Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 43–46 | Cite as

An exploratory study of the effect of sex role stereotyping on attitudes toward magazine advertisements

  • William E. Kilbourne


In this study, sex role portrayals were manipulated in an advertisement created for the study. The roles used were professional and housewife. One hundred one respondents chosen from several southwest towns were exposed to either the professional version of the ad or the housewife version, and were asked to evaluate the ad on a semantic differential scale. One of the items in the scale was an evaluation of the role of the individual in the ad, and was used in a manipulation check. The result of the ad evaluations indicated significantly higher scores for the professional version of the ad than for the housewife version.


Manipulation Check Mediational Role Brand Attitude Brand Choice Semantic Differential Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, Michael and G. Churchill. 1977. “The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations.”Journal of Marketing Research 14 (Nov.): 538–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Courtney, Alice and S. Lockeretz. 1971. “A Woman’s Place: An Analysis of the Roles Portrayed by Women in Magazine Advertisements.”Journal of Marketing Research 8 (Feb.): 92–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dominick, Joseph. 1979. “The Portrayal of Women in Prime Time: 1953–1977.”Sex Roles 5 (Aug.): 405–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dominick, Joseph and G. Rausch. 1972. “The Image of Women in Network T. V. Commercials.”Journal of Broadcasting 16 (Summer): 259–65.Google Scholar
  5. Duker, Jacob and L. Tucker. 1977. “Women’s Lib-ers Versus Independent Women: A Study of Preferences for Women’s Roles in Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 14 (Nov.): 469–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lundstrom, William and D. Sciglimpaglia. 1977. “Sex Role Portrayals in Advertising”.Journal of Marketing 41 (July): 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mitchell, Andrew and J. Olsen. 1981. “Are Product Attributes the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitudes?”Journal of Marketing Research 18 (Aug.): 318–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Peevers, Barbara. 1979. “Androgyny on the T.V. Screen? An Analysis of Sex Role Portrayals.”Sex Roles 5 (Dec.): 797–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rosen, Benson and T. Jerdee. 1974. “Influence of Sex Role Stereo-types on Personnel Decisions.”Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (Feb.): 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rossiter, John and L. Percy. 1978. “Visual Imaging Ability as a Mediator of Advertising Response.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Ed. Keith Hunt, 621–29. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  11. Schein, Virginia. 1973. “The Relationship Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Managerial Characteristics.”Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (Apr.): 95–100.Google Scholar
  12. Shimp, Terence. 1981. “Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice.”Journal of Advertising 10 (June): 9–15.Google Scholar
  13. Wagner, Louis and J. Banos. 1973. “A Woman’s Place: A Follow-Up Analysis of the Roles Portrayed by Women in Magazine Advertisements.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (May): 213–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Whipple, Thomas and A. Courtney. 1980. “How to Portray Women in T.V. Commercials.”Journal of Advertising Research 20 (Apr.): 53–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Kilbourne
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of Colorado at DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations