Impact of Gender Cues in Advertisements on Perceived Gender Identity Meanings of the Advertised Product

Abstract

The study investigates the phenomenological impact of gender cues in advertisements on the perceived gender identity meanings of the advertised product. The study utilizes a randomly assigned participants design that exposes three separate groups of participants to differently gendered advertisements of the same product and captures the distinction in the participants’ construction of the gender identity meanings of the advertised product under experimental conditions. Results establish the significant influence of gender cues in advertisements on the perceived gender identity meanings of the advertised product. Results also underscore the difference in the perceptions of men and women under the same stimulus. Theoretical contributions and implications for marketers are discussed.

Keywords

Gender advertisements gender cues gender identity gender type gendered product

Introduction

Despite the fluid gender identities of the current generation (Hans, Kersey, & Kimberley, 2012; Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2012; Morton, 2002) and claims that we have entered the post-gender era (Patterson & Elliot, 2002), product gender remains a significant aspect of the overall marketing mix (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2007).*

An earlier version of this article was presented at the International Conference on Management and Information Systems (ICMIS), 2016, at Bangkok, Thailand.

Gender still assumes a central position in numerous marketing narrations (Avery, 2012). Marketers attribute gender to products with the motive of enhancing their consumer appeal (Fugate & Phillips, 2010; Whipple & Courtney, 1980). For this reason, perhaps, there exist more gendered products than gender-neutral products (Stern, Gould, & Tewari, 1993).

While the contention that the gendering of products and even services is universal and ubiquitous (Avery, 2012; Fischer & Gainer, 1994) remains unchallenged, the reasons that contribute towards the development of product gender identities and meanings remain unexplored in consumer research (Debevec & Iyer, 1986). It remains by and large unknown whether specific product attributes, typical product usage, individual’s own gender identity, mass media imagery or a mix of all these factors confers gender on products (Gainer, 1993; Latif, Syed, Halepoto, Nazar, & Shaikh, 2012; Stuteville, 1971). As such, consumer research is replete with call for research in this particular area of inquiry (Bellizzi & Milner, 1991; Fugate & Phillips, 2010).

The present study addresses this call for research in the area of mass media cues, with specific reference to advertising cues. It empirically investigates the impact of gender cues in television commercials on the perceived gender identity meanings of the advertised product. It also examines the differences between the perceptions of men and women.

In this study, the author first reviews the extant relevant literature and highlights the rationales that provide support for product gendering. The author also exposes the limitations of the existing research. Subsequently, the author describes the study design and findings. The study concludes with a discussion on the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of the study.

Theory

Gendered Products

Gendered products typically carry masculine or feminine identities (Gainer, 1993) that indicate their suitability for a particular gender type only (Avery, 2012). Gendered products target one of the genders and ignore the opposite gender. Previous scholars argue that gendering a product, that is, attributing a gender to a product, is rampant (Fischer & Gainer, 1994) and involves the use of marketing communication that selectively addresses ‘women as women, men as men and people as people, regardless of sex’ (Bellizzi & Milner, 1991, p. 73). Thus, gendered products appeal to the gender of the consumers.

Within the broader framework of the gender schema theory (Bem, 1974), many researchers have examined whether products and services have a gender (Fugate & Philips, 2010; Iyer & Debevec, 1986; Milner & Fodness, 1996). The results of all these studies are consistent and establish that more often than not, products and services have either male or female gender identities (Stern, Gould, & Tewari, 1993). These identities are neither ambiguous (Fugate & Philips, 2010) nor particularly predisposed to revision (Bellizzi & Milner, 1991; Frieden, 2013; Tuncay & Otnes, 2008).

There is some research that reports recent attempts of marketers to diffuse the strictly gendered consumption domains and encourage consumers of both genders to co-opt previously gendered products (Avery, 2012; Firat, 1994). Empirical evidence is available that suggests that while both genders resist gender bending of their products, men tend to be more offended when the gender spectrum of their products is expanded to include women (McCracken, 1988; Worth, Smith, & Mackie, 1992). They perceive it as the contamination of the gender of their products (Avery, 2012).

Product Gendering: The Rationale

Literature on product gender typing is replete with the recompenses of gendering products (Fugate & Phillips, 2010). Scholars believe that as compared to gender-neutral products, gender-typed products can be more effectively marketed (Milner & Fodness, 1996). It is also generally understood that gender typing products helps consumers categorize products (Fugate & Phillips, 2010; Penaloza, 1994). This categorization hastens the purchase decision.

An excursion into ethnography and sociology reveals the reasons that support product gendering. In their seminal work on gender, West and Zimmerman (1987) suggest that unlike the dichotomy of the biological sex of an individual, gender is a range of beliefs and personality traits. It is a spectrum of emotions and ideologies (Eagly, 2013) that help individuals conform to or resist the culturally sanctioned and popularly understood definitions of masculinity and femininity (Butler, 2004; Gherardi, 1995; McDonald, 2013). In understanding their subjective gender, individuals selectively choose and discard gendered behaviors and practices (Lorber, 1994; Sandhu, 2017; Wetherell & Edley, 1999), and develop a personal sense of masculinity or femininity (Johnson & Wassersug, 2010). This sense is commonly referred to as gender identity.

