The Journal o] Social Psychology,
THE
CATHARTIC
VALUE
OF
1975, 97, 195-208.
SELF-EXPRESSION:
TESTING,
CATHARSIS,
DISSONANCE,
INTERFERENCE
EXPLANATIONS*
University
AND
12
o] Cali]ornia, San Diego
ROBERT
M. KAPLAN
SU/_MAR¥
The effectsof anger arousal,type of expression,and communication
destiny on anger and aggressive drive are examined. One hundred ten
students were exposed to an insultingor a noninsultingcommunication.
Subjects
replied
to the communication
by supporting
it, opposing
it, or
taking a neutral position.
Some were told that their replies would be read
by the person who had written the communication
(target),
and others
that their responses would not be shown to the target. Results show that
anger arousal produced more hostility than the nonarousal and that anger
arousal interacted
with type of expression.
Angry
subjects
who had expressed their feelings became more hostile than subjects who had expressed
the opposite of their feelings. Angry subjects who had taken a neutral
position, however, were lowest in hostility.
Experimental
effects attributable
to other variables were nonsignificant.
The results are interpreted
in terms
of a cognitive interference
hypothesis.
A.
INTRODUCTION
A notion widely accepted
by psychologists,
is that the expression of aggression,
hostility,
psychiatrists,
and lay people
or rage reduces the consequent
probability
of the occurrence
of aggressive
behavior
(5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19,
28, 29). Such changes in aggressive
behavior
or affect are usually labeled
"catharsis"
or a "cathartic
effect."
Many
psychologists
do not accept
the existence
of catharsis
and, in fact,
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on May 22, 1974.
Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press.
1 Some of the data presented herein also appeared in a doctoral dissertation presented
to the University of California, Riverside by the author. The helpful comments of Robert
D. Singer, Roy D. Goldman, and Arthur Bohart on an earlier draft of this paper are
gratefully acknowledged.
2 Requests for reprints should be addressed to the author at the address shown at the
end of this article.
195
196
JOURNAL OF SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY
feel that the expression of aggression, anger, or hostility leads to increases
rather than decreases in aggression (2, 21, 26). One theoretical explanation
of such views fits within the framework of the theory of cognitive dissonance
(13). Expressing hostility toward someone would be dissonant with any Cognitions that the target may be a good or reasonable person or with the aggressor's view of himself as a peaceful or friendly individual. In order to-reduce
the dissonance resulting froman attack and to justify the attack on him
it may be necessary to denigrate the target of aggression. Evidence tends to
show that disliked persons or groups are highly likely targets for aggressive
behavior. Once denigrated, a person or group is more likely to be attacked
than before. Aronson (2, p. 157) sums up the dissonance view suggesting
that, "Violence does not reduce the tendency toward violence: violence
breeds more violence."
Another possible interpretation
of the
is that conditions that force subjects to
tenance of high anger levels. According to
may only serve to alert the subject about
sion of anger by angry persons may result
catharsis and aggression literature
focus on anger enhance the mainthis viewpoint, symbolic expression
his own hostility level. The expresin maintenance of aggressive drive.
However, conditions which produce cognitive interference
event would permit anger to dissipate.
with an annoying
Experimental studies have often served to confuse rather than clarify this
difference in theoretical outlook because researchers have allowed considerable
variability in methods of anger arousal, modes of aggressive expression, and
choice of dependent measures.
For the purposes of this discussion, aggression refers to behavior which is
designed to result in harm to some person or his property (14); anger connotes an emotional state with autonomic correlates which can serve to energize aggressive behavior. The terms hostility and aggressive drive are used
interchangeably and refer to a negative attitude or feeling of ill will about
people or events (6). In addition to these commonly used labels, the term
hostile behavior is used to connote a composite of hostility and aggression;
it refers to the behavioral component of hostile attitudes.
An experiment which considers anger (an emotional state), aggressive
drive (an attitudinal state), and hostile behavior (a form of aggression) has
been undertaken to clarify the role of self-expression in the reduction of anger
and aggressive drive. Some of the variables manipulated in the experiment
include (a) anger arousal; (b) type of expression; and (c) communication
destination.
ROBERT_. KAPLAN
I.
197
Anger Arousal
The anger arousal phase in catharsis experimentation is of major theoretical and methodological import. Several literature reviewers (e.g., 6) have
suggested that the presence or absence of anger arousal may account for some
of the discrepant results in catharsis research. Buss (6) contends that expressing aggression will produce a cathartic effect for angry subjects. If
subjects are not angry, expression of aggression may teach them to behave
aggressively on subsequent occasions, thus producing an increment due to
learning.
2.
Different
tility could be reduced
t
Type ol Expression
theories would make different recommendations
in angry subjects.
Catharsis
about how hos-
theories
predict
that
honest,
direct expressionsrolewould
most reduce
effective.
holds
that counterattitudinal
play bewould
the Dissonance
most anger.theory
The interference viewpoint maintains that any type of expression which interferes
with anger related cognitions will reduce hostility.
3.
Message Destination
Berkowitz (4, 5) among others (3, 10, 18) maintains that the occurrence
of a cathartic effect depends upon the degree to which the subject believes
his hostile behaviors will affect the person toward whom they are directed.
Thus, the destination of a message may be a crucial variable in catharsis
research.
Data on communication destination may be relevant to Collins' revision
of dissonance theory. Collins (7) and Hoyt, Henley, and Collins (20) have
proposed that an individual will only experience dissonance when aversive
consequences to himself or others result from his attitudinal or counterattitudinal expression. Thus they predict that the dissonance effect will occur
when a self-expression is presumed to reach its destination and to have a
noxious effect.
4.
Summary
o] Theoretical
Predictions
In the present experiment 55 subjects read an insulting communication
and 55 subjects saw a noninsulting communication. All subjects replied to
the communication, either supporting it, opposing it, or taking a neutral
position. Some subjects were lead to believe their replies would be shown to
the person who had written the communication (target), while other subjects were told their replies would not reach their target.
198
JOURNAL
OF
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Several theoriespredict differentoutcomes for the experiment. For angry
subjects, the catharsis and the learning viewpoints predict that direct attitudinal expression will be the most effective treatment for reducing aggressive
drive. The dissonance position predicts that counterattitudinal
expression
will be the most effective means of reducing hostility and that direct expression will be the least effective treatment. The learning and dissonance positions both predict an increment in hostility for nonangry counterexpression
subjects. The catharsis viewpoint does not make this prediction.
The interference position predicts that neutral activity will lead to more
hostility reduction than counterattitudinal
expression, since the latter would
also draw some attention to the anger arousing incident. For nonangry subjects, counterattitudinal
expression should serve to increase self-perceptions
of hostility. Direct attitudinal expression and neutral activities could be
expected to have little effect.
]_.
METHOD
1.
Subjects
The subjects were 50 male and 60 female introductory psychology students
who were enrolled at San Bernardino Valley College, a California community
college with students from a variety of ethnic and social class backgrounds.
2.
Independent
Variables
The experiment was purported to be on communication. The experimenter,
who was introduced as an assistant to a researcher interested in the scientific
study of journalism, explained that the exercise involved reading and responding to letters to the editor. The experiment included several phases:
a. Anger Arousal. Anger was aroused in half of the subjects, and not
aroused in the remaining half. This was achieved by allowing subjects to
read a letter to the editor which they were told had recently been printed in
a large newspaper. The letter concerned a proposition on the California
ballot which would provide for funding of California Community Colleges,
an issue known to be of interest to the students. For the Anger Arousal
condition, the letter urged a vote against the proposition. In the argument,
the letter writer made several degrading remarks about community college
students. He claimed they were stupid, irresponsible, and not worthy of free
education. The letter for Non-Anger Arousal condition favored the proposition, adapting arguments from the campaign literature to emphasize the need
for additional support for community colleges and to focus on the need for
expanded funding of these institutions.
I_OBERT
M. _APLAN
b.
Expression
Type Manipulation.
199
All subjects in the Direct and Coun-
terexpression groups were asked to reply to the letter they had read in the
manner specified by the instructions. There were three versions of instructions for the reply: F0rty-four subjects were instructed to reply to the letter
supporting the position taken by the letter writer. Angry subjects receiving
this instruction were classified as the Counterexpression
group. Nonangry
subjects assigned to this task were classified as the Direct-expression group.
Another 44 subjects received a similar instruction asking them to oppose the
position taken by the letter writer and to attack the man and his ideas in
the reply. These subjects represented the Angry Direct-expression group and
the Not Angry Counterexpression group. In addition, there was an Angry
and a Not Angry Neutral Expression group. The instruction to these 22
subjects asked them to write an essay about the value of letters to the editor
without mentioning either the letter they had read or its author.
c. Communication Destiny Manipulation.
A note on the page following
the space for the reply was used to manipulate communication destiny. In
the Direct and Counterexpression conditions, the note thanked subjects for
writing the reply. The remainder of the note was in one of two forms. In the
To-target Condition, it was explained that the reply which had been written
would be shown to the letter writer when he visited the college. In the Notto-target Condition it was emphasized that the reply would only be used for
the purposes of the research and would not be shown to the letter writer when
he made his campus visit. The note was not used for neutral expression groups,
since it would have had no meaning for them.
3.
Dependent
Measures
a. Manipulation Check. Just after the anger arousal phase of the experiment, several scales were administered so that the effect of the manipulation
could be evaluated. These items were on a single page of the experimental
booklet which immediately followed the letter to the editor. The first two
entries on this page were dummy items used to make the study appear authentic. The first asked if any of the letters concerning Proposition 1 had
been read in the newspaper. The second item asked if the actual letter used
for the study had been read previously. The next item was included to determine the subject's orientation with respect to the letter. It asked whether
the subject agreed with the comments made by the letter writer. Another
item probed voting intention for Proposition 1.
Following the questions was a series of four semantic differential scales.
The poles of the scales, separated by a seven choice response space, were as
200
JOURNAL
OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
fol]ows: active-passive,
relaxed-tense,
angry-pleased,
and good-bad. The
semantic differential scales were used to tap affective changes which may
have resulted from exposure to the letter.
b. Attraction.
As a measure of interpersonal attraction, subjects were
asked to rate the target on a number of traits. The traits were chosen from
Anderson's (1) list of traits which are attributed to highly likable and highly
dislikable persons. A cover story explained that the letter writer had been
approached and interviewed, and that he had responded to items from well
known personality tests. The subject's task was to see how accurately hc
could fill in information on the basis of minimal exposure to the letter writer.
These appraisals were to be compared to the personality test results. The
judgments of each trait were made along 13 point scales where 0 indicated
the trait described the writer well, 12 indicated the trait did not describe
him well, and 6 was a neutral point. A similar story used in a recent stud3
(27) appeared to be taken at face value.
c. A17ective Measure.
The Abasement (aba) and Aggression (agg) scales
of the Gough Adjective Checklist (16) followed the attraction measures and
were used to evaluate the affective or anger state. Instructions asked the
subject to mark each adjective which described how he was feeling at that
moment.
i
!
!
1
d. Behavioral Task.
On the final page of the booklet, a note explained
that all of the people who had written letters to the editor had been invited
!
t
to participate in a panel discussion at the college during the week before the
election. The guests were to be paid from a guest lectt, rer fund, but the exact
I
'i
amount had not been decided upon. The note then explained that since the
subject was one of the few people at the college who had been exposed to
the letter writer's opinions, it would be appropriate for him to suggest how
much money the letter writer should receive for his visit. Thirty dollars was
given as the usual fee, and the subject was led to believe that his suggestion
would actually affect how much the person would receive. The subject was
i
then asked to select one of 11 values which ranged from $5 to $55 at five
dollar in;_ervals. The amount selected was taken as an index of hostile behavior.
i
:
e. Cognitive Measure.
Greenberg and Tannenbaum
(17) demonstrated
that angry subjects made more spelling and grammatical errors while encoding than nonangry subjects. They suggested the number of errors may be a
valid index of cognitive stress. Each subject's reply was read, and errors were
tallied by two female graduate students who had backgrounds in language.
i
i
I
1
I
i
i
ROBERT
C.
1.
Data
M.
KAPLAN
201
RESULTS
Trans]ormations
Data for some of the dependent measures had to be transformed or reorganized. Ratings of traits used as attraction measures were factor analyzed
(using varimax rotation of the principal components matrix). The factor
analysis revealed that two factors accounted for a substantial proportion of
the variance. These factors each represented clear conceptual dimensions and
were dubbed Trustworthy
and Annoyance. Subscales were calculated by
summing together ratings for the four traits which loaded above a .50 criterion
on each factor. Trustworthy scores were calculated by summing together ratings for the traits: competent, dependable, helpful, and sensible. Annoyance
°scores were obtained by summing together ratings on the traits: obnoxious,
narrow-minded, irritating, and overcritical.
