Sex Role Portrayals in Advertising

Author(s): William J. Lundstrom and Donald Sciglimpaglia

Source: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 72-79
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250940 .
Accessed: 29/04/2014 16:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

72 / Journal of Marketing, July 1977

WilliamJ. Lundstromand Donald Sciglimpaglia

Sex

Role

Portrayalsin Advertising

Are womenandmencriticalof the way they areshownin ads,

andhow doesthisaffecttheirattitudestowardproducts?

HE increased participation of women in the

labor force, Equal Rights Amendments, and a
heightened awareness of women's contribution to
society are leading marketers to reexamine this important market segment. Within the last six years,
increasing attention has focused on this change,
and there has been growing criticism of marketers'
lack of sensitivity to reflect the change in their advertising. The woman is still often shown in
tradition-bound roles of mother, housewife and
clerical worker while she tells of the virtues of
products in solving her day-to-day problems. However, the woman of today may be a truly resentful
consumer as she sees herself portrayed by these role
stereotypes and could become the corporate
gadfly of tomorrow unless these inconsistencies can
be resolved.

Content Analysis
At least six recent studies have been reported
which utilized content analysis of the portrayal of
women's roles in commercial advertising. The earliest, a study by Courtney and Lockeretz of advertisements in general audience magazines reported
in 1971, found that only 9% of the women were
portrayed in working roles, compared to 45% for
men.' This study further concluded that these advertisements suggested four major sexual stereotypes for women:

About the Authors

WILLIAM
J. LUNDSTROM
is the Phil B. HardinProfessor
of Marketing, School of Business Administration, The
University of Mississippi.
DONALD SCIGLIMPAGLIA
is Assistant Professor of
Marketing, San Diego State University.

1.
2.
3.
4.

That a woman's place is in the home.

That women don't make important decisions.
That women are dependent on men.
That men regard women primarily as sex
objects.
In a follow-up study by Wagner and Banos,
that by 1973, the percentage of women
found
they
in working roles had risen to 21%. In addition, the
range of occupations presented in the advertisements had increased and included more professional job categories being held by women.2 Sexton
and Haberman conducted a study which compared
the content of ads which appeared between 1950
and 1971 in five general circulation magazines and
concluded that there had been some increase in the
occurrence of work related roles for women.3 However, the occupational situations were still very
stereotypic in nature. Although the percentage of
women portrayed in the roles of homemaker or
mother had declined over that period, these authors
felt that the evidence corroborated the criticisms of
the narrow number of roles portrayed for women.
Venkatesan and Losco, in a more comprehensive study that compared magazine ad role portrayals over the period of 1959 to 1971, concluded that
the most frequently observed roles were: women as
sex objects, women as physically beautiful, and women
as dependent on men.4 Within this time period, however, the role of woman as sex object became less
frequent as did the portrayal of the traditional role
of the housewife. Lastly, Belkaoui and Balkaoui in a
comparative analysis of print advertisements appearing in 1958, 1970, and 1972 found that, relative
to men, women were more often shown as unemployed or as low-income wage earners when shown
in occupational roles.5 During this period, the percentage of work related roles increased but were
generally of low status.

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Sex Role Portrayals in Ads / 73

1
EXHIBIT
Attitudes of Men and Women toward Sex Role Portrayal,Company Image
and Purchase Intention (n = 264)
Mean Response to Statement*

Women

Men
Attitudes toward Role Portrayals

(n

114)

3.5

(n = 150)
2.55

1. Ads which I see show women as they reallyare.

2.81

2. Ads suggest that women are fundamentally

dependent on men.

3.83

3b Ads which I see show men as they really are.

3.09

4.a Ads treat women mainlyas "sex objects."

5. Ads which I see accurately portraywomen
in most of their daily activities.

4.48

3.81

3.54

3.25

6. Ads suggest that women make importantdecisions.

3.86

3.63

7. Ads which I see accurately portraymen in most

of their daily activities.

3.81

3.60

3.81

4.19b

8.b

Ads suggest that women don't do importantthings.

Ads suggest that a woman's place is in the home.

9.a
10.a I'mmore sensitive to the portrayalof women in
advertising than I used to be.

3.56

4.05
2.77'

4.

