Television's influence on American attitudes toward homosexuality

¶ … Rise of Homosexuality in Media and Its Social Effects

Gay and Lesbian Studies

This paper will look at the rise of homosexual portrayals in televised media, and whether or not the increase has helped inspire a greater social awareness and acceptance of homosexuality in America; one factor being that the stigma once associated with homosexuality has significantly lessened (Calzo, 2009). However, this paper will also look at how some research is biased towards heteronormativity (Lev, 2010) spurring media representations and viewer attitudes to maintain the sense that homosexuality is an aberrant behavior (Fisher, 2007). Included in these discussions will be the question of whether media portrayals are representative of homosexual culture or rather only homosexual stereotypes that serve to protract the heteronormativity bias -- and in some cases even encourage risky sexual behavior (Werner-Wilson, 2004). Television shows such as the L Word and Will & Grace provide context for both quantitative and qualitative research, while cultivation and social learning theories attempt to explain the attitudes of viewers. The conclusion of this paper is that the increase of homosexuality portrayed in American media has influenced a significant portion of American society to at least a level of indifference with regards to homosexual behavior as a norm (Bonds-Raacke, 2007), while heteronormativity still sets the standard in terms of relationships and child-rearing (Lev, 2010), for a portion of American society.

This survey, therefore, represents two conflicting points of media's influence upon societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Two recent episodes reported by journalists nationwide that exemplify the dichotomous nature of this study are: the Pentagon survey of 400,000 active and reserve military on attitudes regarding the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in which 70% of responders said they would have no problem with the repeal (O'Keefe, 2010); and the contrast to this poll, which is the protest by Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas to the homosexuality of fallen Marine Matthew Snyder outside his funeral. The Supreme Court ruling given in response to the protest states that "hurtful speech" is protected by the First Amendment, with Justice Samuel Alito, however, giving the dissenting opinion that the First Amendment does not have to tolerate a "vicious verbal assault" (AP, 2011). These two contradictory episodes in recent American history are indicative of the two diverging takes on homosexuality in modern America. While one culture is represented as being indifferent to homosexuality, another is viewed as considering it a gross and despicable behavior. The first question posed by various researchers is: Why do social groups have such attitudes? The first question posed by this paper is: How does televised media influence such groups?

Cultivation Theory and the Socialization Factor

As Jerel Calzo (2009) says, "Attitudes towards homosexuality have been shown to vary along different demographic dimensions such as gender or political orientation (e.g., Herek, 2002; Strand, 1998), but little is known about how these attitudes form." Calzo states that attitudes regarding homosexuality are learned through socialization, which can range from parents and friends to religious institutions. But the greatest contribution to the shaping of most Americans' attitudes towards homosexuality, according to Calzo, is none other than the American media. Indeed, Calzo argues that "media portrayals may be a primary source of information for the 40% of American adults who claim not to know a gay person personally."

Such at least serves as the thesis of Calzo's study. Employing cultivation theory, Calzo identifies media exposure as the cultivating factor of viewers' attitudes towards homosexuality. However, Calzo delves into a qualitative analysis of prime-time network programming to contend that homosexual portrayals, such as on Ellen or Will & Grace, stereotypically represent characters who lack "stable relationships…[are] laughable, one-dimensional figures…[and who] tend to be promiscuous, infected with HIV, or have unsatisfying sexual and romantic relationships." Calzo questions whether such representations can have a positive effect on viewers.

Before beginning such an analysis, one must regard the fact that most viewers' attitudes towards homosexuality have been formed by his or her own gender, ethnicity, and religion. The way Calzo tests for changes in attitude is by looking for signs of where diverging attitudes of separate social groups become similar. Claiming that most social groups will respond to material that reflects their own already formulated opinions -- Calzo explains that certain shows will resonate with certain groups. The method of analysis by which Calzo assesses the general usage of media is to tally the number of hours logged viewing television programs and other media, followed by the giving of a questionnaire concerning participants' attitudes towards homosexuality.

Calzo's finding is that media does have a mainstreaming effect on the general population, citing that women, whom Calzo assesses as most tolerant of homosexuality prior to media exposure, after media exposure become less tolerant; while men, whom Calzo assesses as least tolerant, following media exposure become more tolerant. Calzo explains the shift in attitude by referencing shows such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which present a homosexual group that "continuously pokes fun at the gay stereotypes they represent…revealing that gay men are not a threat to straight men or women."

Calzo's study begins by noting that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that direct contact with media representations of homosexual characters alters viewers' sentiments: "To date no studies have documented whether everyday media exposure is associated with attitudes toward homosexuality." But by employing cultivation theory, Calzo suggests that negative stereotypes will likely have a negative impact on society's view of homosexuality, while positive stereotypes are likely to form positive opinions.

Contextual Factors and Viewers' Attitudes

Roger Cooper and Tang (2009) assert that the problem with analyzing viewers' participation in the medium of television will always boil down to "epistemological and theoretical debates about whether potential viewers are 'active' or 'passive' in their decision to use the medium." Cooper and Tang's research is based on two methodologies: "uses and gratifications" and focus on "structural and contextual" factors. They contend that whereas some viewers actively seek content to watch whether on television or the Internet, other viewers are constrained by time and location to watching whatever programs are available. Thus, their thesis is that researchers cannot fully explain why some shows are watched rather than others. Therefore, Cooper and Tang inject the discussion of homosexual portrayals affecting audience's attitudes with a degree of uncertainty. How culpable is media in influencing what is watched and what is learned from watching by viewers who may be either active or passive in their deportment?

The question may be answered by Deborah Fisher et al. (2007) when she reports that according to social cognitive theory television offers a vicarious-type of existence for audiences, who have no real-life model for behaviors and beliefs. Citing a nearly twenty-year-old study which found one out of five teenagers identifying television as the major source of sexual information, Fisher inadvertently raises the question: how many teenagers rely on media for information now? Nonetheless, Fisher points out that "most lesbians and gay men grow up in a straight community with few gay role models; thus, they are particularly vulnerable to the portrayals of gay people in the mass media." What this means is that media such as television, Internet and film are almost certainly having an affect on viewer's attitudes regarding gender -- whether those viewers are "active" or "passive" as Cooper and Tang propose.

Content Analyses

While Fisher relies on content analyses to provide empirical data of homosexual activity on television, the results of her quantitative research suggest that substantial homosexual content is largely limited to films and television comedy genres, and is almost non-existent on prime-time television. Most examples of homosexuality occur on cable networks and premium channels. Such a point serves to raise the question: are cable networks and premium channels giving fair and realistic portrayals of homosexuality, or are they purveying stereotypes, with -- because they are not on prime-time -- more erotically-charged scenes to attract viewers? If so, how does this affect viewers' attitudes towards homosexuality?

According to Fisher, "television viewers may be more likely to believe that nonheterosexual behavior is extremely unusual or deviant…Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth still have few examples of nonheterosexual characters, especially if they do not have access to cable or satellite television." However, a study by Jennifer Bonds-Raacke suggests that perhaps such is not the case. Bonds-Raacke's (2007) survey of people asked to recall memorable homosexual characters from television "indicated that over two-thirds of heterosexual participants recalled either Ellen or Will, and evaluative ratings for these characters were generally positive." Further investigation by Bonds-Raacke led her to conclude that "those recalling a positive portrayal later showed a more positive attitude toward gay men than those recalling a negative portrayal, and women had a more positive attitude overall than men toward gay men and lesbians." As Bonds-Raacke observes, positively portrayed homosexuals do affect a viewer's attitude on homosexuality in a positive way.

Such an observation concurs with Calzo's, which is that positivity produces positivity -- even among groups of diverging opinions. Thus, social groups whose attitudes towards homosexuality differ are mainstreamed by popular media.

But what makes up a positive portrayal of homosexuality in the media? Ellen and Will are both examples from prime-time television, the kind described by Calzo as "laughable, one dimensional figures." Are such one dimensional representations of homosexuals capable of altering a public's perception of homosexuality in a positive way? If so, what is to be said of the erotically-charged representations shown by cable and premium networks, such as Showtime, which airs the L Word?

Sara Netzley (2010) conducted content analysis of 98 episodes of prime time television from 2005-2006. Her quantitative study found that "gay characters on television were more likely to be shown in sexual situations than straight characters, and women were more likely to be shown in same-sex sexual situations than men." The point is clear and has been understood and acknowledged by Hollywood since 1998's Wild Things and 1999's Cruel Intentions: sex sells, and same-sex sells even better. Netzley confirms that "gay characters were more likely to be depicted as sexually active on cable television." Such was not the case, however, in the 1970s, when sitcoms such as All in the Family provided laughs by bringing on a homosexual character and having Archie Bunker react with extreme discomfort -- but ultimately accepting the homosexual by the episode's conclusion. Episodes such as these served to represent homosexuals positively, but television series did not have homosexuals as recurring characters, for fear of alienating viewers whose attitudes were potentially less accepting of homosexuality than Bunker's. Traditional beliefs regarding homosexuality, whether religious or social, were still very much a part of the social fabric.