The construction of gender identity is a complex and ongoing project (Avery, 2012; Kerr & Multon, 2015). The influence of media (Orenstein, 2011; Sandhu, 2016, 2018; Wood, 2012), social and cultural norms (Collinson & Hearn, 1994; Fugate & Phillips, 2010), discriminatory actions and agendas for men and women (Czarniawska, 2013), peer pressure (Shepard, Nicpon, Haley, Lind, & Liu, 2011), parental and family influence (Kerr & Cohen, 2001), and last but not least, direct communication (Wood, 2012) coerce individuals into gendering.

Once an individual develops a gender identity he/she displays or performs it in a number of ways: actions and acts (Butler, 1990; Gherardi, 1995), choice of props (Lorber, 1994), possessions (Avery, 2012) and so on. Of particular concern to the present study is use of consumption symbols to display gender.

A common way to accomplish or enact gender is to appropriate products that reflect or synchronize with the intended gender image that individuals desire to convey (Holt & Thompson, 2004; Palan, 2001). Individuals adorn their gender with gendered products that enact as markers of their gender identity (Avery, 2012). Literature suggests that since gendered products contain ‘masculine or feminine identity meanings that are socially shared among members of a culture’, they ‘help materialize gender’ (Avery, 2012, p. 323). Scholars have gone to the extent of claiming that individuals often purchase gendered products to make a gender statement rather than for the actual functional usage of the product (Grubb & Grathwohl, 1967). Such a tendency is higher in individuals whose gender identity is integral to their overall identity (Quester, Karunaratna, & Goh, 2000).

Individuals seeking to create gender displays with the help of products often look up to marketers to provide gender cues that can assist them in understanding the product gender and hence the suitability of the product for purchase (Fugate & Philips, 2010). If the target audience consists of individuals seeking high congruence between their own gender identity and that of the product (empirical evidence indicates that men and the older generation of consumers belong to this category [Fugate & Philips, 2010]), marketers are expected to be more obvious in conveying the product gender (Fugate & Philips, 2010). This explains why marketing commentary, in general, and ad campaigns, in particular, contain many gender cues that derive their meanings from traditional gender stereotypes (Schroeder & Zwick, 2004). Other reasons often quoted in the extant literature that provide support for use of gender-typing cues in product promotion are enhanced effectiveness in terms of the credibility, perceived quality, purchase intention and likability of the advertised product (Kanungo & Johar, 1975; Kanungo & Pang, 1973).

Product Gendering: Modes and Methods

Product packaging, choice of colours, shape of the product, logo, brand name, graphics, choice of marketing medium and so on are popular cues employed by marketers to imply the product gender (Alreck, Settle, & Belch, 1982; Bellizzi & Milner, 1991; Fugate & Philips, 2010; Wolin, 2003). As long back as 1982, Alreck and colleagues found that products with a feminine name confer a feminine gender identity on the product and vice versa. The researchers also suggested that choice of the marketing medium has a bearing on the perceived gender of the product in question. For example, placement of advertisements in magazines generally read by women, gender types the advertised product as female (Alreck et al., 1982). Similarly, gender segregation of products is also sought by carefully choosing the time of telecast of advertisements. Since men are likely to watch more television on weekends and during late evenings, the incidence of ads for products/services targeting men is higher on weekend and late evening television (Craig, 1990). Use of the color pink and sparkles in product packaging, logos, advertisements or the product itself typify the product as feminine (Orenstein, 2011). Marketing narration that singles out the target audience indicates an attempt to woo men, since women do not like to be directly targeted (Bellizzi & Milner, 1991).

Since the present study specifically concerns with advertising cues and their impact on product gender identity, the subsequent paragraphs of this section categorically deal with gender cues in advertisements.

Advertising literature extensively reports the use of gender cues in advertisements. Early references to use of gender cues in advertisements can be found in the work of Kanungo and Pang (1973), Doolittle and Pepper (1975), Kanungo and Johar (1975), McArthur and Resko (1975), and Verna (1975). Since then, many studies have been conducted that document the overt and covert use of gender signals in advertisements (Ali, Ali, Kumar, Hafeez, & Ghufran, 2012; Harris & Stobart, 1986; Kaufman, 1999).

The gender cues employed in advertisements can be primarily divided into two categories—verbal and visual cues. The most commonly used verbal cues include gendered captions (Avery, 2012; Knupfer, 1998), soundtrack volume (Browne, 1998) and gender of voiceover (Sandhu, Mahajan, & Sharma, 2012). Use of gendered nouns and pronouns in the ad caption, such as, he, she, boy, man and woman indicate the gender suitability of the advertised product (Knupfer, 1998). For example, the ad caption of Femina, ‘The Woman of Substance’, indicates that the magazine is for women. Similarly, high soundtrack volumes and male voiceovers target male consumers and vice versa (Childs & Maher, 2003; Maher & Childs, 2003; Neto & Pinto, 1998; Sandhu et al., 2012; Siu & Au, 1997).

The popular non-verbal gender cues in advertisements are gender of the models in the ad (Bretl & Cantor, 1988; Furnham & Bitar, 1993; Rubie-Davies, Liu, & Lee, 2013) and imagery, setting or the graphics used (Fugate & Philips, 2010; Macklin & Kolbe, 1983). Gender of the models in ads is a widely researched area (Furnham & Bitar, 1993; Knupfer, 1997). It is believed to be a ