assistance needed for english

oceanqueen

lu05_reading_5.pdf

Home >Education homework help >assistance needed for english

FALL 2015

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

I t ' s J u s t a J o k e : R e a c t i o n s t o a n d J u s t i f i c a t i o n s

f o r S e x S t e r e o t y p e s i n A d v e r t i s e m e n t s

Natalie Peters, Lucie Holmgreen, and Debra Oswald* Marquette University

ABSTRACT. Advertisements are a common venue by which sexist stereotypes are disseminated, and these stereotypes often reinforce the link between women and the domestic role. Gender-based hum or is a particular strategy tha t advertisem ents may use, allowing for the perpetua tion o f sexist stereotypes under the mentality that “a joke is ju st a jo k e .” The present study provided a content analysis of responses to a pair of trouser care instructions reading, “Give it to your woman, it’s her jo b .” We aimed to determ ine the ways in which online com m entators responded to this statement. Comments were, foremost, labeled as either endorsem ent or d issent, and those charac te rized as en d o rsem e n t o f the jo k e were categorized by one or more of the following themes: hostile sexism toward women, benevolent sexism toward women, hostile sexism toward men, benevolent sexism toward men, cavalier hum or beliefs, denial of sexism, and social dominance orientation. Results indicated that most individuals (68.5%) responded positively to the s tatem ent e ith er by expressing perceived humor, affirming the validity of the presented stereotype, or exh ib iting hostility tow ard w om en who took offense. F u rtherm ore , responses to the label were often characterized by cavalier hum or beliefs (25.1%) as well as hostile sexism toward women (10.8%). These justifications likely serve to reaffirm the presence of sexist prejudice in a climate that might otherwise provide sanctions against offensive remarks. In addition, it is likely that many of the comments served to deter men and women who might otherwise attem pt to challenge the status quo.

Desp ite w o m en ’s econom ic, social, and p o litica l gains in re c e n t decades, the association of women with housekeeping

and caretak ing responsibilities has stagnated. Throughout the world, women continue to report spending greater proportions of time on housework than m en (Lachance-Grzela & Bouchard, 2010; R uppanner, 2010). Because wom en are often stereotyped as communal and nurturing, they are often believed to have a natural propensity for household tasks such as cleaning and doing laundry

(Bern, 1974). Such stereotypes have the potential to relegate women to domestic roles and constrain their behavior (Click & Fiske, 2001).

G ender ro le stereo typ ing is p ro m in en t in m edia and advertisem ents w herein com panies rely on socially prescribed expectations to sell their products (Infanger, Bosak, & Sczesny, 2011). W hen fram ed in the co n tex t o f hum or, such stereotypes may evade criticism and perpetuate prejudice (Ford, Boxer, Armstrong, & Edel, 2008). To date, several studies have examined the content

Peters, Holmgreen, and Oswald | It's Just a Joke

of gender-based stereotypes in the media as well as how these stereotypes influence perceptions of both women and men. For example, Eisend’s (2010) meta-analysis illustrated the ways in which advertisements “m irror” gender role expectations within a particular cultural context, yet provided little evidence th a t stereotyped advertisem ents exacerbate prejudicial values. On the other hand, several researchers have indicated that exposure to stereotypes reinforces negative attitudes toward wom en and prevents advances in th e ir social status (Heilman, 2001; Romero-Sanchez, Duran, Carretero-Dios, Megfas, & Moya, 2009; Tiggemann & McGill, 2004).

A lthough som e researchers have analyzed responses to sexist hum or (Ford et al., 2008; Ford, W entzel, & Lorion, 2001; Greenwood & Isbell, 2002), there has been a lack of research in the area of gender-based hum or specifically within the context of advertising and product promotion. The present study attem pted to fill this gap, focusing on responses to hum or as a m arketing strategy. Specifically, the following questions were taken into account: Upon hearing gender-based humor, do people tend to respond with agreement, dissent, or indifference? What arguments or rationalizations do people draw upon when confronted with gender role stereotypes? In light of the m irror perspective (i.e., th a t advertisem ents convey the gendered attitudes of a particular culture), these questions were believed to be particularly salient in that they reveal predom inant perceptions regarding women’s roles in society (Eisend, 2010). Consider ing the evidence that stereotypes may exacerbate negative attitudes toward women, understanding the ways that people respond to this type of hum or can lead to a greater understanding of the m edia’s role in the persistence of sexism.

Stereotypes and Humor in Advertisements Advertisements may rely on stereotypes to com pensate for a lack of time and space, providing viewers with the most basic information possible. Numerous studies have identified advertisements as a source of gender role stereotypes. In advertise ments, women are often portrayed as attractive, young, nurtu ring , and childlike (Kim & Lowry, 2005). On the o ther hand, m en are often over rep resen ted as authority figures and are m ore likely to be shown using logic (Monk-Turner, Kouts, Parris, & Webb, 2007). In addition, men appear in advertisements more often, and when women are portrayed, they are often sexualized or victimized

(Stankiewicz & Rosseli, 2008). Stereotyped depic tions o f w om en in ad v e rtisem en ts a re o ften effective m ark e tin g stra teg ies. For in stance , Infanger and colleagues (2011) found that adver tisements portraying women with communal traits (e.g., ho ld ing an infant) were evaluated m ore positively than were advertisem ents portraying agentic women (e.g., businesswomen).

A nother tactic used in advertising is humor, w hich can in crease an in d iv id u a l’s lik ing of a p ro d u c t based on positive associa tion . For instance, Strick, Van Baaren, Holland, and Van Rnippen(2009) found that products linked to a humorous cartoon were evaluated more positively in a subsequent assessment. Similarly, Krishnan and Chakravarti (2003) found that humor, even when completely irrelevant to the claim made by the advertisement, increased later recognition of the target product. H um or may elicit the atten tion of the viewer and increase positive emotions, thereby allowing them to look upon the product or company that is being advertised m ore favor ably (Chan, 2011; Eisend, 2011). As Chan (2011) stipidated, hum orous advertisem ents may have added persuasive effects, increasing the likelihood that a person will purchase a product or solicit a company’s services. Indeed, the lighthearted aspect of hum or may allow for successful advertisement through the elicitation of positive emotions and product recognition.

Derogatory Humor Offensive hum or may be used as an attention- grabbing strategy, but often at a great price. In addition to circumscribing social roles for women, sexist stereotypes may further hostility and nega tive attinides toward women. Indeed, derogatory h u m o r may provide a venue in which peop le can m ore safely express their prejudices (Ford et al., 2008). For instance, Greenwood and Isbell (2002) found that m en who responded positively to misogynistic jokes were especially likely to be hostile toward women (Greenwood & Isbell, 2002). The propensity to find hum or in sexist jokes may vary by sex; in their study, Diaconu-Muresan and Stewart (2010) found that women exhibited more negative responses to sexist jokes than did men. Furthermore, participants who endorsed a feminist identity were less likely to respond positively to sex ist jokes than were those low in feminist identity. Such results indicated that the propensity to find hum or in these types ofjokes may be mediated by gender and feminist identity.

FA LL 2 0 1 5

PSI C H I J O U R N A L O F P S Y C H O L O G IC A L R E S E A R C H

It 's J u s t a J o k e | Peters, H olm green, and Oswald

FALL 2015

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Sexist humor has the potential to reinforce negative perceptions of women as well as internal ized sexism. For instance, Ford et al. (2008) found that individuals exposed to sexist hum or were less likely to contribute financially to a women’s organization when exposed to a sexist joke; this suggests that exposure to sexist humor may detract from feminist causes. In addition, sexism and sexist jokes have been linked to rape myth acceptance (e.g., the belief that women who experience sexual assault are deserving of their trauma) among those who hear them (Romero-Sanchez et ah, 2009). As the aforementioned evidence has indicated, sexist humor may reinforce hostility toward women, subsequently undermining their status, safety, and well-being.

Justification o f Sexism Of key interest to the present study was an under standing of how people respond to sexist humor in advertisements. We were particularly interested in the types of justifications and responses that people draw on when they view a sexist advertise ment. Several theories seem particularly useful for understanding how sexism can be justified, minimized, and supported in current day society.

Ambivalent sexism toward women. Ambivalent sexism, introduced by Click and Fiske (2001), emanates from the fact that men and women are believed to be dependent on one another despite the fact that women are believed to be the lesser sex. This form of sexism has two components: hos tile and benevolent sexism. Flostile sexism toward women follows a pattern of contempt, criticizing women who defy traditional gender roles. In contrast, benevolent sexism adopts a seemingly positive perception of women by praising their communal nature and purity. Nevertheless, benevo lent sexism reinforces women’s inferior status by emphasizing their dependent nature. As Glick and Fiske (2001) noted, hostile and benevolent sexism are positively correlated, and both correlate with support for gender inequality. Cross-culturally, men tend to endorse hostile sexism to a greater extent than do women. However, women are more likely to endorse benevolent sexism than hostile sexism, and the sex differences for endorsement of benevolent sexism are much smaller.