Evaluating Gender according to Heteronormativity

Lev's 2010 study "challenges family therapists to recognize the enormous societal pressure on LGBTQ parents to produce heterosexual, gender-normative children, and the expectations on their children, especially those questioning their own sex or gender identities." Lev relies on clinical theory to interpret the psychology of children under same-sex parents who seek family therapy and counseling.

Unlike Calzo, Lev maintains that gender identities are learned not primarily through the media, but through the family. At least, Lev states, families have the "lion's share" of the responsibility for forming cultural and social attitudes. However, because of the vast changes to family structures over the past decades, social attitudes towards new family structures, such as same-sex parent family structures, have been forced to undergo a transformation process as well. Still, heteronormativity maintains its place as the standard in gender models. To prove as much, Lev points to research that indicates "that children of lesbian parents express traditional gender roles and behaviors, and are almost always heterosexual."

Lev presents a study that examines same-sex parent family structures, while removing heterosexuality from its throne of normality; which in effect deconstructs ideas of traditional gender identities. Lev's purpose is to remove the bias of heteronormativity from gender research. The question Lev essentially proposes is: Why should LGBTQ couples be judged by whether or not they can raise heterosexual children? Is not such a judgment hypocritical by implying that heterosexuality is a norm superior to homosexuality?

The contention is one that may serve to alter the general public's attitude toward homosexuality. C. Lee Harrington (2003) explains that the daytime soap opera All My Children began addressing the same issue prior to 2000, when the first homosexual character was introduced to daytime television. The soap, which had hitherto based its romances on heterosexual love, attracted great attention when it challenged the heteronormativity of daytime soaps. Harrington's qualitative research, which included the analysis of eight months of All My Children episodes, phone interviews with thirteen "industry insiders," and the monitoring of various soap opera digests, found that the public was indeed receptive to the introduction of the homosexual character -- but that further inclusions of homosexual characters should be limited to a slow pace to keep from alienating viewers.

What Harrington's research shows is that Lev's theory of heteronormativity as a bias in media and research may be accurate, and it may take some time for such a bias to be removed from the public sphere.

But if Calzo's theory of cultivation is any measure, a slow and steady pace may be the best method for doing so.

Influencing Gender Norms in Adolescence

Ronald Werner-Wilson interviewed parents and children in urban and rural Michigan when conducting his 2004 study of the media influence on adolescent sexuality.

Like Calzo, who noted that youths overwhelmingly received the majority of their sexual information from the media, Werner-Wilson approaches the subject of media influence on adolescent sexuality by analyzing content such as Rolling Stone magazine and identifying cultivating factors such as the representation of ethnic and gender minorities.

Like Cooper and Tang, Werner-Wilson makes note of passive viewership. But Werner-Wilson suggests that passive viewership may have an effect on viewer perceptions. As Calzo and Lev argue, most perceptions of homosexuality are formed by family structures. Werner-Wilson's research confirms as much, and in fact agrees with Calzo's, which shows that the correlation between media representations and audience attitudes is inconclusive.

However, Werner-Wilson contends that while television may not affect an individual's own sexuality, it may actually influence how that individual understands the sexuality of others. Such a contention puts Werner-Wilson in league with Calzo, who identified 40% of the American population as gleaning its knowledge of homosexuality from media representations.

On the other hand, Enid Gruber and Joel Grube (2000) present a study that claims "adolescents may be particularly vulnerable" to sexual content in the media. Through survey, content analyses like that performed by Fisher, and correlational studies Werner-Wilson presents evidence that adolescents differ in their orientation to sexualized media according to gender. For example, adolescent girls more than adolescent boys choose television programs that offer sexual content and are more willing to watch such in the company of parents. Adolescent boys on the other hand gravitate to the kind of explicit content offered in music lyrics and hardcore pornographic films.

One point that Werner-Wilson (2004) makes is that "adolescents of both sexes who watch and listen to a lot of media are more likely to accept stereotypes of sex roles on television as realistic than are less frequent viewers." Such a finding reinforces the idea that media representations are substitutes for reality for adolescents who spend much of their time in association with those representations. Rather than spending time with real-life persons, such adolescents spend their time with characters such as the flamboyant Jack on Will & Grace. Jack becomes the example of homosexual behavior. Werner-Wilson makes no claim that Jack will be imitated by such adolescents, but he does assert that such adolescents may expect such behavior from homosexuals when they are met in real-life.

Such raises an interesting question: If stereotypical homosexual representations are held as a societal norm, will not homosexuals feel pressured to conform to them?