4.22

4.25

5.00

I find the portrayalof women in advertising

11.ato be offensive.

3.43

4.07

12. Overall,I believe that the portrayalof women

in advertising is changing for the better.

4.60

4.80

13.a Companies that portraywomen offensively in their

advertising are more likelyto discriminate against
women and other minorities in job promotion and
advancement, compared to other companies in the
same business or industry.

3.56

4.36a

14.aI believe that how women are portrayedin ads

merely reflects the general attitude of that company
toward women's place in society.

3.38

4.36 a

15. Ifa new product is introduced with ads that I

find offensive, I might still buy it if it offers me
benefits which I find attractive.

4.61

4.38

16. Ifa new product or service which I use adopts an

ad campaign which I find offensive, I'lldiscontinue
using it.

3.82

4.13

17. Even though I may see an ad which is offensive

for one product, I would continue to purchase
other products that I have been using from the
same company.

5.21

5.18

Effect on Company Image

Effect on Purchase Intention

* In the profile, 7 = Strongly Agree and 1 = Strongly Disagree.

a 99%significancelevelof differencebetweenmeansbased on t-distribution.

b 95%significancelevelof differencebetweenmeansbased on t-distribution.

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

74 / Journal of Marketing, July 1977

In addition to the content analyses of print
advertisements, Dominick and Rauch examined
nearly 1,000 prime time commercials appearing on
television and found very similar results.6 Women
were most often shown as sex objects or in the
role of housewife/mother. The number of occupational roles showing women outside the home
was much less than for men and those shown
were fairly traditional sex roles (e.g., secretaries).
While much of the previous research has
dealt with the roles in which women have been
portrayed, other critics contend that the image of
women, as portrayed in commercial advertising,
is not only unfair but unjust. A study prepared by
the National Advertising Review Board reported
there are even stronger feelings on the subject.7 It
noted that a United Nations report blames advertising world-wide for "perpetrating the derogatory image of women as sex symbols and as an
inferior class of human being." Various groups,
such as the National Organization for Women,
have acted to identify and protest advertisements
which they consider insulting or degrading, and
have urged boycotts of those products or services
advertised. Further, Fram and DuBrin suggest that
women will avoid products that reinforce the
homemaker role and may boycott certain products
to lessen female-oriented and male-oriented distinctions. 8

View of Sex Portrayals

Beyond the content analysis studies of advertisements and the public statements of advocate
organizations, little empirical research has been
reported which examines the question of how the
consumer in general, and women consumers in
particular, view sex role portrayals in advertising.
A 1971 poll of Good Housekeeping magazine readers found that 40% of those women responding
felt that television commercials were "insulting to
women."9 Moreover, evidence referenced by the
N.A.R.B. panel suggests that women may vary
markedly in their attitudes toward their role portrayals.T10That report indicates that the women
who are the strongest critics are likely to be
younger, more highly educated, and more prone
to be opinion leaders.
Closely related to these characteristics is the
concept of a woman's own attitude toward her
role in society. For example, other research has
investigated the relationship of feminine role perception with role portrayal preferences and with
purchasing decisions. Wortzel and Frisbie researched the effect of orientation toward a woman's role on her preference for specific situa-

tional portrayals in advertising.1" They found

preference to be more strongly influenced by the
product function than by attitude. And Green
and Cunningham's study of family purchasing
decisions showed many purchase differences to
be influenced by the wife's attitude toward what
the appropriate role of women should be.12
Aside from the confidential studies referred
to by the N.A.R.B. report, little empirical evidence exists regarding consumer attitudes toward
role portrayal in advertising. Additionally, the effect of offensive role portrayals on future buying
behavior has received little attention. Given this
paucity of information, this exploratory research
study attempted to address the question of the
current status of consumers' attitudes toward sex
role portrayals in advertising and the effect of role
portrayal on company image and purchase intention for the offending companies. Specifically, the
following five research questions were examined:
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.

What are the attitudes of men and women

consumers toward sex role portrayals in advertising?
Are the attitudes of women consumers more
critical than those of men?
Does role portrayal affect how men and
women perceive the companies' view toward
discrimination and thus, a woman's place in
society?
Does offensive advertising affect buyer intentions for products of the offending company?
Among women, what personal and family
characteristics are related to their attitudinal
states concerning sex role portrayals?

Methodology
To determine the attitudes of men and women
consumers towards advertising role portrayals, a
sample of 800 persons was taken from the metropolitan Dallas and Denver markets. The list of
potential respondents was generated from a
cross-sectional sampling frame utilized in a previous research project. The list included an equal
number of female and male subjects and resulted
in mailings to 200 women and 200 men in each of
the two markets.
These persons were mailed an instrument
entitled, "Advertising Opinion Survey." The
questionnaire contained a series of 17 attitudinal
statements dealing with advertising role portrayals of women and men, the company image of
firms using sexual role portrayal practices, intentions to buy from the aforementioned firms, and
selected demographic characteristics. The items

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Sex Role Portrayals in Ads / 75

had seven-point

Likert-type scale responses with

Strongly Disagree and Strongly Agree as the scale

anchors. A Strongly Disagree response was given
the weight of 1 and Strongly Agree a weight of 7;
thus, a possible 1-to-7 range with 4 as the neutral

point.
From the mailing, 264 usable questionnaires
were returned, of which 150 came from women
and 114 from men. The rather large differential
between female and male respondents may be indicative of the higher interest level among women
concerning this subject. Also, the returns came
from persons who were generally younger, better
educated and from higher socio-economic status
than was generally found in these two cities. Although little differences existed in the demographic characteristics by metropolitan area, the response suggests that these upscale persons may
have higher awareness and greater involvement
with this topic. Given the lack of response from
lower scale individuals, the results are not readily
generalized to a larger population of adult women
and men. Considering the exploratory nature of
the research, this was not considered a serious
limiting factor.

Results
Comparison of Male and Female
Attitudes
The average scale scores for men and women respondents on the 17 attitude statements are
shown in Exhibit 1. An analysis of attitudes towards sex role portrayals shows that women generally hold more critical attitudes toward sexual
role portrayals than do men. Based on t-tests of
mean responses, attitudes of women were significantly different from those of men on six of
the twelve role portrayal statements.
Women, more than men, found advertising
to: (1) suggest that they don't do important
things; (2) portray women offensively; and, (3)
suggest that their place is in the home. Also,
women felt that they were more sensitive to their
role portrayals than they had been in the past. Of
interest, however, was that women were less
prone to agree that advertising shows men as they
really are, and less likely to agree that advertising
treats women as sex objects than were male respondents.
In examining the responses for males and
females in regard to company image and intention
to buy, significant differences appear only on attitudes toward company image. Women believed
that companies which portray women offensively

in their advertising are more prone to have discriminatory employment practices. In addition,
they believed that these role portrayals are
merely an extension of that company's view of
woman's societal role.
Though differences existed for company image, no significant differences were found between male and female intention to buy. These
findings suggest that even though advertisements
may be perceived as offensive to men and
women, both groups would still have a tendency
to continue purchasing the particular product.
This finding appears to be held more strongly in
regard to the offending firms' other products
and/or product lines.

The Women's Perspective

The attitudes of the women in this sample towards sex role portrayal were not overly critical.
Their attitudes could be described as moderate on
these issues with only a few statements eliciting
mean attitude scores outside the slightly agreeslightly disagree range. This can be attributed to
the wide variation in the responses given by the
women respondents. Exhibit 2 shows the percentage of women sampled who were in agreement
with the 17 attitude statements. It can be seen
that in only a few instances is there consistent
agreement (or disagreement). Moreover, comparison of women's mean response and percentage of
response indicates that for many of the attitude
items a good deal of polarization exists among
women. For example, Item 13 (Companies more
likely to discriminate) with about the same percentage of agreement, has a considerably higher
mean value than Item 4 (Women treated as sex
objects). The same is true for Items 10 (More sensitive to portrayal of women) and 15 (Might still
buy new product). Such polarization indicates
strength of conviction among women, most likely
among the more critical.
For those items that indicate some level of
consistency, women generally feel that neither
men nor women are portrayed accurately in advertising, that women are not shown in most of
their daily activities, and that the current portrayal of women is changing for the better. Even
though there was a significant difference between
men and women on the company image issue,
there was a wide dispersion within the women's
responses. However, they close ranks on the intention to purchase and maintain they would continue to purchase that particular product with
which an offensive ad was associated and believe
more strongly that they would continue purchas-

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

76 / Journal of Marketing, July 1977

EXHIBIT2
Women's Responses to Sex Role
Portrayal,Company Image &
Purchase Intentiona
%Agree

AbbreviatedStatement
1. Women shown as they reallyare

11.0%

2. Women as dependent

49.3

3. Men shown as they really are

14.7

4. Women treated as sex objects

41.9

5. Women shown in most of their activities

28.8

6. Women make importantdecisions

40.0

7. Men shown as they really are

34.7

8. Women don't do importantthings

49.3

9. Woman's place is in the home

52.7

10. More sensitive to portrayalof women

59.5

11. Find portrayalof women offensive

44.0

12. Portrayalof women changing for better

66.7

13. Companies more likelyto discriminate

42.7

14. Ads reflect company's view of women

51.4

15. Mightstill buy new product

58.9

16. Would discontinue using product

40.0

17. Would continue buying other products

77.0

a N = 143 to 150, due to missingvalues.

ing other company products of the offensive

sponsor.
To assess differences among women, respondents' attitudes toward role portrayals, company image and purchase intention were correlated with measures of various personal and family characteristics.13 These included measures of
age, family income, indices of educational level
and head of household occupational status, and a
measure of personal orientation with respect to
woman's role on a continuum of traditional to liberal.

The Strongest Critics

The results of this analysis, presented in Exhibit 3, suggest that the strongest critics of contemporary role portrayals are women from higher
income households, younger women, more highly
educated women, women whose personal role
orientations are less traditional and women from

higher occupational status households. Women

who agreed that they are portrayed as being fundamentally dependent on men (Item 2) and as not
doing important things (Item 8) tended to be
younger, come from higher income households and
have higher education. Likewise, women who
agreed that advertising shows women as making
important decisions (Item 6) tended to be older,
come from lower income households and have
lower education. Women who agreed that ads
imply that a woman's place is in the home were
young and better educated. In addition, more
highly educated women were more inclined to
agree that advertising treats women as sex objects
(Item 4). Feminine role perception and household
occupational status were also related to these attitudes but to a lesser extent than income, age and
education. Women who consider themselves less
traditional (more liberal) tended to agree that
women are shown in many daily activities (Item 5),
that advertising implies a woman's place is in the
home (Item 9), and disagree that women are shown
as making important decisions (Item 6). Women
from higher occupational status households tended
to disagree that women are shown as they really are
(Item 1) and that they are shown making important
decisions (Item 6).
Women who find the portrayal of women in
advertising most offensive (Item 11) tended to be
more highly educated, to come from higher income
households and, to a lesser extent, to be younger.
Women who claimed to have increased sensitivity
to female role portrayals also tended to be more
highly educated and somewhat younger. The relative absence of association with other personal and
household characteristics might imply that increased sensitivity to advertising's portrayal of
women is relatively uniform among women. Those
who disagreed that advertising's portrayal of
women is changing for the better (Item 17) tended
to be more highly educated and come from higher
income households, while those who agreed tended
to be less traditional (more liberal) women. This last
finding might imply an increased awareness and
appreciation of the changes that the advertising
community has made in recent years.
Older women, women from higher occupational status households and, to a lesser extent, less
traditional women were more likely to agree that
companies which portray women offensively are
also likely to discriminate in their employment
practices (Item 13). That younger women were more
likely to disagree may be an indication of younger
women being more conscious of actual corporate

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Sex Role Portrayals in Ads / 77

EXHIBIT3
Correlates of Women's Attitudes toward Female Role Portrayal in Advertising'
Personal and Household Characteristics
0.0

0Q

'

Statement

Statement

4'

Attitudes toward Role Portrayals

1. Women shown as they really are

-.111

.019

-.032

.059

-.200a
(lower)

.266a
(higher)

- .356 a
(younger)

a
.296
(more)

--.099
(less)

.097

-.130c
(younger)

.146b
(more)

--.077

5. Women shown in most of their

activities

-.229a
(lower)

.072

.019

6. Women make important decisions

.220a
(lower)

