Sociological Spectrum, 22: 299–334, 2002
Copyright # 2002 Taylor & Francis
0273-2173/02 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080/02732170290062658
SYMBOLIC REALITY BITES: WOMEN AND
RACIAL=ETHNIC MINORITIES IN MODERN FILM
SARAH ESCHHOLZ
Georgia State University, Department of Criminal Justice,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
JANA BUFKIN and JENNY LONG
Drury University, Behavioral Sciences Department,
Spring¢eld, Missouri, USA
Criticisms of mass media productions often include a discussion
of how women and minorities are systematicall y excluded and=or
relegated to minor roles, or roles that match traditional stereotypes. These types of portrayals are important factors in the social
construction of reality among the general public, and therefore
may perpetuate racism and sexism on a larger scale. Using a
content analysis of fifty popular films in 1996 the present study
explores the demographic composition of the leading actresses
and actors. The goal is to gauge the strength of female and minority
presence and to provide an assessment of character representations through an analysis of labor force participation , sex-roles of
occupation, prestige of occupation, and gender. Findings indicate
that although both women and minorities have made some advancement in their film portrayals, compared to earlier studies,
they still are under-represented in leading roles in Hollywood, and
their portrayals are often consistent with traditional stereotypes.
Received 22 October 2000; accepted 21 November 2001.
The authors thank Theresa Guillory and Matt Seaton of Video Works for videos,
Vertanuka Gaines and Brian Mumfrey for their assistance in coding the films in the project,
and Christine Gonzales and Kimberly Martin for their assistance in data collection. We also
thank the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped us to revise this piece.
Address correspondence to Sarah Eschholz, Georgia State University, Department of
Criminal Justice, PO Box 4018, Atlanta, GA 30302-4018. E-mail: [email protected]
299
300
S. Eschholz et al.
When the major television networks revealed their fall,
1999 program schedules, the NAACP was outraged by the
poverty of roles available to minority actors and the overall
omission of minority characters (News-Leader 2000). Similar
concerns have been voiced by researchers and critics examining representations of both women and racial=ethnic
minorities on television and in Žlm (e.g. Dale 1970 [1935];
Haskell 1979; Guerrero 1993; Graves 1996). This body of
evidence suggests it has been typical for the media to either
utilize stereotypes disparaging females and minorities and
thereby perpetuate myths concerning their existence or to
completely exclude them, implying that members of these
groups occupy no signiŽcant social space. These representations are generally considered important due to the role
they play in consumers’ social construction of reality (Gitlin
1986; Berger and Luckmann 1989; Hall 1997; Cavender and
Fishman 1998; Stevenson 1995). More speciŽcally, the
media’s practice of exclusion and stereotyping promotes a
common sense view of reality that is oppressive and exploitative of groups with less power in society (Gray 1989,
1995; Parenti 1992; Wallace 1992; Carragee 1993; Dates
and Barlow 1993; Lewis and Jhally 1995; McLean 1995;
Young 1996; Kitty and Swank 1997).
Unlike more traditional sociological theories whose primary goals are to describe and explain reality, the cultural
studies approach, and Marxist and feminist theories all advocate changing society based on empirical Žndings of inequality (Dines and Humez 1995; Messerschmidt 1993). To
borrow a phrase from Stuart Hall (1993), we are interested in
examining the ‘‘politics of representation.’’ Media consumers
inundated with unrealistic portrayals of females and minorities may be more likely to adopt cultural double standards
based on race and sex. Working within these frameworks,
the intent of this paper is not to serve as a call for censorship,
where mandatory quotas should be strictly enforced so that
the media represents reality, but as a tool for both researchers
and viewers alike to recognize and negotiate some dominant
themes encoded in most mass-produced media products,
including Žlm.
The present study explores the demographic composition
of the leading actors=actresses in the top 50 grossing Žlms in
1996 (see Appendix A) in an effort to gauge the strength of
Symbolic Reality Bites
301
female and minority presence and to provide an assessment
of character representations through an analysis of labor
force participation, sex-role of occupation, and gender.
WHY CONTENT MATTERS
Most viewers do not just consume the images and storylines in the media and walk away untouched. Although little
evidence exists demonstrating a direct connection between
the media and behavior, such as violence, contemporary
studies are Žnding that media messages inuence viewers’
perceptions of reality in a systematic manner (Signorielli
1989; Muts and Soss 1997; Berger 1998; Surrette 1999;
Chiricos, Padgett, and Gertz 2001). This evidence suggests
that media representations are incorporated into the knowledge base of audience members. If these representations are
biased toward a particular common set of social, gender or
class stereotypes, it is logical to suggest that these biases play
some role in the reinforcement of common stereotypes about
race, class and sex roles in our society. Furthermore, scholars
argue that capitalism (political power structure and division
of labor), patriarchy (dominant family structure), and white
dominance (racial=ethnic divisions) are reproduced in and
through characters, both Žctional and nonŽctional (Gerbner
and Gross 1976; Hall 1997; Meyers 1997).
Films are produced within a capitalist system that operates
on the principle of competition; therefore producers are motivated to make movies that sell. Under this premise audience
members, as consumers, constitute the driving force behind
what types of Žlms and representations are produced by the
media. Unfortunately, as ownership of major media outlets
are increasingly monopolized the assumption of open competition may be seriously threatened and the choices offered
to consumers may be illusory (Bagdikian 1997; Kellner
1995). Rarely in public discourse, particularly discourse
broadcast by the media, are the interests of the owners and
producers of mass media products examined. Despite the
superŽcial appearance of an open medium, media products
often contain ideological messages that reinforce the interests of the owners of capital. ‘‘Ideologies foster the suppression and repression of some interests, even as they give
expression to others’’ (Gouldner 1976:28). Finding diversity
302
S. Eschholz et al.
unfettered from the interests of mass production and mass
consumerism may be increasingly difŽcult for discerning
consumers.
There are three positions within the Želd of media studies
that attempt to explain how audience members receive
media messages and incorporate them into their worldview:
enculturation (Gerbner and Gross 1976), interpretive reception (Dahlgren 1988; Lindlof 1988; Jensen 1991) and mixed
models (Condit 1989; Carragee 1990). Each of these approaches assumes the media generate relatively uniform
(hegemonic) ideological messages, regardless of the particular medium or genre, but they differ in the level of conŽdence placed on viewers’ cognizance of media departures
from realistic presentations of the world. The least conŽdence is given to viewers in the enculturation model and
the most conŽdence is afforded viewers with the interpretive
reception approach, while advocates of the mixed model
suggest that those who are most disadvantaged educationally
and economically are least likely to recognize departures
from reality in the media. Despite these differences, both
communications theories and cultural studies research are
consistent in the contention that the media disproportionately project hegemonic snapshots that tend toward the
reproduction of hierarchical relations.
Proponents of these perspectives argue that divisions of
power in our society based on class, sex, gender, and race
are awarded prominence on television and in Žlms and that
these images impact audience members’ perceptions of the
world (although not necessarily uniformly). Put another way,
these theories assume a rather hegemonic ideological message is embedded in media representations. Enculturation
theory and the mixed model suggest that these representations perform a social control function by structuring audience members’ worldviews (Hedley 1994). Interpretive
reception research, on the other hand, posits that audience
members actively resist dominant media messages and may
develop resistive discourses (Dalhgren 1988; Lindlof 1988;
Carragee 1990). Similar positions have been offered in the
arena of feminist Žlm criticism (Haskell 1974; Doane 1987;
Dow 1996; Basinger 1993; Douglas 1995; Hollinger 1998;
Rich 1998) and cultural studies (Kellner 1995; Dines and
Humez 1995).
Symbolic Reality Bites
303
In light of societal changes made possible by the civil rights
and women’s rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s, such
as increased minority political participation, greater female
control over reproduction, and passage of legislation to
protect both groups from criminal victimization , it seems
logical that diversity in Žlms would follow. The present study
examines whether that logic is correct. SpeciŽcally, we propose to test whether the media constructs a reality reective
of women and minorities in America. Are Žlms cutting edge
representations of changes in our society or are they reections of the past, where both women and minorities were
presumed to be inferior, especially in terms of the labor
force? While we do not explore in detail the latent ideological content of individual Žlms, we use a manifest content
analysis of several Žlms to examine the overall sex, race and
gender stratiŽcation patterns in popular Žlm in 1996. We
analyze these works in order to assess whether thematic
depictions across this sample place images of minorities and
women in stereotypical positions in society. Attention is devoted to detecting patterns that may reinforce the status quo
and reproduce power hierarchies, or alternatively, the existence of patterns that are not consistent with the proposition
that most media messages present a similar worldview to the
disadvantage of women and minorities.
MEDIA STUDIES
We focus our literature review on depictions of women
and racial=ethnic minorities in Žlm and prime time television
programming because our data set is composed of popular
movies in 1996, many of which have been rebroadcast on
television in subsequent years. Extensive work exists in the
area of feminist Žlm criticism utilizing textual analysis and
exploring latent content. This body of literature examines a
relatively small number of Žlms or programs from a cultural
perspective (Haskell 1974; Doane 1987; Dow 1996; Hollinger 1998; Rich 1998; Basinger 1993). While valuable insights may be gained from these studies, we are interested in
studying the consistency of media portrayals across Žlms and
programs. Subsequently, we focus primarily on reviewing
quantitative systematic studies that utilize manifest content
analysis.