Werner-Wilson answers the question indirectly by referencing studies that reveal interesting characteristics about adolescent girls: they use media as learning tools for sexual behavior, especially when it comes to adopting the "right look" to attract boys or "how to behave in sexual situations." If media informs adolescent girls how to behave regarding boys, is not media predicating societal behavior and generating societal norms? Parents and religious institutions may lay a foundation when it comes to belief structures, but as Harrington suggests, such foundations may be gradually eroded by the kind of homosexual portrayals as seen on All My Children.

Gender norms, therefore, appear to be up in the air. With researchers like Lev, who suggests a re-evaluation of gender norms by advocating a decentralization of heteronormativity in research studies, pressure to form conclusions and model behavior on standardized sexual mores is likely to be less of a risk.

But the role of media is still ambiguous. Does media exercise a kind of parental authority that should shape the attitudes of viewers to conform to the viewpoint of Lev, which elevates homosexuality as a norm and lowers heterosexuality as a norm?

or does media exercise a more capitalistic approach to audiences, in which sex sells, and having a show in which numerous attractive women engage in sexual activities can quadruple a network's ratings?

The Role of Media from a Functionalist Perspective

Werner-Wilson (2004) provides evidence from a study of adolescent African-American girls, which finds "that teens with either multiple sexual partners or a history of sexually transmitted infections reported a higher rate of viewing television shows that depicted women as sexual objects or prizes." Such evidence suggests that excessive viewing of sexualized television content may be linked to risky sexual behavior.

Krauss explores such a suggestion when she notes a distinction in the advertising of the first season of the L Word and the second. The first displayed the female characters in a row, arms around one another. The women were dressed in denim or button-up shirts and had an androgynous look. The billboard that went up to advertise the second season showcased the female characters nude on a rug, their arms and legs strategically placed to keep censors from crying foul. Krauss then goes on to note that characters looked less like themselves and more like "runway models." Kraus is led to ask the question: "Are the creators [of the L Word] allowing capitalism to create a lesbian identity that is more pleasing to heteropatriarchy?"

Simply put, is a sexed-up lesbian show good for lesbians, or good for producers who know they can make money by selling advertising on a show that will attract the kind of men who made Wild Things a box office hit? Kraus contends that lesbian identity should receive more focus in the media. The L Word puts lesbians as a group in the spotlight, but represents them poorly: "Although we value the steps the L Word has taken to make lesbian lives the primary focus of a narrative, as scholars we are concerned with the interpersonal disconnectedness of the characters" (Lee, 2010).

According to the empirical research reviewed by Kristie Farrar (2006), "sexually risky behavior peaks not during adolescence but during the ages of 18 to 25," and college-age adults "are still forming their sexual scripts and thus are still vulnerable to media influence." Farrar's thesis for her own study is that viewers who watch televised media that shows characters engaging in safe sex will be more likely to engage in safe sex themselves; and viewers who watch shows were characters do not use condoms will be less likely to use them.

Farrar's method involved 188 undergraduate students (male and female), who were randomly assigned one of three television programs (which showed safe sex, unsafe sex, and no sex). Following each viewing a test questionnaire was answered. By factoring in demographics, personality variables, attitudes and sexual history, and applying multiple regression analyses, Farrar concluded that "sexual intercourse on television can influence college women's attitudes and scripts about safe sex."

Conclusion

The role of media in determining viewers' attitudes towards homosexuality tends to be ambiguous (Calzo, 2009). Media representations of homosexuals can range from the one-dimensional stereotypes of comedy genres to lesbian mainstream erotica (Bonds-Raacke, 2007; Lee, 2010). And while social attitudes are shaped by several factors, including parental control and religious affiliation, media does serve to reinforce expectations in adolescents as well as adults (Werner-Wilson, 2004). Divergent attitudes towards homosexuals are also being mainstreamed through viewing of homosexual representations on television (Calzo, 2009). Subtle changes to a cast of characters, such as on All My Children, is more effective at boosting tolerance of homosexuality than a sudden "outing," such as on Ellen (Harrington, 2003; Netzley, 2010b), and heteronormativity is a bias that continues in research (Lev, 2010).

While portrayals of homosexuality are on the rise in media, researchers are trying to gauge just what the effects on viewers will be. Considering that there is more to the social fabric of America than what is seen on television, it can be said that what is seen will not necessarily be imitated. However, studies show that females are likely to model sexual behavior according to what they view (Farrar, 2006), which can lead to risky sexual activity.

Reference List

Associated Press. (2011). High Court Rules Against Fallen Marine's Father in Funeral

Protest Suit. KWTX. Retrieved from http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/High_Court_Rules_Against_Fallen_Marines_Father_In_Funeral_Protest_Suit_117242333.html

Bonds-Raacke, J.M., et al. (2007). Remembering gay/lesbian media characters: can