Ambivalent sexism toward men. In a comple m entary theory to that of ambivalent sexism toward women, Glick and Fiske (1999) proposed that ambivalently sexist attitudes toward men also serve to uphold traditional gender role stereotypes.

Hostility toward men reflects women’s and some m en’s anger that men hold greater power and dominate women. However, this hostility does not question the status difference, but rather asserts that men possess inherent traits such as aggression that result in their greater power and status. On the other hand, benevolent sexism toward men upholds expectations that women should take care of men because men are incapable of caring for themselves. Both forms of sexism reinforce gender inequality, providing justification for such inequality based on what are believed to be inherent differences between men and women (Glick & Fiske, 1999).

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Sim ilarly, SDO, a theory popularized by Pratto , Sidanius, Stallworth, and Bertram (1994), justifies societal inequality by stating that such inequality is a natural and desirable aspect of social order and is impossible to avoid. SDO is associated with attitudes of racism and nationalism. In addition, those higher in SDO are less likely to endorse social programs that advocate for the rights of women or LGBT-identified individuals. As Pratto et al. (1994) demonstrated, men tend to score higher on mea sures of SDO than women, an imbalance that may reflect the reluctance among high-status group members (e.g., men, the wealthy) to relinquish the benefits afforded to their positions of power.

Cavalier humor beliefs. Some may claim that offensive humor is only intended to evoke benign laughter. That is, such jokes are not believed to reflect nor promote prejudice. Such claims, labeled by Hodson, Rush, and Maclnnis (2010) as cavalier humor beliefs, deny the potential for racist or sexist humor to perpetuate social inequality. However, cavalier hum or beliefs are positively correlated with SDO as well as with racism (Hodson et al., 2010). These findings seem to indicate that a joke is not “just a joke,” and may allow joke tellers to disseminate racist and sexist ideas without any negative ramifications.

The aforementioned theories attempt to char acterize relationships between social groups and how individuals attempt to create and reinforce a system of inequality. Based on this literature, it is likely that elements of each theory can be found in justifications for sexist humor and provide insight into how gender-based inequality is reinforced.

C urrent Study Previous studies have indicated that advertisements often rely on stereotypes and hum or to sell a

Peters, Holmgreen, and Oswald | It's Just a Joke

product (Stricketal., 2009). In addition, research has indicated that sexist hum or is pervasive and prom inent among individuals who hold implicitly prejudiced attitudes (Greenwood & Isbell, 2007). However, there has been a lack of research pertain ing to justifications of sexist hum or in the context of advertising and product promotion. The present study aimed to determine such factors by evaluating responses to a controversial label located within a pair of trousers distributed in the United Kingdom. This pants label included the washing instructions, “Give it to your woman . . . it’s her job,” reflecting the common gender role stereotype that women should be responsible for household chores. Of particular interest was how people responded to the stereotype em bedded within these instruc tions. To examine reactions to the pants label, we conducted a content analysis of comments posted in response to news stories about the label in order to understand reactions to and justifications for a sexist marketing strategy.

Numerous major media sources in the United States including ABC®, CNN®, MSNBC®, MSN®, and AOL News® published a photo of the washing instructions on their respective websites, resulting in thousands of responses from readers. From each source, reader comments were examined and coded for their content.

Three primary questions guided the research process: foremost, to what extent do commentators endorse or respond positively to the sexist label, and to what extent do they dismiss or respond nega tively to the label? Furtherm ore, what is the most common reaction to or justification for the label? In adopting the m irror perspective of gender role stereotypes in advertising, the present study aimed to understand the predominant attitudes regarding women, especially with respect to their domesticity, by evaluating responses to and justifications for the joke used in this pants label (Eisend, 2010).

Methods P ro c e d u re

The comments selected for content analysis came from five mainstream U.S. news sources including ABC, CNN, MSNBC, AOL, and MSN. These news sources were selected because they covered the story of interest, have wide popularity, and most have been rated as relatively politically neutral (Groseclose & Milyo, 2005)'. AOL, ABC, and MSNBC each had relatively small num bers of respondents to the story on the article feedback site (AOL n = 19; ABC n = 36; MSNBC n = 31).

MSN (n= 2,310) and CNN (n = 1,469) each had large num bers o f responders. Thus, 135 MSN comments and 184 CNN comments were randomly selected from larger comment pools. Only the first published response was used for each user, and direct responses to other users were eliminated in order to maintain independence of observations. This resulted in the 406 com m ents used in the content analysis.

Content analysis coding. Each com m ent was analyzed and assigned to one or more of the fol lowing categories best representing its content: hostile sexism toward women, benevolent sexism toward women, hostile sexism toward men, benevo lent sexism toward men, cavalier hum or beliefs, expression of perceived humor, agreement with the sta tem en t’s observation of g ender roles, SDO, denial of sexism altogether, and justification not otherw ise specified (see Table 1 for sum m ary of variables). Several comments were lengthy in response and had m ultiple com ponents. These responses were deem ed to fall into multiple cat egories, and were thus characterized by multiple codes. In the final dataset, 23.9% (n = 97) of the comments contained information that was either irrelevant to the label or too ambiguous to interpret and were thus labeled as uninterpretable.

In co d in g fo r am b iv alen t sexism tow ard women, hostile sexism toward women was inferred through hostility toward women, especially through claims that women were attempting to manipulate m en. Furtherm ore, com m ents were labeled as indicative o f hostile sexism when antagonistic remarks appeared to be intended to force women to conform to traditional gender roles. Sample comments included “Wow, this woman really needs some Prozac®” and “There appears to be allot [sic] of victimized drama queens posting.” On the other hand, comments were classified as benevolent sexism if they idealized women, upheld claims of inherent sex-based differences, or stressed interdependence between the sexes. Such responses resembled the following comment: “She washes my laundry all the time. She doesn’t want to mow the yard, wash the cars, take out the trash, clean the boat or the fish, etc...”

For ambivalent sexism toward men, comments that involved hostile sexism toward men reflected resentm ent of m en’s superior social status as well 1 In the 10 years since Groseclose and Milyo (2005) was published, some of these news oudets may no longer be seen as politically neutral. Liberal-oriented readers may be more likely to perceive sexism in this particular comment, thereby skewing results. We thank a reviewer for noting this point.

FALL 2015

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

It 's J u s t a J o k e | Peters, Holmgreen, and Oswald

FA LL 2 0 1 5

PSI C H I J O U R N A L O F

P S Y C H O L O G IC A L R E S E A R C H

as references to negative male stereotypes (e.g., inability to take care of oneself or refusal to ask for directions). Sample com m ents included “If you can pull your pants up, then you should be able to wash them , pig ,” and “All it says is that guys are clueless.” Benevolent sexism toward men was inferred by references to m en’s dependen t nature and wom en’s m aternal duties to care for them (i.e., m en ’s incom petence in the dom ain of clothes-washing). Com ments such as “I ’ll do anything for my m an” and “Sometimes us women are just naturally better at the laundry then m en” were categorized in this way.

Comments that were characteristic of cavalier humor beliefs em phasized the positive aspects of

joke-telling and m inimized the potential social consequences of stereotyped humor. They tended to express sentiments such as “It’s ju st a jo k e” or “Lighten up.”

In contrast, com m ents coded as reflecting a perception of humor in the statem ent merely stated that “It’s funny,” or “LOL [common Internet shorthand for the phrase ‘laughing out loud’] b u t did not explicitly tie the hum or to gender-based identity or social disparity. Therefore, perception of hum or was distinguished from cavalier hum or beliefs when the com m ent m ade no attem pt to justify the perception of humor.

C om m ents th a t w ere co d ed as agreement provided a rationale for the accuracy of the pants label. Such responses were distinguished from other categories such as hum or or SDO in that they basically reiterated the content of the label (i.e., “It is her jo b ”) without further elaborating on their reasoning for endorsing the stereotype.

Comments were labeled as a denial of sexism if they attem pted to justify the statement by deny ing the continued existence of sexist prejudice. Representative comments included “Women have it just as good as men these days” and “This isn’t 1950 anym ore.” Such com m ents d iffered from cavalier hum or beliefs in that they did not express a perception of hum or but ra ther attem pted to suppress the controversy surrounding the label by noting the significant social advances of women.

SDO comments included any sentim ent that attem pted to illustrate the inherent nature of sex differences. Such com m ents ex tended beyond m ere agreem ent by providing explanations of gender roles emerging from biological differences or from long-standing, functional divisions of labor. Comments characteristic of SDO included “Am I the only one getting fed up with all the PC

BS [politically correct bullsh*t] we’re subjected to when there are real issues to be dealt with” and “Men are m en...and women are women. Let’s not try to be the same!”

Any com m ent that expressed resistance to the statement, for example, by stating that it was offen sive or in poor taste, was classified as an objection to the label. For instance, one respondent stated, “Apparently it is still OK to make condenscending [ric] jokes about women, and m en’s ignorance and incompetence if that’s how you took it.”

Some responses did n o t fit in to any o f the categories listed above, and were thus labeled justification not otherwise specified. Finally, comments that were irrelevant or indiscernible were deemed uninterpretable.

To ensure coder reliability, a subsam ple of 40 items was coded by two of the au thors with a p e rcen t ag reem en t o f 75% (C o h en ’s kappa = .69). Because this level of agreem ent has been determ ined to be “substantial” in the literature, the remainder of the coding was completed by only one author (Landis & Koch, 1977).

R e s u lts

Overall, 7.63% (n= 31) of the comments expressed d isagreem ent with or disapproval of the pants label. In contrast, 68.5% (n = 278) o f the com ments indicated some type of agreem ent with or justification for the label. A further 23.9% (w = 97) of the items were uninterpretable because of lack of relevance or because their content was too vague or unintelligible to be interpreted with confidence. A chi-square test of goodness-of-fit comparing these three code categories (i.e., agreem ent, disagree ment, or uninterpretable) indicated that all codes were no t equally responded to, X2(2, N= 406) = 241.70, p < .001.

T he m ost p revalen t types o f response are displayed in Table 2. The modal category of com ment was cavalier hum or beliefs, comprising 25.1 % (n = 102) of the dataset. Hostile sexism toward wom en was the second m ost prevalent type of response, constituting 10.8% of comments (n= 44). Justification not otherwise specified characterized 10.1% o f the com m ents (n = 41), and an equal num ber of individuals (10.8%) responded with m ere hum or {n = 31) or disagreem ent (n = 31). Hostile sexism toward m en (n = 10) and denial of sexism categories (n = 10) each made up 2.5% of the dataset, respectively, and 2.0% of individuals responded with benevolent sexism toward men (n = 8). SDO characterized 1.7% o f com m ents

Peters, Holmgreen, and Oswald | It's Just a Joke

(n=7), and only 0.5% of comments were character ized by benevolent sexism toward women (n= 2).

D is c u s s io n

Results indicated that most respondents (68.5%) endorsed the sexist pants label in some way. In part, the prevalence of endorsement may be explained by cavalier humor beliefs. As the most common type of response, commenters tended to see the statement as “just a joke” and not a reflection of any greater injustice. There are two potential rea sons why people might have reacted this way. First, the presence of humor may temporarily sanction offensive comments, allowing individuals to express latent values that might otherwise be rebuked. Indeed, Hodson et al. (2010) found a positive correlation between cavalier humor beliefs and racism, as well as a negative correlation between cavalier humor beliefs and social tolerance. Sec ond, individuals who subscribe to cavalier humor beliefs may bear a certain degree of prejudice and treat offensive humor in a lighthearted manner in order to gain or maintain social acceptance.

On the other hand, the limited num ber of

T A B L E 1

Summary of Content Analysis Codes C od e D e f in it io n E x a m p le (s )

H o s ti le s ex ism to w a r d w o m e n

O v e rly h o s tile a tt i tu d e s to w a rd w o m e n such as c la im s o f m a n ip u la t io n o r im p o s it io n o f t r a d it io n a l g e n d e r ro les

" T h e re a p p e a rs to b e a l lo t [sic] o f v ic t im iz e d d ra m a q u e e n s p o s tin g ."

B e n e v o le n t s ex ism to w a r d w o m e n

Id e a liz a t io n o f w o m e n , in s is ten ce o n im m a n e n c e o f g e n d e r ro les

"S h e w a s h e s m y la u n d ry

a ll th e t im e . S h e d o e s n 't w a n t to m o w th e y a rd , w a s h th e cars..."

H o s tile s ex ism to w a r d m e n

R e s e n tm e n t o f m e n 's s u p e r io r s ta tu s , a llu s io n to n e g a t iv e m a le s te re o ty p e s

" S o m e tim e s us w o m e n a re ju s t n a tu r a lly b e t te r a t la u n d ry th a n m e n ."

C a v a lie r h u m o r b e lie fs

E m p h a s is on p o s itiv e asp ec ts o f jo k e - t e l l in g , d o w n p la y s s oc ia l rep ercu ss io n s

"L ig h te n u p " o r " l t 's ju s ta jo k e "

G e n e ra l h u m o r M e r e e xp re ss io n o f h u m o r w ith o u t q u a lif ic a t io n

" It 's fu n n y " o r "LOL"

A g r e e m e n t In s is te n c e o n tr u th fu ln e s s o f th e s te re o ty p e

" I t is h e r jo b ."

D e n ia l o f sex ism In s is te n c e t h a t s ex is m is n o t a p ro m in e n t issue

“W o m e n h a v e i t ju s t as g o o d as m e n th e s e days."

S o c ia l d o m in a n c e o r ie n ta t io n

R a t io n a liz a t io n o f g e n d e re d d iv is io n o f la b o r

" M e n a re m e n .. .a n d w o m e n a re w o m e n . Let's n o t t r y to b e th e s a m e !"

O b je c tio n E xp ressio n o f o ffe n s e "A p p a re n tly , i t is s till OK to m a k e c o n d e n s c e n d in g [s/c] jo k e s a b o u t w o m e n ..."

commentators (7.6%) who expressed objection to the label might have feared potential social rami fications of expressing displeasure with the joke. That is, readers who did find the label offensive might have feared ridicule or name-calling from the vast number of users who promoted the joke or alluded to sexist ideals. Consistent with the conclu sions of Becker and Wright (2010), the presence of misogyny might have undermined the motivation for individuals to express distaste for the comment. In other words, the presence of hostile sexism might have silenced women who found offense, for fear that they might be lambasted by their peers or that they might even confirm the stereotype that women are “victimized drama queens.”

Although not nearly as common (7.6%), the humor category parallels that of cavalier humor in that it both endorses the joke and reinforces the stereotype by failing to challenge it. General humor was theoretically defined as a mere observation that the joke was funny without further justification. In contrast, cavalier humor responses justified the statement by downplaying any potentially negative implications of the pants label. However, given more time and space, it is possible that individuals who found humor in the pants label might have elaborated on the lack of negative impact of sexist humor. The expression of humor may also reflect the prejudicial values of respondents; as mentioned previously, Greenwood and Isbell (2002) found that sexist men were more likely to respond positively to derogatory humor. Given these findings, it is possible that a number of commentators embodied sexist values toward women prior to encountering thisjoke.

As expected, a number of comments (5.7%) expressed agreement, reflecting beliefs that doing laundry is an appropriate role for women. Laun dry is a task that has historically been assigned to women, and several have ind ica ted little change in this area over the past several decades (Lachance-Grzela & Bouchard, 2010; Ruppanner, 2010). Agreement with the statement reflects an endorsement of sexist cultural norms and fails to provide speculation as to why such norms exist, thereby potentially reinforcing the association of women with domesticity.

We anticipated that sexism directed toward both men and women would frequently be drawn upon to justify the sexist label. Interestingly, benevolent sexism toward women was not fre quently expressed in the comments. One might have expected this to be a frequent category

FALL 2015

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

It's Just a Joke | Peters, Holmgreen, and Oswald

FA LL 2 0 1 5

PSI C H I J O U R N A L O F

P S Y C H O L O G IC A L R E S E A R C H

because “good traditional women” are revered for their excellent housekeeping skills. The lack of benevolendy sexist comments may reflect reactions to the controversy inspired by this article; indeed, the story was brought to the attention of the media by a woman who was offended upon finding the label in her boyfriend’s pants. According to Glick and Fiske’s (2001) theory of ambivalent sexism, a woman’s rejection of the status quo might have been threatening to a sexist audience who per ceived her outcry as an overreaction. Benevolent sexism is usually reserved for women who comply with traditional gender role norms, whereas hostile sexism is a more typical response to gender role defiance (Glick & Fiske, 2001).

A small percentage of individuals (2.5%) exhibited SDO. However, it is possible that such values were subsumed by the more relevant cat egory of cavalier humor beliefs (given the fact that the topic of the story directly involved humor). According to Hodson and colleagues (2010), there is a correlation between cavalier humor beliefs and SDO. Therefore, it is possible that individuals who responded with cavalier humor beliefs were also prone to SDO, although they found expressions such as “It’sjust ajoke” to be more relevant than a rational and functional explanation of difference in the given situation.

Similarly, few responses (2.5%) were charac teristic of the denial of sexism category. One of the functions of cavalier humor is to diminish the consequences of offensivejoke telling. Therefore, those who responded with cavalier humor might have been implicitly denying sexism by claiming that the pants label was “just ajoke” and not indica tive of social inequality (Hodson et al., 2010).

Finally, benevolent (2.0%) and hostile sexism toward men (0.5%) were less frequent responses in our data. Both types of comments would neces sarily have required respondents to make negative comments about men despite ambivalent sexism’s overriding function of upholding the imbalance of power between the sexes. Comments that referred to men’s incompetence in any domain might, then, seem unlikely in the context of this story. Alterna tively, such comments might simply not have been made because they could have seemed irrelevant given the fact that women were the primary targets of this joke.

L im ita t io n s

The generalizability of these results might have been affected by the exclusion of various members

of the population based on lack of Internet access. Those with access to the Internet may be more privileged, at least in terms of socioeconomic status, than those without access. Therefore, our results may be inflated in that they largely reflect the interests of high-status group members. Regard less, we determined that our dataset was highly representative of the population exposed to online media content and therefore generalizable to this particular subset of individuals.

The sources of data might have also affected the generalizability of these findings. We selected websites that had been previously identified as fairly neutral in terms of political affiliation. However, it is hard to determine the exact perspective of each news site, and the political affiliations of the readers would likely influence their reactions and justifica tions of the story. It would be interesting for future research to also integrate the political perspective of the website and commenter.

The present study might have benefited from the inclusion of demographic data such as sex of the commenters who participated. Our initial hope was to code comments for the sex of the writers. Unfortunately, such inform ation was unavail able due to the low frequency of individuals who expressly stated their sex ( n = 29). Future studies may explore the role that multiple intersecting facets of identity play in responses and reactions to sexist humor.

In addition, the fact that there were only two coders for the present study is a potential limita tion. Because the interrater reliability on the initial

T A B L E 2

F re q u e n c ie s a n d P e rc e n ta g e s fo r C o d e s In to E ach o f

t h e C a te g o r ie s

C ode F re q u e n c y %

C a v a lie r h u m o r 1 0 9 2 5 .1

U n in te r p r e ta b le 9 7 2 3 .9

H o s tile s e x is m -w o m e n 4 4 1 0 .8

J u s tif ic a t io n n o t o th e r w is e s p e c ifie d 41 1 0 .1

G e n e ra l h u m o r 31 7 .6

O b je c tio n 31 7 .6

A g r e e m e n t 2 3 5 .7

H o s ti le s e x is m -m e n 1 0 2 .5

D e n ia l o f s ex is m 1 0 2 .5

B e n e v o le n t s e x is m -w o m e n 8 2 .0

S oc ia l d o m in a n c e 7 1 .7

B e n e v o le n t s e x is m -m e n 2 0 .5

Peters, Holmgreen, and Oswald | It's Just a Joke

subset of data was determined to be substantial, one coder proceeded with the coding of the rest of the comments. Given the established interrater reliability, we feel confident in the accuracy of the subsequent coding and the validity of the catego ries coded. Regardless, future researchers might consider using multiple independent coders for all comments to further ensure coding accuracy.

Despite the limitations of online-based content analysis, there is certainly value in such data. It is likely that the anonymity provided by such venues allows users to provide candid responses, and dif ferent results might be obtained in a laboratory due to social desirability demands. Thus, these types of comments provide a rich source of data that we encourage future researchers to consider using for qualitative research. Furthermore, qualitative coding programs such as Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count could help to further identify themes within the comments. Finally, future research could utilize experimental methods to determine exactly who accepts or rejects sexist humor and by exactly which mechanisms.

Conclusion Many people claim that “a joke is just a joke,” yet evidence has suggested otherwise. As Hodson and colleagues (2010) indicated, individuals who view offensive humor with cavalier attitudes may, in fact, bear a certain degree of prejudice. The positive reaction elicited by this joke provided evidence of an unwillingness to reject the status quo. Furthermore, if Internet users respond pub licly and positively to derogatory humor, this may increase the likelihood that companies will use similar marketing strategies in the future. Previ ous studies have provided evidence that exposure to derogatory hum or may perpetuate negative attitudes toward historically oppressed groups (Ford et ah, 2008; Greenwood & Isbell, 2002; RomeroSanchez et ah, 2009; Tiggemann & McGill, 2004). Exposure to prejudice such as sexism may be psychologically harmful. For example, Swim, Hyers, Cohen, and Ferguson (2001) found that women who experienced sexism in their everyday lives were more likely to report anger, anxiety, discomfort, depression, and low self-esteem. As this evidence indicated, a sexist joke may not be “just a joke.” Rather, it holds the potential to provoke attitudes of hostility and damage the psychological well-being of women. Determining the dynamics by which individuals justify and perpetuate sexist humor is an important first step in establishing

efforts to counteract these processes. The present study contributed to an understanding of what types of comments may frequently emerge in the context of sexist humor, and future studies have the potential to further elucidate why these types of comments are used.

References Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2010). Vet another dark side of chivalry:

Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 101,62-77. doi:10.1037/a0022615

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. doi:10.1037/ h0036215

Chan, F. Y. (2011). Selling through entertaining: The effect of humour in television advertising in Hong Kong. Journal o f Marketing Communications, 17,319-336. doi:10.1080/13527261003729220

Diaconu-Muresan, A., & Stewart, M. W. (2010). Bomanian college students’ reactions to sexist humor: Description and predictors. Journal o f Gender Studies, 19,279-296. doi:10.1080/09589236.2010.494344

Eisend, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of gender roles in advertising. Journal o f the Academy o f Marketing Science, 38,418-440. doi:10.1007/s11747- 009-0181-x

Eisend, M. (2011). How humor in advertising works: A meta-analytic test of alternative models. Marketing Letters, 22, 115-132. doi:10.1007/ s11002-010-9116-z

Ford,T. E„ Boxer, C. F.,Armstrong,J.,&Edel,J. R. (2008). More than ‘justajoke’: The prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 ,159-170. doi:10.1177/014616720731002

Ford, T. E., Wentzel, E. R., & Lorion, J. (2001). Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. European Journal o f Social Psychology, 31 ,677—691. doi:10.1002/ejsp.56

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology o f Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536. doi:10.1111 /j.1471 -6402.1999. tb00379.x

Glick, R, & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism and complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56 ,109-118. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.2.109

Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men’s and women’s reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26 ,341-350. doi:10.1111 /1471 -6402.t01 -2-00073

Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal o f Economics, 120, 1191-1237. doi:10.1162/003355305775097542

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal o f Social Issues, 57,657-674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234

Hodson, G., Rush, J., & Maclnnis, C.C. (2010). A joke is just a joke (except when it isn’t): Cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 660-682. doi:10.1037/a0019627

Infanger, M., Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Communality sells: The impact of perceivers’ sexism on the evaluation of women’s portrayals in advertisements. European Journal o f Social Psychology, 42, 219-226. doi:10.1002/ejsp.868

Kim, K., & Lowry, D. T. (2005). Television commercials as a lagging social indicator: Gender role stereotypes in Korean television advertising. Sex Roles, 12,901-910. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-8307-1

Krishnan, H. S., & Chakravarti, D. (2003). A process analysis of the effects of humorous advertising executions on brand claims memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 13,230-245. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1303_05

Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63, 767-780. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-0707-z

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. C. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 ,159-174. doi:10.2307/2529310

FALL 2015

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

It’s Just a Joke | Peters, Holmgreen, and Oswald

FALL 2015

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Monk-Turner, E., Kouts, T., Parris, K., & Webb, C. (2007). Gender role stereotyping in advertisements on three radio stations: Does musical genre make a difference? Journal o f Gender Studies, 16, 173-182. doi:10.1080/09589230701324736

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Bertram, F. M. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 67,, 741-763. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.4.741

Romero-Sanchez, M., Duran, M., Carretero-Dios H., Megias, J. L , & Moya, M. (2009). Exposure to sexist humor and rape proclivity: The moderator effect of aversiveness ratings. Journal o f Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2339-2350. doi:10.1177/0886260509354884

Ruppanner, L. E. (2010). Cross-national reports of housework: An investigation of the gender empowerment measure. Social Science Research, 39, 963-975. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.002

Stankiewicz, J. M „ & Rosseli, F. (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles, 58, 579-589. doi:10.1007/sl 1199- 007-9359-1

Strick, M., Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., & Van Knippen, A. (2009). Humor in advertisements enhances product liking by mere association. Journal

o f Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15,35-45. doi:10.1037/a0014812 Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday

sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three diary studies. Journal o f Social Issues, 57, 31-53. doi:10.1037/ a0014812

Tiggemann, M , & McGill, B. (2004). The role of social comparison in the effect of magazine advertisements on women’s mood and body dissatisfaction. Social and Clinical Psychology, 2 3 ,23-44. doi:10.1521/ jscp.23.1.23.2699

Author Note. Natalie Peters, Lucie Holmgreen, and Debra Oswald, Department of Psychology, Marquette University, WI.

L.ucie Holmgreen is now at Department of Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center.

This research was supported by a Research Fellowship from the Women’s and Gender Studies Program at Marquette University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Natalie Peters, Milwaukee, WI. E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Copyright of Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research is the property of Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.