304
S. Eschholz et al.
Americans are avid media consumers, with the average
adult watching nearly four hours of television a day. This
translates into one-third of our leisure time being spent in
front of a television set (Statistical Abstracts 1997; Stossel 1997).
Approximately 22 billion Americans rent or buy movies each
year (Jeffrey 1997) and Box OfŽce Statistics (1997) reveal that
the top grossing Žlms garner millions in annual ticket sales.
Given the considerable time Americans devote to viewing
television and Žlm, and past research suggesting that these
outlets are inuential in reinforcing perceptions in our culture (Signorielli 1989; Muts and Soss 1997; Berger 1998;
Surrette 1999; Chiricos et al. 2001), it is important that the
images produced are continually scrutinized.
One reason movie images may be so powerful in American culture is the existence of a complex network of media
loops. Several different media loops are described by Manning (1996). While each operates uniquely, all involve the
recycling of media images in a new context where they are
reexperienced (also see Miller 1988). Of interest to our study
is the Žlm and prime time intramedia loop with images
sliding from the large screen to the small set and vice versa.
Since most of the Žlms in our analysis have since appeared
on television, we explore an important component of the
Žlm and prime time intramedia loop.
Representations and Starring Roles
Findings from works spanning over half a century indicate
that women and racial=ethnic minorities are disproportionately excluded from Žlms and prime time programming and play less signiŽcant roles than white males
when they do appear. This research suggests that women and
minorities are under-represented compared to their actual
presence in society and when portrayed they are cast in
stereotypical roles (Jones 1942; Smythe 1954; Clarke 1969;
Seggar, Hafen and Hannenen-Gladden 1981; Lichter, Lichter,
Rothman, and Amundson 1987; Vande Berg and Streckfuss
1992; Carson, Dittmar, and Welsch 1995; Douglas 1995;
Graves 1996; Rich 1998; Barner 1999; Elasmar, Hasegawa,
and Brain 1999; Signorielli and Bacue 1999). Women and
racial=ethnic minorities fare better in certain types of programming, such as comedies (Greenberg, Simmons, Hogan,
and Atkins 1980; Davis 1990; Matabane and Merritt 1996),
Symbolic Reality Bites
305
but members of these groups seldom have leading roles
(Dominick and Greenberg 1970; Dominick 1979; Maio
1991).
A review of 100 Žlms released from the 1940s through the
1980s demonstrates this same pattern (Bazzini, Mclntosh,
Smith, Cook, and Harris 1997). Sixty-four percent of the
central characters and 72 percent of the secondary characters were male. In a racial analysis of four weeks of prime
time television programs containing at least one black
character, Matabane and Merritt (1996) found that African
Americans were portrayed in major roles 23 percent of the
time. Sixty-Žve percent of all African American characters
appeared in programs with six or more blacks. This suggests
that African Americans receiving leading parts frequently star
in all-black programs=Žlms. Although it is the case that some
of the studies cited were conducted prior to the 1960s and
1970s, efforts made by females and minorities to enhance
their social position and integrate into the privileged world of
white males are not commonly reected in modern Žlms.
Character Age
Another variable noted in previous studies is character
age. Portrayals of young females to the near exclusion of
middle age and older women, reinforces what Naomi Wolf
(1991) has termed the ‘‘beauty myth,’’ or that females’ primary societal value is based on physical appearance and
youthful beauty. Male representations differ sharply in that
middle age and older characters are on the screen and they
are seasoned, career-oriented individuals who seem to get
wiser with age. In many cases (e.g., Paul Newman, Richard
Gear, Kevin Costner) men appear sexier to their audiences as
they mature. This is not solely a reection of the values of
Žlm directors and producers, but of American advertisers and
consumer stereotypes where female sexual attractiveness
peaks in the teens and twenties before women switch roles
and become mothers, whereas men age gracefully and
maintain both their intelligence and sexuality, even if they
become fathers or grandfathers (Wolf 1991; Faludi 1991;
Douglas 1995). Research also suggests a lack of serious,
goal-directed minority characterizations. In this case, the
double standard is not only related to unrealistic, hegemonic
beauty standards, but also intellectual capacity (Hall 1995;
306
S. Eschholz et al.
Rhodes 1993). SpeciŽcally, minorities on television and in
Žlm are often young, carefree comics, or criminals.
Evidence of these representations is abundant. For example, comparisons of women and men on the screen reveal
that women are usually 35 years of age or younger, while
their male counterparts are often older (Greenberg, et al.
1980; Davis 1990; Vernon, Williams, Phillips, and Wilson
1990; Bazzini et al. 1997; Elsamar et al. 1999; Signorielli
and Bacue 1999). Furthermore, Baptista-Fernandez and
Greenberg (1980) found that African American characters
were younger than their white counterparts. One study
concluded that 46 percent of black characters were 21 to 35
years old and another 29 percent were under age 20 (Matabane and Merritt 1996). Based on this evidence, results
from the 1977 U.S. Civil Rights Commission Report are still
valid: On television and in Žlms, white men tend to be older
and more mature, while females and minority males are
more likely to be younger and less mature.
Marital and Parental Status
For women on screen, the patriarchal family unit is frequently shown as the ideal. Evidence suggests that female
characters are more likely to be married and have children
than male characters (Tedesco 1974; Rosen 1973; Reep and
Dambrot 1987; Davis 1990; Matabane and Merritt 1996;
Signorielli 1989). Some evidence suggests that this relationship has weakened in recent years (Rothman, Powers, and
Rothman 1993; Elsamar et al. 1999). The underlying message
delivered from such presentations is that men have the
freedom to pursue challenges and attain goals separate from
the family, while women are expected to perform their roles
as wives and mothers despite their career aspirations. The
moral and ethical dilemmas for screen males and females are
largely matters of adhering to traditional sex and gender-role
expectations.
Sex Roles in the Labor Market and Occupational Prestige
Researchers have looked at characters’ employment status
since the 1960s. In a study of sex-roles on television, Deeur
(1964:65) concluded that ‘‘Over all, the world of work on
television is a man’s world.’’ Further examination reveals that
screen reality might be accurately called the white man’s
Symbolic Reality Bites
307
world, even into the 1970s when the impact of civil rights
efforts should have been observable (Clarke 1969; Roberts
1970=71; Long and Simon 1974; Northcutt, Seggar, and
Hinton 1975).
More recent accounts demonstrate some improvement in
women’s portrayals in terms of sex roles and occupational
prestige, although the occupational roles of women remain
considerably lower in quantity and prestige than those of
males (Japp 1991; Graham and Maschio 1995=96; Signorielli
1989; Signorielli and Bacue 1999). For example, Vande Berg
and Streckfuss (1992) found 67 percent of work-related activities were exhibited by male characters. Employment
sectors where female characters were frequently found included retail sales and service. There were no women in
industry and males tended to hold higher organizational
positions. Programs featuring females have made signiŽcant
improvements since the 1970s (Haskell 1979). When lead
characters are female, they are usually employed alongside a
male. These women are independent, respected, decision
makers, but romantic tension between these women and
their male counterparts is always integral to the story line
(Reep and Dambrot 1987). Although women have made
signiŽcant gains, the entertainment media continue to
‘‘present working women as lacking the competitively
achieved occupational hierarchical power and status of male
workers’’ (Vande Berg and Streckfuss 1992:205).
In a study of 100 Žlms released from 1946 to 1989,
Rothman et al. (1993) explore the changing role of women in
Žlm. Women consistently represent only 25 percent of all
characters in these Žlms. Despite being shown one-quarter as
often as men, the authors contest that since the feminist
movement of the 1960s women have been shown in dramatically different light than they were previously. Sixty-one
percent of females shown from 1976 to 1989 are employed
in nontraditional occupations (this variable is not operationalized in the text), a rate higher than actual labor-force
statistics. Additionally, modern women in the movies are
more likely than their predecessors to initiate sex, participate
in sex outside of marriage, be unmarried, and engage in
violent acts. This study contradicts most media studies’
claims of male domination in both the workplace and the
sexual arena.
308
S. Eschholz et al.
Minorities are rarely shown in positions of power in the
labor force on television. While this group is no longer solely
relegated to the domestic and service arenas and minority
characters are now portrayed in various employment roles, it
is still atypical for them to be part of the upper-class (Gray
1989; Jhally and Lewis 1992). Moreover, their jobs provide
few opportunities for decisionmaking or organizational
power and screen unemployment remains the domain of
minority groups, particularly African American females
(Matabane and Merritt 1996).
Gender
Barner (1999) examined behavior characteristics of characters in FCC mandated children’s educational television.
Male characters consistently displayed more masculine
traits, such as: activity, aggression, dominance, and autonomy. Female characters had higher scores than males in terms
of deference, dependence, and nurturance.
