Racial and gender biases in magazine advertising, 1985-1994

¶ … advertisements are specifically designed to lure select audiences -- such as the use of Joe Camel to entice youth to smoke. The article "Racial and Gender Biases in Magazine Advertising" concerns a study that looked at whether or not this problem with stereotyped advertising has grown. Are the racial and gender biases in magazine advertisements increasing, and, if so, to what extent? To determine the answer, authors S. Plous and Dominque Nepture of Wesleyan University conducted content analyses of ten years of fashion advertisements geared toward white women, black females or white men. In total, 1000 ads were studied that ran in 1985 to 1994 publications. The researchers found a) except for black females in white women's magazines, African-Americans were underrepresented in white magazines; b) female body exposure was greater than male body exposure, and white female body exposure rose significantly during the ten years; c) white women were shown in low-status positions nearly twice as often as were other models; and d) black women wore the majority of animal prints, most of which were patterned after a predatory animal.

THOUGHTS ON ARTICLE

Such results as these by Plouse unfortunately substantiate the saying, "the more things change, the more they are the same," or even become worse. Despite the fact that the 1990s were supposed to promote women's equality among men, these advertisements show differently.

As the authors note, over 184 billion classified and 12 billion display ads bombard people of all ages and backgrounds in the United States every day. This is addition to billion advertisements in magazines and other periodicals, 2.6 billion commercials on the radio and another 330 commercials on television.

These advertisements act as a window, displaying societal values. At the same time, they promote these values to the most vulnerable audience -- the American youth. U.S. teenagers view about 350,000 TV commercials by the age of 18.

Although it is impossible to measure the exact impact these ads have on changing children and youth, several studies on gender stereotyping conclude that such ads significantly effect how people perceive and relate toward one another. Is it any surprise that many men still demean women, considering all the biased ads they see on a regular basis? The study by Rudman and Borgida compared members of a control group with male interviewers who had watched sexist television commercials. Those seeing the TV ads judged a female job applicant less competent, remembered less biographical information about her, and remembered more about her physical appearance.

According to a content analysis done by Courtney and Lockeretz in 1971, magazine advertisements reflected four biases about women: 1) "A woman's place is in the home," 2)"Women do not make important decisions or do important things,"

3) "Women are dependent and need men's protection," and 4) "Men regard women primarily as sex objects; they are not interested in women as people. Such findings are not too unusual for the 1970s, since this was only the beginning of the women's liberation movement. More disconcerting is the conclusion of present studies, which show that only one of these myths has since been eliminated -- the idea of women always being in the house, since large numbers are employed. Yet, despite that over 50% of women are in the job force, they are still seen as sex symbols.

Similarly, it is clear why ads in the late 1940s and early 1950s were biased against blacks: the black freedom movement was only in its infancy. But what about today's biased advertisements? Although African-Americans are not portrayed as much as servants and skilled laborers, they are stereotyped as athletes, entertainers and recipients of charity.

What the media says about promoting equality between the sexes and races, and what they print and air in advertisements and commercials are two different things. However, when held accountable for printing biased ads, the media blame it on the advertisers: "We only print what we are given." Such an evasion of responsibility indicates that the stereotyping in ads will not be ending any time too soon.

THOUGHTS ON ARTICLE

As noted in the study noted above, people are bombarded with billions of advertisements. At the same time, they also come in contact with billions of visuals. These not only include magazine articles, but also newspapers, billboards, educational and informational pieces and promotional items such as brochures and newsletters. Just ask anyone how much junk mail they receive daily. Marketing materials may look pretty with all their four-color photos, but there is often little substance around the visuals.

In some cases, the written and visual processes are complementary. For example, text about the different way people voted in an election is run with a graph that shows the specific numbers and how they correspond to one another. Because visual coding is global, notes Doumont, it can be superior for conveying information. Facial expressions in photos, for example, convey emotions much better than can be described. Maps of an area can provide detailed information much more readily than words of explanation.

However, visuals can frequently lack the clarity and accuracy of words. They can be ambiguous and mean different things depending on cultural backgrounds. In addition, people are not taught to actually know how to "read" visuals (except in school when learning about graphs and charts). Therefore, they often believe what they see. They forget that although the computer can do miraculous things, it can also deceive. A picture can show four individuals standing together in front of a building, when only two of them were actually there. The other two individuals were placed in electronically. In fact, when altered technically, a photograph can actually alter history. Who will know 100 years from now that a photograph of President Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler joking with each other was a reality created by a scanner and computer screen?

In these days with high costs and natural resources dwindling away, it is a total waste of money to have millions of visuals that are not needed or detracting from a message. As noted by this article's author, visuals should only be used at certain times. He says, for instance, that they should only be used when they can stand alone as effective illustrations that are truly visual, not verbal. In other words, since they do not rely on symbolic association, they can be interpreted correctly without the written verbal step.

Second, while all visual codings are ill-suited to expressing abstract concepts, drawings nevertheless do better than photographs (for example, the international symbols used in airports). They should therefore be preferred over photos when abstraction is trying to be achieved.

And third, effective documents use both verbal and nonverbal codings, not one or the other. Because they match distinct intellectual processes, the two codings ideally complement one another to provide an even richer vision.

In short, then, so much waste could be reduced and money and valuable resources saved if visuals were only primarily used to provide information, increase the effectiveness of abstract messages and complement the verbal. Can you imagine how many things would not be produced or printed if these three rules were mandatory?