and resolved discrepancies inthe scoring of the first two raters. Each commercial was scored for the fol-lowing categories: number of male/female supporting characters; numberof male/female main characters; sex of narrator; sex of intended consumer;and appearance enhancement of person, doll, or animal.

The number of supporting and main characters were classified by sexand age categories (male or female, child-adolescent or adult). To be scoredas a supporting character, the person had to appear for at least two seconds(not necessarily contiguously), singly or with fewer than five in a group. Amain character was defined as appearing for over five seconds, singly or ina group with fewer than five characters, in the same commercial.

Sex of narrator referred to whether voice-overs were male or female.The narrator had to say a minimum of five words, could not be a roboticor singing voice, and could not be associated with an implied character (forexample, a boy locked in a bathroom who was never seen on the commercial).

Appearance enhancement was scored if the product could be used toincrease the attractiveness of a person, a doll, or a toy animal. Since thesedecisions, as well as decisions regarding the sex of the intended consumer(male, female, or both), were more subjective than our other scoringcategories, we examined these two categories for interrater reliability. Forthe appearance-enhancement category, agreement was 92.0%; for the sexof purchaser category, 93.8%.

In addition, to further explore potential bias in the scoring, we exa-mined the resolution of any rater discrepancies in the appearance-enhancement category. We were predicting that the majority of commercialsfor appearance-enhancement products would be for girls rather than boys.Of those commercials that were scored by one but not the other rater as ap-pearance enhancing, 36.4% were resolved by the third rater as orientedtoward both male and female intended purchasers and therefore not directlyrelevant to our hypothesis. Milk and Pocket Rocker commercials were the

794 Ogletree et al.

products represented here. Less than one-third (27.3%) of the inconsisten-cies were resolved in the direction predicted by our hypothesis; that is, thethird rater judged a male-oriented product as not enhancing appearance orjudged a female-oriented product as enhancing appearance. The commer-cial products in this category consisted of one male-oriented product (a Levicommercial) and two female products (one My Little Pony and one Lil' MissMakeup). The remaining discrepancies (36.4%) were resolved in the oppo-site direction of that predicted here; these were female-oriented commercialsjudged by the third rater as not enhancing appearance. A Smooshies com-mercial, a My Little Pony commercial, and two Barbie commercials com-prised this category.

RESULTS

The average number of characters per commercial was very small. Thefollowing means were found: adult male supporting characters —.081, adultfemale supporting characters —.044, child male supporting characters —.494,child female supporting characters —.469, adult male main characters —.113,adult female main characters — .025, child male main characters — .719, childfemale main characters —.713.

Because of the small numbers of supporting and main characters percommercial, the categories of adult and child were combined for chi-squarecomparisons. Also, since our level of analysis was the commercial and be-cause each commercial can be counted only once in any given chi-square anal-ysis, we compared commercials containing only male to only female maincharacters, only male to only female supporting characters, only male to onlyfemale narrators, and only male to only female intended purchasers. One-way chi-square comparisons (SPSSX Inc., 1986) for these categories are givenin Table I.

Not included in Table I are percentages of commercials containing bothor neither male or female supporting and main characters. Ninety-seven(60.6%) of the commercials contained no supporting characters: 23 (14.4%)contained both male and female supporting characters. For main characters40 (25.0%) of the commercials contained neither male nor female charac-ters, and 34 (21.3%) contained both male and female characters.

Regarding narrators, 37 (23.1%) of the commercials had no narratorswhile 3 (1.88%) had both male and female narrators. The majority of theproducts. 111 (69.4%), were judged to be for purchasers of either sex.

Twenty-two of the commercials were scored as enhancing the appear-ance of a person, doll, or animal. Percentages by sex of appearance-enhancingcommercials with only male or female supporting/main characters, narra-

Female Attractiveness and Eating Disorders

Table I. Percentages of All Commercials with Only Male and Only Fe-male Characters, Narrators, and Intended Purchasers

Male Female x̂

Supporting characters 14.4 (A3 = 23) 10.6 (A3 = 17) .900Main characters 31.3 (A3 = 50) 22.5 (A3 = 36) 2.279Narrators 50.6 (A? = 81) 24.4 in = 39) 14.700*Intended purchaser 9.4 (A3 = 15) 21.3 (AZ = 34) 7.367"

> < .01.*/? < .001.

tors, and intended purchasers are given in Table II. All male/female one-way chi-square comparisons were significant for these commercials.

Percentages are given in Table III for male/female comparisons of com-mercials {n = 97) for food products. One-way chi-square comparisons weresignificant for sex of main characters and narrator comparisons.

DISCUSSION

Support was found for all hypotheses. Consistent with the findings ofCotugna (1988), the majority (60.6%) of the commercials were for foodproducts. No sex differences were found in the intended consumer for thesecommercials; rather, 95 out of 97 food related commercials were scored asappealing to both sexes.

Twenty-two of the commercials were scored as enhancing the appear-ance of a person, doll, or animal. The overwhelming majority of these com-mercials had female voice-overs (90.9%) and were intended for femaleconsumers (86.4%). Only one of these commercials had only male support-ing or main characters.

Several jeans commercials were scored as appealing to male consumers,but were not scored as enhancing appearance. The emphases of these adswere on being an individual and doing one's own thing. Apparently, even

Table 11. Percentages of Appearance-Enhancement Commercials with OnlyMale and Only Female Characters, Narrators, and Intended Purchasers

Supporting charactersMain charactersNarratorsIntended purchaser

4.50.09.10.0

Male

in = 1)in = 0)in = 2)in = 0)

Female40.9 in =59.1 in -90.9 (A3 =86.4 (A3 =

9)13)20)19)

6131419

x'.400°.000*.727*.000*

"p < .05.*p < .001.