Several other works contain qualitative measures of characteristics commonly understood as masculine and feminine.
White men are more likely to use violence and aggression to
achieve their objectives, engage in problem solving, complete their tasks, even if it means breaking the rules, and act
goal oriented (Lemon 1977; Downs 1981; Vande Berg and
Streckfuss 1992; Sparks 1996; Cavender 1999). Minority
males are often cast in comedic roles seeking inadvertent
attention or as ruthless criminals (Hall 1995; Rhodes 1993).
They often speak in dialect, especially in programs featuring
all-minority casts. These characters have no serious concerns, such as jobs or families (Banks 1977; Baptista-Fernandez and Greenberg 1980; Bogle 1991; Bourgeois 1992;
Dates and Barlow 1993).
Like minority males, female characters are often stereotypically comic and rarely demonstrate power. Women tend
to be passive, sometimes emotional, rule-followers who are
preoccupied with pleasing men (Long and Simon 1974;
Downs 1981; Vernon et al. 1990). As Davis (1990:331)
notes, screen females have become ‘‘more ornamental than
functional’’ since the 1950s. Although research aimed at
examining gender is in the early stages of development, existing analyses suggest that white male characters are likely
to exhibit traits associated with ‘‘hegemonic masculinity’’
Symbolic Reality Bites
309
(see Connell 1995). Representations of females and minority
males reect traditional femininity and a subordinated masculinity, respectively.
This review suggests that white males dominate the images
presented on television and Žlm. Women and minority males
are often cast in stereotypical roles, which tend to delegitimize advancements in the workforce and the legal system.
Most of the research examined, with the exception of Rothman et al. (1993), Haskell (1979), Reep and Dambrot (1987),
and Signorielli and Bacue (1999), concludes that diverse,
nonhegemonic depictions of females and minority males are
generally not available to viewers in the Žlm=prime time
intramedia loop.
Our work assesses the pervasiveness of hegemonic patterns in top grossing Žlms in 1996. The study attempts to
replicate and expand upon past research exploring race, sex
and gender roles of characters in Žlm and on television. We
measure the prevalence of women and minorities in leading
roles in Žlm, the diversity of their employment experiences,
marital and parental statuses, age, and gender classiŽcations.
This is one of the few studies to systematically measure
patterned media images, including gender, in a large sample
of Žlms during a speciŽc time frame. Moreover, there are no
recent quantitative studies of Žlm that include measures of
labor force participation and occupational prestige.
Our sample consists of the 50 top grossing Žlms in 1996
(Box OfŽce Statistics 1997).1 Sampling Žlms in 1996 rather
than earlier movies with more complete gross information is
appropriate given our effort to examine representations of
females and minority males in the 1990s.
METHODS
Three individuals coded each of the 50 Žlms. Training for
each coder consisted of an introduction to the survey instrument, watching sample movies collectively, and discussing
1
While this limited time frame does not allow us to assess the overall film popularity
longitudinally, as measured by total film grosses, it does measure a film’s popularity in the
year in which it was released. Furthermore, it is possible that other less popular types of films
depict an entirely different picture. Our intention in this project is to measure the most
frequently watched films.
310
S. Eschholz et al.
the results. Training was conducted in the two weeks prior to
the beginning of the actual content analysis, which occurred
between September 1997 and January 1998. Each coder
watched the Žlms in a room by themselves and viewed each
Žlm in its entirety. The coders also utilized rewind on the
tapes to review anything they found difŽcult to code upon Žrst
exposure. The Žrst coder was a white female professional, the
second an African American female graduate student and the
third, a white male graduate student. A fourth coder reviewed
any movies in which there was signiŽcant variation among
coders.
Since we were concerned with depictions of human
characters, all animated Žlms and movies without human
leads were excluded from the analysis (n = 6). The 44 Žlms
examined include 15 dramas (34%), 14 comedies (32%), 12
action=adventure Žlms (27%), and 3 musicals, fantastic, and
horror Žlms (7%).
The unit of analysis for this study is lead characters. Coders
collected data on up to four actors receiving top billings in
the movies (as listed on the box cover of the video and in the
movie credits) for a total of 147 lead characters.2 The number
of characters was limited to four for two reasons: 1) to focus
on the most prominent depictions in Žlms and 2) time constraints in coding all characters. The majority of characters
were male (65%), white (80%), and age 40 or younger
(68%). Sex, race, and age were all operationalized based on
physical characteristics of the actor=actress and verbal cues
included in the Žlms. Of the 147 lead characters included in
the analysis, 76 were white males, 41 were white females,
19 were nonwhite males (18 African Americans and one
Hispanic), and 11 were non-white females (10 African
Americans and one Hispanic). If a character aged over the
course of the movie, age was scored for the time period that
was the primary focus of the movie. Because of difŽculty
assessing the exact age of individual characters age was
classiŽed in ten-year intervals. For example, in the movie
2
Lead characters are defined by movie producers and directors in their allocation of
credits for the movie. The four actors/actresses who received top billings in the movies credits
were included in this analysis. If a movie had less than four, all major characters were
included in the analysis.
Symbolic Reality Bites
311
Sleepers two of the main characters were shown both as
teenagers and as men in their thirties. They were coded in the
category 31–40 because the Žlm focused on this period of
their lives.
We measured employment status (employed=unemployed)3,
occupational prestige, and occupational sex-roles (see Appendix B). Occupational prestige was measured using 1980
U.S. Census Occupational Categories and the corresponding
NORC=GSS 1989 Occupational Prestige Score (Nakao and
Treas 1992). For each character that was employed or worked
as a homemaker, occupation was coded as male-dominated,
female dominated, or neither. An occupation was categorized
as male dominated if it was one of the top ten jobs held by
men in 1990 (Reskin and Padavic 1994) or if it was consistently
referred to as a male job in the literature (England and Farkas
1986; Gilbert 1993). The same procedure was used for categorizing female dominated occupations. For those occupations
where it was unclear whether men or women dominated the
Želd, a neutral category was created. This procedure is similar
to that used by Signorielli and Bacue (1999).
A prior study measuring gender using quantitative methods
(Barner, 1999) looked exclusively at individual character
traits and did not create indexes of masculinity and femininity. In an attempt to develop measures for feminine=
masculine character traits of Žlm characters, 24 personal
attribute items were taken from the Bem Sex Role Inventory
(Bem 1974) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire
(Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp 1974). Although individual
items were taken from these indexes we did not use these
speciŽc measures. While there has been much criticism
of both BEM and PAQ gender scales due to their reliance
on character traits rather than attitudes and the concept
of androgyny rather than multiple forms of masculinity
and femininity (Gill, Stockard, Johnson, and Williams 1987),
we selected items from these scales because they are measurable in a reliable manner, depend on character traits and
attributes rather than feelings, and because, using factor
3
Individuals who were either superheroes or employed by a higher power (i.e. Denzel
Washington who appeared as an angel in Preacher’s Wife) were coded as employed, and
students were coded as unemployed.
312
S. Eschholz et al.
analysis, multiple aspects of masculinity and femininity can
be explored. SpeciŽcally, gender measures are normally
based on self-reported characteristics, but given that this
study involved a content analysis of Žlms it was impossible to
measure a character’s attitude or perceptions. Alternative
measures such as gender-role ideology (Buhrke 1988; Doss
and Hopkins 1998; Fischer and Good 1998) and gender-role
attitude (McHugh and Frieze 1997) scales require asking
respondents about their feelings, which is impossible in a
Žlm study. Alternatively qualitative assessments of masculinity and femininity (Sparks 1996; Rhodes 1993) would be
extremely difŽcult to operationalize, and subject to reliability
issues based on the inuence of the coders own impressions
of masculinity and femininity. Instead coders relied on their
assessments of traits based on the behavior and appearance
of the Žlm characters, rather than their overall impression of
a character’s masculinity or femininity. Additionally, many of
the criticisms of both BEM and PAQ scales point out that
gender should not be measured as one scale (Gill et al.
1987). For this reason, rather than creating a continuum
where masculinity and femininity are included on the same
scale, we use factor analysis to explore the possibility of
distinct masculine and feminine variables. Coders in the
present study ranked each of the measures for each character
on a scale of one to 10, with 10 meaning that the character
strongly displays this characteristic and one signifying a
character that does not possess this quality. Due to the possibly subjective nature of this process, a cutoff point for inclusion in the analysis was established using a minimum
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefŽcient of 0.65. Sixteen of the
attributes demonstrated alpha levels above the cutoff point.
The average interrater reliability level for all 16 variables was
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72. This degree of interrater reliability
suggests that diverse coders (sex, race, and gender) can reliably measure this particular operationalization of gender.
We performed a conŽrmatory factor analysis to assess the
degree to which the attributes measured masculinity and
femininity, and sub-types of both. The results of the factor
analysis, using both a Varimax rotation (orthogonal rotation)
and a direct Oblimin rotation (oblique rotation) reveal that
the 16 attributes cluster around Žve gender factors: traditional masculine (competitive, athletic, strong, risk taking,
Symbolic Reality Bites
313
aggressive), intellectual masculine (achievement oriented,
intelligent, responsible), traditional feminine (domestic,
emotional, sensitive), romantic feminine (irtatious, romantic) and manipulative feminine (deceitful, untrustworthy,
manipulative). We were not surprised to Žnd more than one
distinctly masculine and feminine factor given that several
authors have explored underlying dimensions or types of
gender characteristics within masculinity and femininity
(Gill et al. 1987; Doss and Hopkins 1998) and others have
discussed multiple forms of gender (Messerschmidt 1993;
Connell 1995; Sparks 1996; Cavendar 1999). In general, the
masculine and feminine factors did not contradict past gender divisions found using both BEM and PAQ and other
gender measures. Based on the results of the conŽrmatory
factor analysis, we created average scores for the Žve dimensions of masculinity and femininity (alpha levels ranged
from Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77 for intellectual masculine to
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86 for traditional feminine).
While we present tables, relationships, and signiŽcance
tests in our results, it should be clear that because we are
studying the movies, which are not actual presentations,
these relationships are not causal. Character attributes, unlike our own attributes, are selected and constructed by
writers, producers, directors and actors. For example, Linda
Hamilton lost weight and trained hard to create a persona
that exuded traditional masculinity for her role in Terminator II.
RESULTS
Although both women and minorities have crossed many
traditional boundaries in the work force and in terms of social norms, the Hollywood Žlm industry is still owned and
run predominantly by white males. Looking at the production teams of the Žlms included in our study, 85 percent of
the writers, 93 percent of the directors, and 84 percent of the
producers were males. The media industry has become increasingly concentrated in the past 50 years. Ten parent
companies produced the 50 Žlms included in our analysis,
and over half (29) of these Žlms were produced by three
companies (Time Warner, Viacom, and News Corporation
Limited). Given both the corporate interests behind these
314
S. Eschholz et al.
Žlms and the predominance of male writers, directors, and
producers, we predict they will construct images of reality
that reect hegemonic ideology.
Representation in Leading Roles
Findings based on an examination of character sex suggest
that females are underrepresented in popular Žlm in 1996.
While we only considered characters in starring roles in this
study, results are consistent with past research in that white
males are on the screen more often than are either females or
minority males. This screen time represents a departure from
reality, where females comprised 51 percent of the population in the United States in 1990 (U.S. Census Bureau 1999).
Yet, women appear in only 35 percent of the leading roles
(males = 65%). Following an almost century long tradition,
modern Žlms continue to disproportionately feature males in
key roles.
Only 20 percent (n = 30) of the 147 lead characters in
1996 were African American or Hispanic.4 At Žrst glance,
this seems aligned with known population Žgures (U.S.
Census Bureau 1990), which estimates that most Americans
are white (83%). Further analysis, however, supports the
caveat noted in some earlier works: Characters from
racial=ethnic minority groups are most likely to appear in
programs featuring primarily nonwhite characters. Almost
half of the nonwhite lead characters in the current study were
found in Žlms consisting of mostly nonwhites. When the
Žlms starring only African American characters (n = 5) were
removed from the analysis, only 12% of all lead characters
were African Americans. Additionally, Hispanics, Native
Americans and Asians were almost entirely missing from the
1996 popular Žlm line-up.
Certain types of Žlms, such as action=adventure icks,
were more likely to over represent men in comparison to
women. In our 1996 sample of popular Žlms, men outnumber
4
Race was originally measured with several separate categories. Eighty percent of the
characters were white, 19 percent were African American, and the remaining 2 characters
were Hispanic. Because of the relative infrequency of races other than whites and African
Americans, race was collapsed and dichotomized into the categories white and nonwhite.
We refer to the nonwhite category as African American throughout the paper because of the
relative infrequency of other minority representation.
Symbolic Reality Bites
315
women three to one in action=adventure Žlms, two to one in
dramas and one and a half to one in comedies. Similarly,
whites outnumber nonwhite stars in all movie genres. The
difference is most notable in dramas, where whites play lead
roles nine times as often as nonwhites. In action=adventure
Žlms and comedies, whites outnumber nonwhites approximately three to one. Women and minorities are both underrepresented in the movies. This discrepancy is the largest
for women in action=adventure Žlms and for minorities in
dramas.
When sex, race and genre are explored at once, some
common stereotypes emerge. White males are over represented compared to the demographic composition of the
United States in all movie genres. Most nonwhite men in
leading roles appear in comedies (n = 8), followed by action=adventure (n = 5) and dramas (n = 4). Nonwhite leading
ladies are almost exclusively found in action=adventure Žlms
(n = 13). Generally speaking roles in drama allow more
character development. The fact that minorities are underrepresented in these types of Žlms is a continuation of the trend
noted in the literature review where minorities are generally
given less serious, more comedic, and more criminal roles
than their white counterparts (Hall 1995; Rhodes 1993).
Character Age
Both women and nonwhites are more frequently shown as
under age 30 than their male and white counterparts. Thirtythree percent of female characters were 30 years of age or
younger, compared to 13 percent of the male characters.
Furthermore, about 10 percent of male characters were 50
years of age or older, whereas women were rarely given
airtime at that age (4%). The observed relationship between a
character’s sex and the character’s age was statistically signiŽcant (X2 = 19.1, df = 5, p < 0.01). In comparison, U.S.
Census Bureau (1990) estimates that 23.7% of all men and
28.2% of all women living in the United States in 1995 were
over 50. Racial differences were also statistically signiŽcant.
Thirty-seven percent of nonwhite characters were 30 years
old or younger, while only 15 percent of white characters
were of this age (X2 = 11.8, df = 5, p < 0.05). Additionally,
approximately 10 percent of white characters were over 50
S. Eschholz et al.
316
years of age, but there were no African Americans who were
over 50 years old.
When both sex and race are controlled for in the analysis
(Table 1), we see a strong relationship between sex and race
for both whites and African Americans, but this difference is
larger among African Americans. African American females
in Žlm were under 30 in over two-thirds of their screen appearances in the most popular Žlms in 1996.
Marital and Parental Status
Neither a character’s sex nor race proved to be signiŽcantly associated with marital or parental status. No one
group (race or sex) was more likely to be shown having
children outside of marriage. The only signiŽcant Žnding in
terms of marital and parental status occurred when looking at
employment status. Of those characters that had children,
females were signiŽcantly less likely to be employed outside
the home than males (X2 = 5.9, df = 1, p < 0.02). These results indicate more women than men are tied to the institutions of marriage and family in Žlm. With few exceptions
(such as Mr. Mom and Mrs. DoubtŽre) and none in 1996,
males are not shown as stay-at-home fathers in the movies.
This Žnding represents a signiŽcant departure from past studies (Signorielli 1989; Tedesco 1974; Rosen 1973; Reep and
Dambrot 1987; Davis 1990; Matabane and Merritt 1996).
TABLE 1 Age by Sex and Race of Character
White
African American
Age
Male (%)
Female (%)
Male (%)
Female (%)
11–20 years old
21–30 years old
31–40 years old
41–50 years old
51 and over
Total
Column totals
4
6
46
32
12
100
(76)
2
22
49
22
5
100
(41)
10
11
63
16
0
100
(19)
0
64
36
0
0
100
(11)
X2 = 10.963, df = 5, p < .052.
X2 = 10.383 df = 3, p < .016.
Symbolic Reality Bites
317
Occupation
Table 2 displays the relationship between sex and race of
movie character and the employment status of the character.
Male Žlm characters are signiŽcantly more likely to be employed than their female counterparts. Approximately 93
percent of the male characters were employed compared to
75 percent of the female characters. In reality, both men and
women participate more in the workforce in Žlm than in
reality. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1995) estimates
that 75.0% of men and 58.9% of women were working
(deŽned as any civilian who worked for pay or proŽt during
the reference week used to compile statistics) in 1995.
There was not a signiŽcant relationship between employment status and race, a Žnding inconsistent with the
literature. Although it appears that African Americans are
employed more frequently, a qualitative review of the Žlms
in the sample reveals that several of the nonwhites coded as
employed were actually unemployed by the movie’s end. In
Set It Off, for example, the three African American female
lead characters were employed at the onset of the story and
at different points in the production, but all were unemployed as the credits rolled. In fact, after having been
unemployed for a portion of the Žlm, two of the three were
shot and killed and the survivor was a fugitive from the law.
This is in contrast to movies such as The First Wives’ Club,
where three white female leads gained prestige over the
course of the movie.
TABLE 2 Employment Status by Sex of Character and by Race of
Character
Sex of Character
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Column totals
Race of Character
Male (%)
Female (%)
White (%)
Non-White (%)
93
7
100
(95)
75
25
100
(52)
85
15
100
(117)
90
10
100
(30)
X2 = 8.88, df = 1, p < .003.
X2 = .417, df = 1, p < .519.
S. Eschholz et al.
318
When race is controlled for in the sex and employment
status equation, there was a signiŽcant relationship between
males and females for whites but not for African Americans.
African American males (90%) and females (91%) were
equally likely to be portrayed as employed. White female
characters were more frequently shown as unemployed than
their male counterparts, with 29 percent of all white females
depicted as unemployed. Often receiving Žnancial support
from white males in the movies, white females were shown
as having the choice of whether or not to work.
Table 3 compares character occupational prestige by race
and sex with comparable data from the General Social Survey for 1996. In both movies and reality in 1996, there were
no signiŽcant differences between males and females in
terms of occupational prestige. This Žnding suggests that
portrayals of women in Žlm do in some ways reect changes
in labor force participation and gains in occupational prestige made by women in the real world. African Americans in
the movies have much lower occupational prestige than their
white counterparts (X = 59.72 and X = 48.43, respectively).
While African Americans in 1996 also had lower occupational prestige in reality than whites, this difference is much
larger in the movies. These Žndings mirror work done by
Signorielli and Bacue (1999) that indicates women are receiving more respect in terms of occupational prestige in
media portrayals than in years past.
We next explored the traditional sex-roles of occupation
by character sex and race. As the Žndings in Table 4 suggest,
TABLE 3 Average Occupational Prestige Scores for Male and Female
Movie Characters and U.S. Residents (1996GSS Data)
Sex of Character
Movie
Character
1996 GSS
sig. t-test
Race of Character
Male
Female
sig. t-test
White
Non-White
sig. t-test
57.97
56.38
NO
59.72
48.43
YES
43.39
YES
43.05
YES
NO
43.92
YES
39.07
YES
YES
t-tests at p < .05.
Symbolic Reality Bites
319
TABLE 4 Traditional Sex-Role of Occupation by Sex and Race of
Character
Sex of Character
Traditional Sex-Role
Male-dominated
Female-dominated
Neutral
Unemployed*
Total
Race of Character
Male (%)
Female (%)
White (%)
Non-White (%)
83
2
12
3
100
(95)
37
46
17
0
100
(52)
67
17
14
2
100
(30)
63
20
10
7
100
(117)
X2 = 50.274, df = 3, p < .000.
X2 = 4.489, df = 3, p < .213.
* Unemployed does not include housewives who are included in femaledominated category.
a movie character’s sex is directly related to the character’s
occupation. A large majority of the male characters (83%)
were employed in male-dominated careers, while less than
half of the female characters (37%) were employed in such
careers. Furthermore, only two percent of all male characters
were employed in traditionally female-dominated occupations. This two percent represented all of two characters,
Albert: a drag queen in Bird Cage and Louis: a orist in Bed
of Roses. Both men and women were signiŽcantly more
likely to be cast in occupational roles that match the sex of
their character. When comparing these Žndings to Signorielli
and Bacue (1999) research on television in 1998, movies are
even more likely than television to sex-role stereotype both
male and female characters.
When race was included as a control variable in the sex
and traditional sex-role of occupation equation, the results
were consistent with the original equation in Table 4. Males,
regardless of their race, were signiŽcantly more likely to be
shown in male dominated occupations and females, both
white and African American, were more frequently shown in
female dominated occupations. The overall Žndings from this
section suggests that occupational space in the movies is
open to minorities and women, but closed to men who rarely
appear in female dominated occupations.
S. Eschholz et al.
320
Gender
Finally, we explored the gender portrayals of characters by
sex and by race. The attributes contained in each of these
dimensions, explained in the methods section, are shown in
Figure 1.
As expected, a t-test for equality of means (p < 0.05) revealed that male characters scored signiŽcantly higher than
female characters on traditional masculinity (X = 4.6 and
X = 3.7, respectively) and female characters scored signiŽcantly higher than their male counterparts on traditional
femininity (X = 5.1 and X = 3.2, respectively) and romantic
femininity (X = 3.3 and X = 2.3, respectively). A notable exception was Jerry, played by Tom Cruise, in Jerry Maguire
who scored well above the average on traditional masculinity, intellectual masculinity, traditional femininity, and romantic femininity. Several female characters, including
Renee (Renee Russo) in Tin Cup, Karen (Sally Fields) in an
Eye for an Eye, Tally (Michelle Pfeiffer) in Up Close and
Personal, Stoney (Jada Pinkett) in Set it Off, and Brandi (Lynn
WhitŽeld) in Thin Line Between Love and Hate, express both
high levels of masculinity and femininity. Often these characters crossed gender boundaries in response to a major life
event. For example Jerry (Jerry Maguire) became more sensitive when his career was on the line. Similarly, Karen’s (Eye
for an Eye) masculinity was expressed in response to the rape
of her daughter. Although it was not always the case that
characters abruptly shifted from exhibiting masculine traits to
feminine ones or vice versa, the tendency to compartmentalize aberrations was present in several Žlms.
Traditional
Masculine
Intellectual
Masculine
Traditional
Feminine
Romantic
Feminine
Manipulative
Feminine
Competitive
Athletic
Strong
Risk Taking
Aggressive
Achievemen t
Intelligent
Responsible
Domestic
Emotional
Sensitive
Flirtatious
Romantic
Deceitful
Untrustworthy
Manipulative
FIGURE 1 Gender Attributes Included in Masculinity & Femininity Scores
Symbolic Reality Bites
321
Male characters scored signiŽcantly higher than females
for manipulative femininity (X = 4.0 and X = 3.3, respectively) and there were no sex differences for intellectual
masculinity (male X = 6.0 and female X = 5.9). The fact that
men scored higher on the manipulative feminine scale may
be evidence that some feminine character traits (deceitfulness, untrustworthiness, and manipulation) are more acceptable for men than others. Men did not become more
feminine in the more positive areas of femininity (traditional
femininity and romantic femininity). There were no signiŽcant differences between whites and African Americans.
Mean gender scores by race and sex of characters were
calculated (see Table 5) and a t-test for equality of means was
performed. On the whole, gender scores broken down by
both race and sex mirror the previous sex divisions. A notable exception is that white males score signiŽcantly higher
than white females on manipulative femininity.
While t-tests do not detect statistical differences between
the portrayal of white males and African American males or
the portrayal of white females and African American females,
there are a couple of trends that can be observed. African
American males have higher traditional masculinity, while
white males have higher intellectual masculinity scores. Also,
white males score higher on manipulative femininity than
their African American male counterparts. White females
have higher traditional femininity scores, while African
American females have higher masculinity scores, both traditional and intellectual. Thus, we see a picture of a macho
black male emerging from movies. Films may stylize the ‘‘bad
ass’’ attitude (Katz 1988) for young males, particularly African
TABLE 5 Mean Gender Scores by Sex and Race of Character
Traditional Intellectual Traditional Romantic Manipulative
Masculine Masculine Feminine Feminine Feminine
White Males (76)
White Females (41)
A.A. Males (19)
A.A. Females (11)
4.5*
3.6
4.7
4.0
6.1
5.8
5.6
6.3
* t-test signiŽcant at p < .05 level.
3.1*
5.2
3.6*
4.6
2.3*
3.3
2.5
3.2
4.1*
3.2
3.2
3.4
322
S. Eschholz et al.
American males. Similarly, African American female characters, much like past relegation to either ‘‘mammy’’ or ‘‘Jezebel’’ roles (Rhodes 1993), are still found in highly
sexualized and masculine roles rather than occupying the
space of traditional femininity. Male characters model the
world view that the only feminine attributes worth adopting
are those commonly seen as negative, such as being deceitful.
Although roles for white women are expanding they are still
shown as the epitome of traditional femininity.
CONCLUSIONS
Our objective was to assess the degree to which women
and minorities are disproportionately represented in Žlm, to
further explore the qualitative manner in which different
characters are commonly presented in the movies, and to
assess the degree to which screen representations were more
diverse now than in years past. So what has changed? There
are now more African American actors and actresses in
major Žlms. Women and men are presently shown in roughly
equal numbers as spouses and parents. Women and men in
the movies currently have equal occupational prestige.
Contemporary Žlm women frequently express masculine as
well as feminine character traits. What has stayed the same?
Women are still dramatically underrepresented in leading
roles in Hollywood. Females and minorities are still signiŽcantly younger than white males. The occupational
prestige of African Americans is still lower than their white
counterparts. Male characters are still in a gender straitjacket, rarely expressing femininity. Traditional femininity
continues to be largely the domain of white females, and
rarely typiŽes African American females or males. Hispanics,
Asians, Native Americans, and other minorities are rarely
shown in leading roles in popular Žlm.
Hollywood is a white man’s world. The overwhelming
majority of directors, producers, and writers of popular Žlms
are men, and their Žlms generally, with some very notable
exceptions, represent a traditional social construction of the
world where capitalism, patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity are all represented as both the norm and the ideal.
Regarding female representation on the screen, our results
were consistent with a review of 100 Žlms released between
Symbolic Reality Bites
323
1946 and 1989 (Rothman et al. 1993) and other similar TV
studies (Greenberg et al. 1980; Davis 1990; Matabane and
Merritt 1996; Signorielli and Bacue 1999), with just under
two-thirds of the leading roles being Žlled by male actors.
African American representation in leading roles almost
matched current demographic data, but a closer look revealed that over half of the African Americans shown in such
roles were in movies where a large majority of the entire cast
was African American. This Žnding suggests that Žlms are
either primarily about white people or primarily about minority characters. Much like past efforts to raise the level of
female participation in the Žlm industry led to the development of the ‘‘chick ick’’ or movies for women, we now see
African American Žlms. While these Žlms represent a step
forward in representations of women and minorities, whitemale movies still predominate and are generally left uncriticized for their homogenized portrayals of power relations between the sexes and races.
Additionally, both minority and female representation in
leading roles uctuated signiŽcantly depending on the type
of movie. African American males were most frequently in
comedies, African American females were never found in
dramas and white females were more realistically represented in dramas than in action=adventure Žlms and comedies. White males were over represented in all genres, but
especially in action=adventure movies. This is a continuation
of the trend where minorities generally receive less serious
and more comedic roles than their white counterparts who
are more likely to appear in dramas or action=adventure
movies (Davis 1990; Matabane and Merritt 1996; Signorielli
1989).
Numerous differences in how male versus female and
white versus nonwhite characters are portrayed were found.
Females and minorities are shown in younger roles than their
male=white counterparts. There appears to be a double
standard where Hollywood men can age gracefully and still
maintain their acting status. Women and minorities, on the
other hand, age out of most roles available to them. These
types of portrayals continue the objectiŽcation of women
and minority celebrities. These types of portrayals reinforce
sexist stereotypes that base the value of women on their
sexual attractiveness at a young age.
324
S. Eschholz et al.
Unlike earlier works, which found that women were more
likely to be cast in roles as mothers and wives than males as
fathers and husbands (Reep and Dambrot 1987; Davis 1990;
Matabane and Merritt 1996), we found no signiŽcant differences between the sexes on these measures. However,
mothers were more frequently shown as unemployed housewives, while fathers were shown in the workforce. Thus,
while movies, to some degree, fall back on Victorian thinking, which suggests that males and females live in two different spheres, his being public, hers private, they are at least
moving in the direction of showing shared parental and
spousal roles, or if not shared, showing that women are
frequently Žlling both family and work roles.
In terms of employment and occupational prestige Žlmmakers have signiŽcantly progressed since the 1960s and
1970s. Women are still employed outside the home less than
their male counterparts, but this division mirrors actual labor
force participation rate differences. Women and men in Žlm
also now have equal occupational prestige scores. Unfortunately the same gains are not reected by minority appearance in Žlm. African Americans have signiŽcantly lower
occupational prestige scores in the movies than their white
counterparts and this gap is much larger in the movies than in
reality. Despite gains in occupational prestige for women, men
and women in Žlm tend to work in jobs that correspond to their
traditional sex-roles. This is especially true for men. This pattern was more prominent in the movies in 1996 than in TV in
1998 (Signorielli and Bacue 1999). This Žnding directly contradicts Rothman et al. (1993) results that indicate women in
Žlm are frequently shown in nontraditional occupations. This
discrepancy could be a result of methodological differences or
a backlash against advances made by feminists (Faludi 1991).
Finally, on average, male characters were more masculine
and female characters were more feminine. Females and males
did not differ signiŽcantly in 1996 on the measure of intellectual masculinity, suggesting that female roles may be
more diverse than in the past. Although men actually scored
higher than women on manipulative femininity, their scores
were still lower than their female counterparts in terms of romantic and traditional femininity. Male roles have not expanded to express the values of romantic and traditional
femininity. Instead, men in the movies, particularly African
Symbolic Reality Bites
325
American males, rely on traditional masculinity, often violently expressed. When femininity does appear in a male
character, he is usually white and the form of femininity is
manipulative, which may suggest to the audience that it is okay
for males to use manipulation and guileful lies to gain power.
As damaging as the gender straitjacket is to women, it is equally
restrictive for men. Messerschmidt (1993), Pollack (1998), and
others have argued that the tough-guy image of masculinity
may be part of the crime problem in the United States.
The major Žndings in the present analysis of popular Žlm
suggest that both minority and female representations, in
terms of actual numbers and character quality, fail to capture
the breadth of the real world experiences of women and
minorities. By in large, movies do indeed continue to offer
limited snapshots of minority and female reality and they
perpetuate many stereotypes which function to the detriment
of equality among sexes and races. Both in reality and in
the movies, minorities and women do not possess a social
foothold equivalent to whites and males. Change has been
slow, but there have been changes. Women and minorities
have diverse lives and contribute in unique ways to the reality
of American culture. Unfortunately, movies lag behind reality
in many ways and fail to depict this range of opportunities.
This leaves audience members with a highly skewed version
of reality that may impact attitudes in such a manner as to
negate hard-fought female and minority accomplishments.
This study clearly establishes that women and minorities
are still, as they have been in the past, relegated to lesser
roles in Žlm than their white male counterparts. This pattern
supports the contention that there is a subtle unity to most
media messages. This unity is not likely to improve given the
trends toward both globalization of the media market and
monopolization of the media, which results in a homogenization of media content (Bagdikian 1997; Miller 1997).
Not surprisingly media images are generally consistent
with traditional structural divisions of power in society
based on sex, race, and gender, and consistent with the
generally conservative interests of the owners of the media
outlets that produce and distribute popular Žlms in the
United States and the world. Audiences have an opportunity
to learn to recognize the uniformity of media representations
and underlying ideological messages and call for greater
326
S. Eschholz et al.
inclusion of minorities and women in Žlm to express the
diversity of their reality, because even multinational corporations rely on consumers to turn a proŽt. Movies and
other mediums covering more types of people, aspects of
their lives and generally prodding viewers’ imagination in
order to promote personal and social development in ways
that do not reify traditional stereotypes about race, sex, and
gender would be powerful educational and entertainment
tools. Meanwhile, future research should explore how audience members receive media portrayals. Understanding
the power of the media in the social construction of reality is
important, particularly when we have such a wealth of evidence describing how Žlms, television and other media
sources continue to somewhat rigidly deŽne roles and expectations for less powerful groups in society.
REFERENCES
Baptista-Fernandez , P. and B. Greenberg. 1980. ‘‘The Context, Characteristics,
and Communication Behaviors of Blacks on Television.’’ Pp. 13–21 in Life
on Television: Content Analysis of U.S. TV Drama, edited by B. Greenberg.
Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Bagdikian, B. 1997. The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press.
Banks, C. 1977. ‘‘A Content Analysis of the Treatment of Black Americans on
Television.’’ Social Education 41:336– 39.
Barner, M. 1999. ‘‘Sex-role Stereotyping in FCC-Mandated Children’s Educational
Television.’’ Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 43(4):551–64.
Basinger, J. 1993. A Woman’s View: How Hollywood Spoke to Women, 1930–
1960. New York: Knopf.
Bazzini, D., McIntosh,W., Smith, S., Cook, S., and Harris, C. (1997) ‘‘The Aging
Woman in Popular Film: Underrepresented, Unattractive, Unfriendly, and
Unintelligent.’’ Sex Roles 36:531– 43.
Bem, S. L. 1974. ‘‘The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny. ’’ Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42:378– 84.
Berger, C. 1998. ‘‘Processing Quantitative Data About Risk and Threat in News
Reports.’’ Journal of Communication 48(3):87–106.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York:
Anchor Books.
Bogle, D. 1991. Toms, Coons, Mulattos and Bucks: An Interpretative History of
Blacks in American Films. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
Bourgeois, H. 1992. Hollywood and the Civil Rights Movement: The Case of
Mississippi Burning. Howard Journal of Communication 4:157– 63.
Box OfŽce Statistics. 1997. Box OfŽce Statistics in Millions of U.S. Dollars as
Reported by Chuck Kahn ([email protected]). June 1997.
Symbolic Reality Bites
327
Buhrke, R. 1988. ‘‘Factor Dimensions Across Different Measures of Sex Role
Ideology. ’’ Sex Roles 18(5=6):309–20.
Carragee, K. 1990. ‘‘Interpretive Media Study and Interpretive Social Science. ’’
Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7(2):81–95.
———. 1993. ‘‘A Critical Evaluation of Debates Examining the Media Hegemony
Thesis.’’ Western Journal of Communication 57:330– 48.
Carson, D., Dittmar, L. and Welsch, J. 1995. Multiple Voices in Feminist Film
Criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cavendar, G. 1999. ‘‘Detecting Masculinity.’’ Pp. 157–75 in Making Trouble:
Cultural Constructions of Crime, Deviance, and Control, edited by Jeff Ferrell
and Neil Websdale. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Cavender, G. and Fishman, M. 1998. ‘‘Television Reality Crime Programs: Context and History.’’ Pp. 1– 18 in Entertaining Crime, edited by M. Fishman and
G. Cavender. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Chiricos, T., Padgett, K., and Gertz, M. 2001. ‘‘Fear, TV and the Reality of
Crime.’’ Criminology 38(3):755–86.
Clarke, C. 1969. ‘‘Television and Social Control: Some Observations on the
Portrayal of Ethnic Minorities.’’ Television Quarterly 8:18– 22.
Condit, C. 1989. ‘‘The Rhetorical Limits of Polysemy. ’’ Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 6:103– 22.