Spelling and grammatical errors were analyzed in terms of errors per
hundred words.
2.
Manipulation
Checks
In preparing the ficticious letters to the editor, two assumptions were
made. These were as follows: (a) subjects would disagree with the angering
letter and agree with the nonangering letter; and (b)the'
angering letter
would make subjects more angry than the nonangerlng letter.
To check on the former assumption, comparisons between subjects who had
received the different letters were made for the question, "Do you agree with
the comments made by the letter writer?" Four of the 55 subjects exposed to
the angering letter claimed to agree with the author's views and only three
of the 55 subjects who had read the nonangering letter indicated disagreement
(X 2 : 73.39, d] : 2, p ,_ .001).
To determine whether the angering letter produced feelings of anger, responses to the "angry-pleased" semantic differential scale were analyzed. The
seven
point scale
so that
low scores
indicate
toward
the "angry"
pole was
and scored
high scores
would
reflect would
responses
towardresponse
the "pleased"
pole. The mean for subjects exposed to the angering communication (x _- 2.87)
was considerably closer to the angry pole than the mean for subjects who
were exposed to the
analysis showed this
it (108) -- --10.66].
reported feeling more
nonangerlng communication
(x---_ 5.61). Statistical
difference to be significant beyond the .0001 level
Subjects exposed to the angering communication also
tense it (108) -- 2.20; p _ .03], active it (108) --
202
JOURNAL
OF
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
--3.71; p < .001], and bad [t (108) -_3.54;
to the nonangering communication.
3.
Pretreatment
p < .01] than those exposed
Comparisons
Although the angering manipulation occurred early in the experiment, the
other independent variables were introduced after the set of manipulation
checks. AnaIysis of the four questionnaire items and the four semantic differentials showed no differences between subjects who were assigned to the
various communication destiny or expression type conditions. Similarly, there
were no differences by sex, and all interactions were nonsignificant. Therefore, it seems safe to postulate that there were no differences between subjects
within each anger arousal group before the other manipulations were introduced.
4.
Preliminary Analysis
The standard deviations and intercorrelations of all dependent variables
are presented in Table 1.
The data were first analyzed without neutral groups included but with
the addition of sex of subjects as a variable. This permitted a 2 X 2 X 2 X 2
(Anger X Communication Destination X Type of Expression X Sex) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The results of this analysis revealed
a highly significant effect for the Anger manipulation IF (11,62) = 20.41;
p < .0001 ] and a significant interaction between Anger and Expression Type
iF (11,62)--2.02;
p < .05]. All main effects and interactions associated
with Communication Destiny manipulation and the Sex of subjects were
nonsignificant.
In order to provide a clearer picture of the significant effects, data were
collapsed across the two variables which failed to provide statistically reliable
results. Since the Neutral Expression groups contained half as many subjects
as the other experimental groups (experimental groups having been combined
over Communication Destiny were double in size), the cell sizes were unequal
and the design was nonorthogonal. In order to obtain unbiased F contrasts,
the contrast sequence reordering technique (15) was employed. Each contrast of interest was obtained by subtraction from the between groups sum
of squares and cross-products matrix (SSCP) after all other contrasts had
been subtracted. As a result of this process, each multivariate F ratio is
conservative and unbiased.
In the results of the 2 X 3 (Anger X Expression Type) analysis the data
showed a significant effect for Anger Arousal [F (7/98) = 16.12; p < .0001 ]
TABLE
Variables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Annoyance
Trustworthy
Behavioral
task
Gough aggression
Gough abasement
Spelling errors
Grammar errors
STANDARD
DEVIATIONS
Standard
deviations
7.80
4.52
2.68
11.95
15.74
2.43
3.55
AND
1
INTERCORRELATIONS
OP _)EPEI_DENT
_ARIABLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.00
_,54
1.00
.33
--.48
1.00
--.22
.36
--.40
1.00
.24
--.23
.29
--.35
1.00
--.15
.14
--.27
.29
--.03
1.00
.03
--,07
--.05
--.01
--.02
.49
o
t_
204
JOURNAL OF SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY
and significant interaction
= 1.91; p < .03].
between Anger and Expression Type [F (14/196)
51 Discriminant
Function
Analysis
Multivariate interactions are difficult to interpret. It seems that type of
expression affected hostility level differently for angry than for nonangry
subjects, but the loci of the interaction were not clear. To gain insight into
the meanings of the multivariate interaction, a discriminant function analysis
(8, 23) of groups arrayed in a 1 X 6 design was employed. The results of this
analysis are shown in Table 2. There was a highly significant difference
between group centroids [Rao's approximation of F (35,415) : 3.49; p ,(
.0001]. Only the first root of W-1A (where W -1 -- the inverse of the within
groups SSCP matrix and A _ the between groups SSCP matrix) was statistically significant by conventional standards
[X2 (35) z 11.32 ; p _ .0001 ].
The meaning of the discriminant function can best be understood by
examining the loading of dependent variables upon the function. These
loadlngs also appear in Table 2. Examination of Table 2 reveals that differences between groups can be largely accounted for by differences on the
two attraction measures and the behavioral measure. This factor can be
regarded
as general hostility
or aggressive drive.
6.
Group Centroids
Centroids were computed by multiplying scores on each dependent variable by the corresponding raw discriminant function coefficient and summing
the products across variables. The centroids for the groups of interest are
displayed in Table 3. High scores indicate low hostility, and low scores indicate high hostility. As expected, angry subjects scored higher on hostility
than nonangry subjects. The interaction between expression Type and Anger
can be seen in Table 3. In relation to Direct Expression subjects, Counterexpression subjects were lower on hostility when angry, but higher on hostility
when not angry. Multivariate
simple effects tests revealed the differences
among Expression Types to be highly significant among the angry subjects
[F (14,196) z 3.27 ; p _ .0002 ] but nonsignificant among nonangry subjects
IF (14,I96)--1.43;
p _ .10]. Further analysis showed both the Angry
Direct [F (7.98) _3.94;
p _ .001] and the Angry Counter [F (7.98) -2.78; p (.01]
groups to differ from the angry Neutral grouly--the Neutral
group showing the least hostility.
ROBERTM. KAPLAN
20_
TABLE 2
MULTIVARIATECOI_PARISON OF GRouPs ARRAYEDIN A ONE-BY-SIx DESIGN
Variables
Univariate
Annoyance
Trustworthy
Behavioral
task
Gough aggression
Gough abasement
Spelling errors
Grammar errors
Note: Multivariate
F (35,415)-'3.49;
" SDFC = Standardized
Discriminant
i
i
D.
I
p_
SDFC a
.0001
.0001
.0001
.01
.07
NS
NS
.71
-- .35
.42
--.03
--.05
.07
.01
p _ .01301.
Function Coefficient.
Discussion
The results of the experiment were consistent with the interference hypothesis. Among angry subjects, those who engaged in a neutral expression
became less hostile than those who participated in either the Direct or
Counterexpression
groups. These data suggest that activities which reminded
angry persons of a provocateur were less effective in reducing hostility than
activities which diverted attention away from the instigator. Experiments
performed under other circumstances with different subject populations have
similarly shown that distraction may lead to significant reduction in aggressive drive. Mallick and McCandles (26), for example, observed that working
problems in mathematics was more effective in reducing children's aggression
than playing aggressively. The interference viewpoint may provide a viable
explanation for the confusing results of studies on aggression mediated by
televised violence. These experiments frequently show that T.V. violence has
an aggression-activating
effect when subjects are angered, but no effect when
subjects are not angered (24). It is suggested that violent acts on television
remind subjects of their own anger and keep their arousal from dissipating.
Nonviolent shows may serve to distract the angry subjects and, therefore,
a more parsimonious
I
F
17.82
12.23
8.13
3.45
2.04
.84
.92
explanation
of data from a variety of studies than does
either the catharsis or dissonance viewpoint. Zillman and Johnson (30) have
recently come to a similar conclusion on the basis of some experimental evidence. Thus, distraction rather than confrontation may be a worthwhile
may produce lower levels of arousal. Clearly, the interference notion provides
means of avoiding outbreaks of hostility.
results of the present study. Catharsis theory would have predicted that,
among angry subjects, direct expression would have produced the greatest
Neither catharsis nor the dissonance theory would have predicted the
206
JOURNAL
GROUP
OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE
3
CENTROIDS ON LARGEST DESCRIIVfINANTFUNCTION
(Lower scores indicate greater hostility)
Arousal
Note:
Expressionform
Angry
Not angry
Direct
Counter
Neutral
.21
a
.58 a
1.59 b
3.10
c
2.39 c
2.77 e
Centroids
with common
subscript
-
do not differ at the .01 level,
anger reduction. Our data show just the opposite. Dissonance theory could
explain the outcome for the angry Direct expression subjects, but would have
difficulty explaining why subjects taking a neutral position became less
hostile than those taking a counterattitudinaI
stand. Only the interference
position can account for all of the experimental data.
Contrary to some theoretical positions (3, 5, I0, 20) subjects who believed
their essays were going to be shown to the target did not differ from those
who believed that the essay would not reach the target (as reflected by scores
on several measures). It should be noted, however, that the Communication
Destiny naanilmhttion was relatively weals and that a more noticeable manipulation may have been successful. The equivalence of the Angry and Not
Angry gr<mps for the nun_l)er of spelling :tnd granmmtical errors fails to
rel)licale the fin(ling ret)ortcd by Greenberg and Tannenhaum (iT). Subjects
in the present experiment, however, wrote fewer words than those in the
Greenberg and Tannenbaum experiment, and the possibility still remains
that the effect would have occurred had our subjects written more words.
Two limitations of the experiment should be mentioned. First, the anger
arousal manipulation was quite weak. Therefore, the results may be specific
to mild levels of anger. Second, the results may also be quite specific to the
dependent measures which were employed. Both the author (22) and Kofiecni
(25) have pointed out that in catharsis and aggression research, different
dependent measures will often show different effects in response to the same
manipulation. If different me,'ksures had been used, the results might have
been different.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
A_DEaSO_, N. t-I. Likableness ratings of 555 personality
trait words. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol., 1968, 9, 272-279.
A_ONSON, E. The Social Animal. New York: Freedman, 1972.
Bartorr, R. A. Magnitude
of victim's pain cues and level of prior anger arousal
&
as
ROBERT
determinants
236-243.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
of adult
aggressive
207
M. KAPLAN
behavior.
J. Personal.
BF.RKOWIWZ, L. Aggression:
A Social-Psychological
Hill, 1962.
. Aggressive
cues in aggressive behavior
Rev., 1964, 71, 104-122.
&Soc.
Analysis.
and
PsychoL,
New
hostility
York:
catharsis.
1971, 17,
McGrawPsychoL
Buss, A. H. The Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961.
COLLIns, B. E. Attribution
theory analysis or forced compliance.
Proc. 77tk Ann.
Conven. Amer. Psychol. Assoc., 1969, 4, 309-310.
COOLEY, W. W., & LOUNZS, P. R. Multivariate
Data Analysis. New York: Wiley,
1971.
DOLLaRD, J., DooB, L. W., MILLER, N. E., MOWRER, O. H., & SEARS, R. R. Frustration
and Aggression. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1939.
Doos, A. N. Catharsis and aggression: The effects of hurting one's enemy. J, Exper.
Res. Personal., 1970, 4, 291-296.
FES_BACrt, S. The drive-reducing
function
of fantasy
behavior.
J. Abn. &Soc.
Psychol., 1955, 50, 3-11.
. The function of aggression and the regulation
of aggressive drive. Psychol.
Rev., 1964, 71, 257-272.
FESTINCmt, L. A Theory
of Cognitive Dissonance.
Evanston,
Ill.: Row Peterson,
1957.
FREEOMAr¢, J.
Cliffs, N.J.:
GOLD_,XN, R.
formance
in
347-352.
L., CARLS_ITH, S. M., & SEARS, D. C. Social Psychology.
Englewood
Prentice Hall, 1970.
D. Effects of a logical versus a mnemonic learning strategy on pertwo undergraduate
psychology
classes. J. Educ. Psychol., 1972, 63,
Go_JoH, H. G., & HEILBR_r_, A. B. The Adjective
Checklist
Manual.
Palo Alto,
Calif.: Consulting
Psychologists
Press, 1965.
(_I{I';ENIII,:ItG,
I_. S., & TANNI,:NBAUM, P. H. Communicator
performance
under cognitive
stress. Journalism
Quart., 1962, 39, 1969-178.
18.
HARTMANN, D. P. The influence of symbolically
modeled instrumental
and pain cues on aggressive behavior.
]. Personal.
& Soc. Psychol.,
280-288.
19.
HOXANSOr;, J. E., & B_rROESS, M. The effects of three types of aggression on vascular
processes. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol.,
1962, 64, 446-449.
HOYT, M. F., HENLEY, M. D., & COLLINS, B. E. Studies in forced compliance:
The
confluence of choice and consequence of attitude changes. Unpublished
manuscript,
University of California,
Los Angeles, 1971 (mimeograph).
KA_N, M. The psychology of catharsis. J. Personal. & Soc. Psychol., 1966, 3, 278-286.
20.
21.
22.
KAPLAr_, R. M. The cathartic
value of attitudinal
Proc. 81st Ann. Conven. Amer. Psychol. Assoc.,
23.
KArLAW, R. M., & GOLDMAN, R. N. Interracial
Mexican-American
high school students. J.
383-389.
24.
KAPLAN, R. M., & SINGER, R. D. Psychological
view and methodological
critique. J. Soc. lss.,
25.
KONEdm, V. J. Experimental
studies of human aggression:
The cathartic
effect.
Unpublished
Doctoral
dissertation,
University
of Toronto,
Toronto,
Canada, 1973.
MALLICK, S. K., & McCANnLEs, B. R. A study of catharsis and aggression. J. Per.sonal. &Soc.
Psychol., 1966, 4, 591-596.
RnIrqF., R, J., & KaPr.AN, R. M. The effect of message incredulity
upon the evaluation of the source of communication.
J. Soc. Psychol., 1972, 88, 255-266.
26.
27.
and counterattitudinal
1973, 277-278.
aggression
1969, 11,
expression.
perception among Black, White, and
Personal. &Soc.
Psychol., 1973, 28,
effects of televised
1976, in press.
fantasy:
A re-
208
28.
29.
30.
JOURNAL
OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
ROSENBAUM, M. E., & DECHARMES, R. Direct and vicarious reductions
of hostility.
J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 105-1tl.
THIBAUT, J. W., & COULES, J. The role of communication
in the reduction
of interpersonal hostility. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol.,
1952, 47, 770-777.
ZILL_V_AN,D., & JOHNSON, R. C. Motivated
aggressiveness
perpetuated
by exposure
to aggressive films and reduced by exposure to nonaggressive
films. J. Exper. Res.
Personal., 1973, 7, 261-276.
Psychological Clinic
San Diego State University
San Diego, Cali]ornia 92182
The Journal o] Social Psychology, 1975,97, 209-220.
THE PORTRAYAL OF MEN
TELEVISION
AND WOMEN IN AMERICAN
COMMERCIALS*
Brandeis University
LESLIE ZEBROWITZMcARTrlUR ANDBETH GABRIELLERESKO
SUMMARY
The characteristics of adult male and female models in randomly selected
television commercials were systematically coded, and several significant sex
differences were discovered. More men than women are presented in television
commercials, the basis for the credibility of those men and women who are
presented differs as do their roles, their location, their arguments on behalf
of a product, and the rewards they reap for using a product. These sex differences, which tend to portray women in a relatively unfavorable manner, are
discussed in the context of research which suggests that peoples' sex-role
behaviors and attitudes may be influenced bY _tqlevi_sed_mode!s.
A.
INTRODUCTION
Recent years have witnessed a growing concern that the relatively stereotyped sex-roles which prevail in our society have undesirable consequences
both for the psychological health of the individual and for the egalitarian
ideals of our society. Any attempt to emancipate men and women from these
stereotyped sex-roles must first consider how they are normally acquired.
Among the possible sources of influence on sex-role stereotypy are the mass
media; for, according to social learning theory, "observational learning from
live and symbolic models (i.e., films, television, and books) is the first step
in the acquisition of sex-typed behavior" (9, p. 57). Empirical evidence is
of course necessary to evaluate adequately the assertion that the media mold
sex-typed behavior, and two kinds of data are needed. First, it must be
systematically demonstrated
that the 'behavior of male and female media
models is sex-stereotyped;
and, second, it must be demonstrated that people
model their own behavior after that of like-sex media models.
Some evidence that the behavior of media-models is sex-stereotyped
has
been reported by Child, Potter, and Levine (2) who investigated
the
characteristics of male and female central characters in children's readers.
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on May 31, 1974.
Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press.
209