796 Ogletree et al.

Table III. Percentages ofFemale Character;

Supporting charactersMain charactersNarratorsIntended purchaser

Food Commercials with Only Male and>, Narrators, and Intended Purchasers

15.537.153.6

1.0

Male

(n =(n =(n =(n =

15)36)52)1)

Female

8.29.39.31.0

(n =(n =(n -(n -

8)9)9)1)

2.16.30.

Only

130200*311*a

°A11 cells have an expected frequency less than 5.0.V < .001.

when clothes are being sold to boys, the emphasis is less on appearance thanon independence and individuality.

No significant differences in frequencies of male/female supportingcharacters or main characters were found for the commercials overall. Theseresults are similar to those of a recent analysis of prime-time commercialsby Brell and Cantor (1988); no sex difference in male/female central charac-ters were found in their analysis. In the present study, when the specificcategories of food commercials and appearance-enhancing commerciails wereanalyzed, male/female differences were significant. More male than femalemain characters were found in food commercials while more female thanmale main and supporting characters were found in appearance-enhancingcommercials.

Brell and Cantor (1988) reported significantly more male than femalenarrators in their analysis. Similarly, the male/female narrator comparisonwas significant in this study, with more male narrators in the commercialsoverall and in the food commercials. Perhaps advertisers believe that a malenarrator is more likely to be a "voice of authority" (Brell & Cantor, 1988).A primary exception, though, appears in the area of appearance-enhancementcommercials where female voice-overs were more frequent.

Although advertisements generally reinforced the gender status quo,several commercials provided evidence that times are changing. One female-oriented commercial not scored as enhancing appearance was the advertise-ment for the "Doctor Barbie." Also, the "My Buddy/Kid Sister" commer-cial advertised dolls for both boys and girls.

Because of the heavy emphasis on various food products in televisionadvertising and, for girls, an emphasis on appearance enhancement, chil-dren's commercials may be one factor contributing to less than ideal eatingattitudes and habits in females. Although certainly individual and familialvariables are important in explaining eating disorders, sociocultural forcesmay also contribute to the dramatic male/female differences in these dis-orders (Boskind-Lodahl, 1976; Schwartz, Thomas, & Johnson, 1982)The present study provides supporting evidence that the media differenti-

Female Attractiveness and Eating Disorders

ates between males and females, not in the emphasis on food, but in the im-portance of appearance for the female; this differential emphasis may startin the childhood years and may affect females', compared to males', higherincidence of eating disorders.

REFERENCES

Bar-Tal, D., & Saxe, L. (1976). Perceptions of similarly and dissimilarly attractive couples andindividuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 772-781.

Bersheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dat-ing choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psvcholo-gy, 7, 173-189.

Boskind-Lodahl, M. (1976). Cinderella's stepsisters: A feminist perspective on anorexia nervo-sa and bulimia. Signs, 2, 342-346.

Brell, D. J., & Cantor, J. (1988). The portrayal of men and women in U.S. television commer-cials: A recent content analysis and trends over 15 years. Sex Roles, 18, 595-609.

Cotugna, N. (1988). TV ads on Saturday morning children's programming —What's new? Journalof Nutritional Education, 20, 125-127.

Downs, A. C, & Harrison, S. K. (1985). Embarrassing age spots or just plain ugly? Physicalattractiveness stereotyping as an instrument of sexism on American television commer-cials. Sex Roles, 13, 9-19.

Ferrante, C. L., Haynes, A. M., & Kingsley, S. M. (1988). Image of women in television adver-tising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32, 231-237.

Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Schwanz, D., & Thompson, M. (1980). Cultural expectationsof thinness in women. Psychological Reports, 47, 483-491.

Hesse-Biber, S. (1989). Eating patterns and disorders in a college population: Are college wom-en's eating problems a new phenomenon? Sex Roles, 20, 71-89.

Johnson-Sabine, E., Wood, K., Patton, G., Mann, A., & Wakeling, A. (1988). Abnormal eat-ing attitudes in London schoolgirls —A prospective epidemiological study: Factors as-sociated with abnormal response on screening questionnaires. Psychological Medicine,18, 615-622.

Krebs, D., & Adinolfi, A. A. (1975). Physical attractiveness, social relations, and personalitystyle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 245-253.

Macklin, M. C , & Kolbe, R. H. (1984). Sex role stereotyping in children's advertising: Currentand past trends. Journal of Advertising, 13, 34-42.

Mazur, A. (1986). U.S. trends in feminine beauty and overadaptation. The Journal of SexResearch, 22, 281-303.

Schwartz, D. M., Thompson, M. G., & Johnson, C. L. (1982). Anorexia nervosa and bulimia:The socio-cultural context. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 1, 20-36.

Seligman, J. (1987, July 27). The little dieters. Newsweek, p. 48.Silverstein, B., Predue, L., Peterson, B., & Kelly, E. (1986). The role of the mass media in

promoting a thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women. Sex Roles, 14, 519-532.SPSSX Inc. (1986). SPSSX User's Guide (2nd ed.). Chicago: Author.Stuart, R. B., & Jacobson, B. (1979). Sex differences in obesity. In E. S. Gombert & V. Franks

(Eds.), Gender and disordered behavior. New York: Brunner/Mazel.The shape-up, pig-out diet. (1988, October 10). Newsweek, p. 69.Tiggemann, M., & Rothblum, E. D. (1988). Gender differences in social consequences of per-

ceived overweight in the United States and Australia. Sex Roles, 18, 75-86.