Connell, R. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dale, E. 1970[1935]. The Content of Motion Pictures. New York: MacMillan.
Dahlgren, P. 1988. ‘‘What’s the Meaning of This? Viewer’s Plural Sense-making of
TV News.’’ Media, Culture and Society 10:285–301.
Dates, J. and Barlow, W. 1993. Split Image: African Americans in the Mass
Media. Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press.
Davis, D. 1990. ‘‘Portrayals of Women in Prime-time Network Television: Some
Demographic Characteristics.’’ Sex Roles 23:325– 32.
DeFleur, M. 1964. ‘‘Occupational Roles as Portrayed on Television.’’ Public
Opinion Quarterly 28:57– 74.
Dines, G. and Humez, J. 1995. Gender, Race and Class in Media. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Doane, M. 1987. The Desire to Desire: The Woman’s Film of the 1940s. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Dominick, J. 1979. ‘‘The Portrayal of Women in Prime-time, 1953–1977.’’ Sex
Roles 6:405– 11.
Dominick, J. and Greenberg, B. 1970. ‘‘Three Seasons of Blacks on Television.’’
Journal of Advertising Research 10:21– 7.
Doss, B. and Hopkins, J. R. 1998. ‘‘The Multicultural Masculinity Ideology
Scale: Validation from Three Cultural Perspectives.’’ Sex Roles 38(9=10):719–
41.
Douglas, S. 1995. Where the Girls Are. New York: Times Books.
Dow, B. 1996. Prime-Time Feminism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
328
S. Eschholz et al.
Downs, A. 1981. ‘‘Sex-role Stereotyping on Prime-time Television.’’ Journal of
Genetic Psychology 138:253–58.
Elasmar, M., Hasegawa, K., and Brain, M. 1999. ‘‘The Portrayal of Women in
U.S. Prime-Time Television.’’ Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
44(1):20–34.
England, P. and Farkas, G. 1986. Households, Employment, and Gender: A
Social, Economic and Demographic View. New York: Aldine.
Faludi, S. 1991. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New
York: Anchor Books.
Fischer, A. and Good, G. 1998. ‘‘New Directions for the Study of Gender Role
Attitudes.’’ Psychology of Women Quarterly 22:371– 84.
Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. 1976. ‘‘Living with Television: The Violence ProŽle.’’
Journal of Communication 26:173– 99.
Gilbert, L. A. 1993. Two Careers=One Family. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gill, S., Stockard, J., Johnson, M., and Williams, S. 1987. ‘‘Measuring Gender
Differences: The Expressive Dimension and Critique of Androgyny Scales.’’ Sex
Roles 17(7=8):375–400.
Gitlin, T. 1986. Pp. 3– 8 in Watching Television: A Pantheon Guide to Popular
Culture, edited by Todd Gitlin. New York: Pantheon Books.
Graham, L. and Maschio, G. 1995–96. ‘‘A False Public Sentiment: Narrative and
Visual Images of Women Lawyers in Film.’’ Kentucky Law Journal 84:1027–
73.
Graves, S. 1996. ‘‘Diversity on Television.’’ Pp. 61–86 in Tuning in to Young
Viewers: Social Science Perspectives on Television, edited by T. MacBeth.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Gray, H. 1989. ‘‘Television, Black Americans and the American Dream.’’ Critical
Studies in Mass Communications 6:376– 86.
———. 1995. Watching Race: Television and the Struggle for ‘‘Blackness.’’
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Greenberg, B., Simmons, K., Hogan, L., and Atkins, C. 1980. ‘‘Three Seasons of
Television Characters: A Demographi c Analysis.’’ Journal of Broadcasting
24:49– 60.
Guerrero, E. 1993. Framing Blackness: The African American Image in Film.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Hall, S. 1980. ‘‘Encoding=Decoding. ’’ Pp. 128–38 in Culture, Media and Language, edited by Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies London: Hutchinson.
———. 1993. ‘‘What is ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture.’’ Social Justice 20:104–
14.
———. 1995. ‘‘The Whites of Their Eyes: Racist Ideologies and the Media.’’
Pp. 13–22 in Gender, Race and Class in Media, edited by G. Dines & J.
Humez . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
———. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.
London: Sage.
Haskell, D. 1979. ‘‘The Depiction of Women in Leading Roles in Prime-Time
Television.’’ Journal of Broadcasting 23:191– 96.
Symbolic Reality Bites
329
Haskell, M. 1974. From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the
Movies. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Hedley, M. 1994. ‘‘The Presentation of Gendered Conict in Popular Movies:
Affective Stereotypes, Cultural Sentiments, and Men’s Motivation.’’ Sex Roles
31:721– 40.
Hollinger, K. 1998. In the Company of Women. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Japp, P. 1991. ‘‘Gender and Work in the 1980s: Television’s Working Women as
Displaced Persons.’’ Women’s Studies in Communication 14:49– 74.
Jeffery, D. 1997. ‘‘Home Video Sell-through Numbers Up at Year’s End.’’ Billboard, 109:6.
Jenson, K. 1991. ‘‘When Is Meaning? Communication Theory, Pragmatism, and
Mass Media Reception. ’’ Communication Yearbook 14:3–32, Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.
Jhally, S. and Lewis, J. 1992. Enlightened Racism: The Cosby Show, Audiences and the Myth of the American Dream. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press.
Jones, D. 1942. ‘‘Quantitative Analysis of Motion Picture Content.‘‘ Public Opinion Quarterly 6:411– 28.
Katz, J. 1988. Seductions of Crime. United States: Basics Books.
Kellner, D. 1995. ‘‘Cultural Studies, Multiculturalism and Media Culture.’’ Pp. 5–
17 in Gender, Race and Class in Media, edited by G. Dines 2nd J. Humez.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kitty, K. and Swank, E. 1997. ‘‘Institutional Racism and Media Representations:
Depictions of Violent Criminals and Welfare Recipients.’’ Sociological Imagination 34:105– 28.
Lemon, J. 1977. ‘‘Women and Blacks on Prime–time Television.’’ Journal of
Communication 27:70– 9.
Lewis, J., and Jhally, S. 1995. ‘‘AfŽrming Inaction: Television and the New Politics
of Race. ’’ Pp. 133–141 in Marxism in the Postmodern Age: Confronting the
New World Order, edited by C. Callari, S. Cullenberg, and C. Biewener.
New York: Guilford Press.
Lichter, S., Lichter, L., Rothman, S., and Amundson, D. 1987. ‘‘Prime Time
Prejudice: Television’s Image of Blacks and Hispanics.’’ Public Opinion JulyAugust:13–16.
Lindlof, T. 1988. ‘‘Media Audiences as Interpretive Communities.’’ Communication Yearbook 11:81–107. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Long, M., and Simon, R. 1974. ‘‘The Roles and Statuses of Women on Children
and Family Television Programs.’’ Journalism Quarterly 51:107– 10.
Maio, K. 1991. Popcorn and Sexual Politics. Freedom, California: The Crossing
Press.
Manning, P. 1996. ‘‘Dramaturgy, Spectacles, and the Axial Media Event.’’ The
Sociological Quarterly 37:261– 78.
Matabane, P., and Meritt, B. 1996. ‘‘African Americans on Television: Twenty-Žve
Years After Kerner.’’ Howard Journal of Communication 7:329– 37.
330
S. Eschholz et al.
McHugh, M. and Frieze, I. 1997. ‘‘The Measurement of Gender-Role Attitudes.’’
Psychology of Women Quarterly 21:1– 16.
McLean, P. 1995. ‘‘Mass Communication, Popular Culture, and Racism.’’ Pp. 83–
114 in Racism and Anti-Racism in World Perspective, edited by B. Bowser.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Messerschmidt, J. 1993. Masculinities and Crime: Critiques and Reconceptuali zation of Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowan & LittleŽeld Publishers.
Meyers, M. 1997. News Coverage of Violence Against Women. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Miller, M. 1988. Boxed In. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Muts, D., and Soss, J. 1997. ‘‘Reading Public Opinion: The Inuence of News
Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly
61:431– 51.
Nakao, K. and Treas, J. 1992. ‘‘The 1989 Socioeconomi c Index of Occupations:
Construction from the 1989 Occupational Prestige Scores.’’ GSS Methodological Report No. 74. Chicago: NORC.
News-Leader 2000. Networks Work to Diversify Programs. May 26: 9B
Northcott, H., Seggar, J., and Hinton, J. 1975. ‘‘Trends in Television Portrayal of
Blacks and Women.’’ Journalism Quarterly 52:741– 4.
Parenti, M. 1992. Make Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Pollack, W. 1998. Real Boys. Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood.
New York: Owl Books.
Reep, D. & Dambrot, F. 1987. ‘‘Television’s Professional Women: Working with
Men in the 1980s.’’ Journalism Quarterly 64:376– 81.
Reskin, B. & Padavic, I. 1994. Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks: Pine
Forge Press.
Rhodes, J. 1993. ‘‘The Visibility of Race and Media History.’’ Critical Studies in
Mass Communication 20(2):184–90.