.277a
(older)

-.340a
(less)

.191b
(more)

.212a
(higher)

-.171b
(younger)

.226a
(more)

-.094

-.088

.036

-.436c
(younger)

.326a
(more)

-.242a
(less)

-.117c
(lower)

-.085

-.135c
(younger)

.231a
(more)

-.102
(less)

.074

11. Find portrayal of women offensive

.275a
(higher)

-.112c
(younger)

.185b
(more)

.015

12. Portrayal of women changing for

better

-.352a
(lower)

2. Women as dependent
4. Women treated as sex objects

8. Women don't do important things

9. Woman's place is in the home
10. More sensitive to portrayal of
women

-.076

-.176b
(less)

.031
-.006
-.155
(lower)
.013

-.022

-.162b
(less)

-.238a
(less)

.089

.202a
(older)

.078

-.132c
(less)

.174b
(higher)

.080

.001

-.238a
(less)

.120c
(higher)

.172b
(more)

.156b
(more)

.139c
(higher)

Effect on Company Image

13. Companies more likely to
discriminate
14. Ads reflect company's view of
women

-.023
.142b
(lower)

Effect on Purchase Intention

15. Might still buy new product

-.023

-.082

16. Would discontinue using product

-.203b
(lower)

.218a
(older)

.015

-.132c
(less)

.129c
(higher)

17. Would continue buying other

products

-.121c
(lower)

.150b
(older)

.064

-.063

-.076

1. N = 131 to 146 due to missing data

2. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (r)
3. Spearman's rank order correlation coefficients (r,): a. 99% significance level b. 95% significance level c. 90% significance level

practices, including
hiring and employment
affirmative action programs. The belief that a firm's
view of women's place in society is reflected in its
advertising (Item 14) followed a somewhat similar
pattern; those women more likely to agree were less
traditional but did not come from upper income
households.

With respect to purchase intent, more traditional, higher educated and, less significantly,
upper household status women were more likely to
agree that they might buy a new product with an
offensive advertising campaign (Item 15). Older
women and women from lower income households
were more prone to agree that they might discon-

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

78 / Journal of Marketing, July 1977

tinue use of a product because of advertising they
considered offensive (Item 16) but also appear more
likely to agree that they would also continue to
purchase other products from the firm (Item 17).

Conclusions & Implications

These results would lead the authors to conclude
that the role portrayal of women is a real problem
in that a sizable proportion of women appear critical. Indeed, many of those who are most critical
appear to be women who may be the most articulate and influential, younger, better educated,
upper status women who have rejected the values
and stereotypes of the more traditional role of the
woman's place in society. Clearly, as the relative
number of younger and better educated, career
oriented women enter the workplace, that level of
criticism will likely increase unless further positive steps are taken by advertisers. Encouraging is
the recognition, as found in this study, of the
changes which have already been made with respect to women in advertising.
To the degree that generalizations can be
made from the analysis of reported purchase intentions, the effect of dissatisfying role portrayals may
be both large and small. On one hand, considerable
proportions of those women surveyed indicated
that they would alter their behavior due to advertising which they considered offensive. But, these
women did not necessarily fit the profile of
strongest critics. Possibly some women who are
strong critics of sex role portrayals (e.g., better educated women) consider this just another of the annoying qualities of advertising and something
which is not sufficient cause to alter past purchasing behavior. In this light, the effect of the threat of
the ultimate weapon of consumer protest, a boycott
of a manufacturer or product by an advocacy group,
may not be potentially great.
Considering this empirical evidence and recognizing the increasing numbers of working
women, particularly in higher status jobs, and of
households headed by women, a number of implications for marketing and advertising management
are seen. One clear implication is that it is probably
no longer appropriate to think of women in general
or even women of the same age group as members
of one monolithic market segmentation target. With
differing values, lifestyles and role related aspirations among women, further refinement is necessary in order to communicate properly with appropriate market segments. More specific and detailed

targeting (e.g., career oriented, working women in

their 20's or 30's) will allow selective marketing
strategies, while products which might be purchased by a broad range of women might be advertised using a variety of lifestyle scenarios instead of
one which is stereotypically traditional.
Similarly, as the number of working women
increases and as the actual role of women in the
society changes, advertising which remains locked
to an older, more traditional image of women becomes less appropriate. Products and activities
which had been previously considered in the domain of "woman's work" may still be using advertising campaigns rooted in that belief. Interesting
examples of attempts by advertisers to break away
from these traditional stereotypes include the use of
dual roles, role switching, and role blending. The use
of dual roles portrays women in roles which are in
addition to a more traditional role in the home (e.g.,
mother/professional or wife/manager). Role switching may portray some purchase or use of the product by persons of the sex opposite that of the traditional stereotype (e.g., man cooking or doing laundry, woman changing the oil in the family car). Role
blending obscures the sexually stereotypic purchase
or uses roles with scenes in which no sex dominates
(e.g., man and woman shopping or joint decision
making activity).
Products which would have traditionally been
purchased by men alone are now increasingly
purchased by women who head their own households. In addition, as the role orientation of the
woman changes she is likely to exert increased
influence at every stage of the family decision process, even in families headed by men. Considering
these points, an increasing number of "masculine"
products (e.g., automobile tires and batteries) now
direct part of their promotion to women or include
women as an active part of the commercial message.
Finally, the benefits of products marketed to
women must be in alignment with what is really
considered important by them. As the actual role
of women in society changes the benefits they
demand and expect from products will also likely
change. For example, the relative importance of
the potential benefits of household use products
should certainly be affected by this change which
might imply a benefit oriented product positioning strategy. A working woman may be less interested in, for instance, a floorwax which offers a
bright shiny finish as much as one which offers a
long lasting, easy to apply finish which allows
more time to devote to herself or her family.

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Sex Role Portrayals in Ads / 79

7. "Advertising Portraying or Directed to Women,"
Advertising Age, April 21, 1975, pp. 72, 75, 78.
8. Eugene Fram and Andrew DuBrin, "Coping with
Women's Lib," Sales Management, Vol. 106 No. 13, pp.
20-21, 60.
9. Midge Kovacs, "Women Simply Don't Recognize
Themselves in Many Ads Today," Advertising Age, June
12, 1972, pg. 50.
10. Advertising Age, same as reference 7 above, pg. 75.
11. Lawrence H. Wortzel and John M. Frisbie, "Women's Role Portrayal Preferences in Advertisements: An
Empirical Study," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 4,
October 1974, pp. 41-46.
12. Robert T. Green and Isabella C. M. Cunningham,
"Feminine Role Perception and Family Purchasing Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 12, August
1975, pp. 325-32.
13. As measures of association, Pearson product moment
correlation coefficients (r) were computed between age,
income and traditionalism and the attitude scores. Spearman's rank order correlation coefficients (r) were computed for education and occupational status since they
were ordinally scaled.

ENDNOTES
1. Alice Courtney, and Sarah Wernick Lockeretz, "A
Woman's Place: An Analysis of Roles Portrayed by
Women in Magazine Advertisements," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, February 1971, pp. 92-95.
2. Louis Wagner and Janis B. Banos, "A Woman's
Place: A Follow-up Analysis of the Roles Portrayed by
Women in Magazine Advertisements," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10, May 1973, pp. 213-14.
3. Donald E. Sexton and Phyllis Haberman, "Women in
Magazine Advertisements," Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 14, August 1974, pp. 41-46.
4. M. Venkatesan and Jean Losco, "Women in Magazine Ads: 1959-71," Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 15, October 1975, pp. 49-54.
5. Ahmed Belkaoui and Janice Belkaoui, "A Comparative Analysis of the Roles Portrayed by Women in Print
Advertisements: 1958, 1970, 1972," Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 13, May 1976, pp. 168-72.
6. Joseph P. Dominick and Gail E. Rauch, "The Image
of Women in Network TV Commercials," Journal of
Broadcasting, Summer 1974, pp. 259-65.

Memo
Marketing
-

Mrs. Claypool:

Mr. Driftwood, I think we'd better keep everything

on a business basis.

Driftwood:

How do you like that? Everytime I get romantic with you,

you want to talk business. I don't know, there's something about me that brings out the business in every
woman.
From the MGM release, A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, @ 1935
by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation. Copyright renewed 1962 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:14:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions