For Him, For Her: The Effects of Gender Stereotypes in Advertising on Gift Giving Behaviour and

391 Pages·2013·11.78 MB·English

For Him, For Her: The Effects of Gender Stereotypes in Advertising on Gift
Giving Behaviour and Social Attitudes
by
Catherine Norlaine Thomas
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of
The University of Manitoba
in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Marketing
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg
Copyright O 2008 by Catherine Norlaine Thomas
THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
¿JJgJ
COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
For Him, For Her: The Effects of Gender Stereotypes in Advertising on Gift-Giving
Behaviour and Social Attitudes
BY
Catherine Norlaine Thomas
A ThesislPracticum submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of
Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
Catherine Norlaine Thomas O 2008
Permission has been granted to the University of Manitoba Libraries to lend a copy of this
thesis/practicum, to Library and Archives Canada (LAC) to lend a copy of this
thesis/practicum, and to LAC's agent (UMI/ProQuest) to microfÏlm, sell copies and to
publish an abstract of this thesis/practicum.
This reproduction or copy of this thesis has been made available by authorify of the
copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research, and may only be
reproduced and copied as permitted by copyright laws or with express written
authorization from the copyright owner.
Abstract
For him, for her: The effects of gender stereotypes in advertising on gift giving behaviour
and social attitudes.
By Catherine Norlaine Thomas
Gift exchanges caffy powerful symbolism. Gift value and selection can reinforce
or alter relational ties and complex power relationship dynamics between the exchange
pa-rtners. Relational dependencies or domination can evolve out of felt obligations based
on a need for reciprocity and inherent status imbalances. This proposal explores the
impact of negative female stereotyping in ads, giver gender and perceived product gender
and type on people's preferences for gender appropriate gifts. It also looks at the
prevalence of gender stereotyped attitudes and the impact of exposure to gender
stereotyped stimuli on those attitudes. It is expected, based on an understanding of
prevailing sex-role stereotypes, that negative stereotype ads will significantly impact
stereotype congruent choices. The results suggest that male givers are more inclined
toward gender stereotyping in gift selection than females, and gender stereotyped ads
increase the likelihood of selecting hedonic gifts for male recipients.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my co-chairs, Dr. Rajesh Manchanda and Dr. Namita
Bhatnagar, for their support, direction, enthusiasm, encouragement and reassurance in the
research and preparation of this dissertation. I would also like to thank the rest of my
committee, Dr. Sergio Carvalho, Dr. Marian Morry and Dr. Barbara J. Phillips for their
contributions of wisdom, experience and the all-important feedback they provided.
I would also like to thank Dr. Sridhar Samu, my advisor for the coursework
portion of my PhD program, for his support and advice. A special thanks to Michele
Bowring who took the time to talk and who encouraged me to embark on this great
adventure known as doctoral studies.
I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the LH. Asper School of Business
who have provided instruction and support and encouragement (and a special thanks to
the support staff for their patience and frequent unjamming of the photocopiers for me).
Finally, I would like to thank the University of Manitoba for giving me the
opportunity to pursue a dream.
üi
Dedication
I would like to thank and dedicate this work to my husband, Jeff, and our three
children, Heather, Garnet and Katherine, for being so patient and so supportive during
this long process. They put up with me during exam stress, all-night work on papers, and
everything else that comes with doing a PhD. And they provided me with
encouragement, love and joy throughout this experience. I just cannot thank them all
enough...
I would also like to dedicate this work to my parents who fostered a deep sense of
the importance of education and whom I know would have been proud.
1V
Table of Contents
Abstract
1t
Ack¡owledgements üi
Dedication iv
Table of Contents V
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xüi
List of Appendices xiv
Introduction
1
An Overview of Gift Giving
1
Research Questions 2
Gift Giving, Stereotype Activation and Cultivation Theory 5
Stereotypes 5
Seeing is Believing 9
Prevalence of Sex-Role Stereotyping in Television 10
Cultivation Theory 13
Advertising and Media Influence I3
Media Genres and Stereotypes 15
Gift Giving 18
Stages of Gift Giving t9
Relationships and Gift Giving 20
Gender Issues in Gift Giving 21
Gift Selection 22
Evolutionary Perspective 23
Self-Gifting 26
Gift Giving Strategies 26
Types of Gift Givers 21
Overview of the Studies 29
Hypotheses 3T
Srudy 35
1
Overview 35
Independent Variable 36
Dependent Variables 38
Hostile and Benevolent Sexism 38
Likelihood of Purchase 38
Overall Product Selection 38
Covariates 39
Television Use Patterns 39
Demographics 39
Results 40
Additional Findings 50
General Discussion 53
Srudy 2 55
Overview 55
Independent Valiables s6
Dependent Variables 58
VI
Hostile and Benevolent Sexism 58
Likelihood of Purchase 58
Thought Measures 58
Overall Product Selections 59
Covariates 59
Television Use Patterns 59
Demographics 59
Results 59
Additional Findings t5
ll
Thought Measures
General Discussion 89
Srudy 3 9l
Overview 92
Independent Variables 93
Products 95
Dependent Variables 99
Hostile and Benevolent Sexism 99
Likelihood of Purchase 99
Overall Product Selections 99
Covariates 100
Television Use Patterns 100
Demographics 100
Results 100
vll
General Discussron t24
Srudy 4 t21
Overview 121
Independent Variables r28
Products 129
Dependent Variables 129
Hostile and Benevolent Sexism 129
Likelihood of Purchase 129
Overall Product Selections i30
Covariates 130
Television Use Patterns 130
Demographics 130
Results 130
Thought Measures 742
General Discussion 155
Overall Discussion 158
Implications 160
Limitations and Future Research 76r
References 163
Appendices 115
Vrl1
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Product Categorization by Gender and Type in Study I 38
Table 1.2: ANOVA Results for Purchase Likelihood for Study I 40
Table 1.3: ANOVA Results for Media Covariates and Overall Sexism in Study 45
1
Table 1.4: ANOVA Results for Media Covariates and Benevolent Sexism in Study
t46
Table 1.5: Regression for Benevolent Sexism and Media Covariates 4l
I
Table 1.6: ANOVA Results for Media Covariates and Hostile Sexism in Study 48
t
Table 1.7: Regression for media co-variates and hostile sexism in Study 48
Table 1.8: ANOVAresults for media covariates, sexism scores and ]ikelihood to
|
purchase in Study 49
2
Table 2.1: Categorization of Gift Items for Study 58
2
Table 2.2: ANOVA Results of Manipulation Check for Study 60
2
Table 2.3: ANOVA Results for Purchase Likelihood for Study 6I
2
Table 2.4: Sexism Scores by Giver Gender for Study 64
2
Table 2.5: ANOVA Results for Sexism Measures for Study 65
Two
Table 2.6' ANOVAResults for Media Covariates in Study 69
Two
Table 2.7: Regression Results for Media Covariates for Study 11
3
Table 3.1 Product Pretest Means for Hedonic and Utilitarian Ad Texts for Study 98
3
Table 3.2: ANOVA Results of Manipulation Check 1 for Study 101
3
Table 3.3:ANOVAResults of Manipulation Check 2 for Study I02
Table 3.4: MasculineÆeminine and Hedonic/Utilitarian Means for Products used in
3
Study 104
lx