Rich, B. R. 1998. Chick FLICKS. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Roberts, C. 1970=71. ‘‘The Portrayal of Blacks on Network Television.’’ Journal of
Broadcasting 15:45– 53.
Rosen, M. 1973. Popcorn Venus. New York: Avon.
Rothman, S., Powers, S., and Rothman, D. 1993. ‘‘Feminism in Films.’’ Culture
and Society, 30:3(203):66–72.
Seggar, J., Hafen, J., and Hannenen-Gladden , H. 1981. ‘‘Television’s Portrayals of
Minorities and Women in Drama and Comedy Drama, 1971–1980.’’ Journal
of Broadcasting 25:277– 88.
Signorielli, N. 1989. ‘‘Television and Conceptions About Sex Roles: Maintaining
Conventionality and the Status quo.’’ Sex Roles 21(5=6):341– 60.
Signorielli, N., and Bacue, A. 1999. ‘‘Recognition and Respect: A Content Analysis of Prime-time Television Characters Across Three Decades. ’’ Sex Roles
40(7=8):527– 44.
Smythe, D. 1954. ‘‘Reality as Presented by Television.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly
18:143– 56.
Symbolic Reality Bites
331
Sparks, R. 1996. ‘‘Masculinity and Heroism in the Hollywood ‘‘Blockbuster. ’’
British Journal of Criminology 36:348– 60.
Spence, J., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. 1974. ‘‘The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A Measure of Sex-role Stereotypes and Masculinity-Femininity.’’
JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 4:43.
Statistical Abstracts of the United States. 1997. Washington DC: U.S. Bureau of
the Census.
Stevenson, N. 1995. Understanding media cultures: Social theory and mass
communication. London: Sage.
Stossel, S. 1997. ‘‘The Man Who Counts Killings.’’ The Atlantic. May:86–104.
Surrette, R. 1999. ‘‘Media Echoes: Systemic Effects of News Coverage. ’’ Justice
Quarterly 16(3):601–31.
Tedesco, N. 1974. ‘‘Patterns in Prime Time.’’ Journal of Communication
24:119– 24.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. Current Population Reports, P 25–917; and Population
Paper Listings 21 and 41.
———. 1999. Population Estimates Program, Population Division, Washington,
D.C. 20233.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1995. Employment and Earnings, Bulletin 2307.
Vande Berg, L., & Streckfuss, D. 1992. ‘‘Prime-time Television’s Portrayal of
Women and the World of Work: A Demographic ProŽle.’’ Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 72:195–208.
Vernon, J., Williams, J., Phillips, T., and Wilson, J. 1990. ‘‘Media Stereotyping: A
Comparison of the Way Elderly Women and Men are Portrayed on Prime Time
Television.’’ Journal of Women and Aging 2:55–68.
Wallace, M. 1992. ‘‘Modernism, Postmodernism and the Problem of the Visual in
Afro-American Culture.’’ Pp. 39–50 in Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures edited by R. Ferguson, M. Gover, T. Minh–ha and C.
West. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wolf, N. 1991. The Beauty Myth. New York: Doubleday.
Young, L. 1996. ‘‘The Rough Side of the Mountain: Black Women and Representation in Film.’’ Pp. 175–201 in Reconstructing Womanhood, Reconstructing Feminism: Writings on Black Women, edited by D. Jarrett–Macauley.
London: Routledge.
S. Eschholz et al.
332
APPENDIX A
Top Grossing Films in 1996 in the United States
RANK
$($)$*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
306.1
241.7
181.0
152.3
136.4
136.2
134.0
128.8
124.0
108.7
105.4
104.6
101.1
100.2
100.1
16
17
95.3
92.0
18
19
20
21
90.4
77.1
70.5
63.1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
60.6
60.2
58.9
58.6
56.7
56.1
53.9
53.3
53.1
51.3
51.1
33
34
35
36
50.0
49.1
48.1
46.3
FILM
RATING
Independence Day
Twister
Mission Impossible
Jerry Maguire
Ransom
101 Dalmatians
The Rock
The Nutty Professor
The Birdcage
A Time To Kill
First Wives Club
Phenomenon
Eraser
Scream
The Hunchback of
Notre Dame
Michael
Star Trek: First
Contact
Space Jam
The English Patient
Broken Arrow
Beavis and Butt-head
Do America
Jingle All the Way
The Cable Guy
Courage Under Fire
Jack
Executive Decision
Primal Fear
Tin Cup
Sleepers
Eye for an Eye
Dragonheart
Up Close and
Personal
Evita
Homeward Bound II
The Preacher’s Wife
Romeo and Juliet
PG
PG
PG
R
R
G
R
PG
R
R
PG
PG
R
R
G
13
13
13
13
PRODUCED BY
20th Century Fox= N.C.L.
Time Warner
Paramount=Viacom
TriStar=Sony
Touchstone=Hollywood
Walt Disney
Hollywood=Touchstone
Imagine Entertainment
United Artists=MGM
Time Warner
Paramount=Viacom
Touchstone=Hollywood
Time Warner
Woods=Miramax
Walt Disney
PG
PG 13
Turner=Time Warner
Paramount=Viacom
PG
R
R
PG 13
Time Warner
Miramax
20th Century Fox=N.C.L.
Paramount=Viacom
PG
PG
R
PG
R
R
R
R
R
PG
PG
13
13
20th Century Fox=N.C.L.
Columbia=Sony
20th Century Fox=N.C.L.
Time Warner
20th Century Fox=N.C.L.
Paramount=Viacom
Time Warner
Time Warner
Paramount=Viacom
Universal=Seagram
Touchstone=Hollywood
PG
G
PG
PG 13
Hollywood=Touchstone
Walt Disney
Touchstone=Hollywood
20th Century Fox=N.C.L.
13
13
Symbolic Reality Bites
333
APPENDIX A (Continued)
RANK
$ ($) $*
37
38
39
46.1
44.8
41.3
40
39.3
41
42
38.6
38.6
43
44
45
46
47
37.9
37.8
36.0
35.8
34.7
48
34.1
49
33.6
50
33.4
FILM
RATING
PRODUCED BY
One Fine Day
The Juror
The Mirror Has Two
Faces
Don’t Be a Menace in
South Central
Happy Gilmore
The Ghost and the
Darkness
Bed of Roses
Mars Attacks
Set If Off
Shine
A Thin Line Between
Love and Hate
The Truth About Cats
and Dogs
The Muppet Treasure
Island
The Long Kiss
Goodnight
PG
R
PG 13
20th Century Fox=N.C.L
Columbia=Sony
TriStar=Sony
R
Miramax
PG 13
R
Universal=Seagram
Paramount=Viacom
PG
PG 13
R
PG 13
R
New Line=Time Warner
Time Warner
New Line=Time Warner
Fine Line=Time Warner
New Line=Savoy=T.W.
PG 13
20th Century Fox=N.C.L.
G
Walt Disney
R
New Line=Time Warner
* Dollars include domestic grosses as of June 1997.
Source: Box-OfŽce Statistics in Millions of U.S. Dollars: June 8, 1997.
334
S. Eschholz et al.
APPENDIX B
Occupations (1980 Census Code=1989 Prestige Score)
Male Dominated
Military Pilot (226=61)
President of the U.S. (004/70)
Engineer=Scientist (048=73)
Spy=Undercover Agent (418=60)
Professional Football Player (199=65)
Accountant (023=65)
Sports Agent (013=59)
Airline Owner (004=70)
College Professor (115=74)
Military Personnel=Knight (431=49)
Businessman (019=51)
College Administrator (004=70)
Nightclub Owner, Bartender (434=25)
Senator (003=61)
Lumberyard Worker (869=36)
Attorney (178=75)
Judge (187 =71)
Corporate Executive(004=70)
Auto Mechanic (505=40)
Furniture Maker (657=44)
Farmer (473=40)
Law Enforcement Officer (423=48)
Computer Analyst (064=74)
Storm Chaser, Meteorologist (074=63)
Innkeeper (317=32)
Archaeologist (075=70)
Postal Worker (355=47)
Cable Electrician (575=51)
Architect (043=73)
Photographe r (189=45)
Astronomer (128=74)
Professional Golfer (199=65)
Correctional Officer (424=40)
Priest=Minister (176=69)
Museum Director (004=70)
Delivery Person (806=24)
Contractor (558=54)
King (004=70)
Television Producer (187=58)
Real Estate Agent (254=49)
Construction Worker (599=36)
Investment Broker (007=59)
Veterinarian (086=62)
Cook (436=31)
Computer Systems Analyst (064=74)
Hunter (499=23)
Female Dominated
School Teacher (157=66)
Interior Decorator (185=47)
Dancer (193=53)
Therapist (105=62)
Nurse (095=66)
Flight Attendant (465=42)
Sculptor (188=52)
Artist (194=36)
Florist (474=37)
Maid (449=20)
Model ((283=32)
Homemaker=Housewife
First Lady
Neutral Occupations
Sales Person (275=34)
Graduate Assistant
Law Student
Actress=Actor (187=58)
Student
Reporter=Journalist (195=60)
Pianist (186=47)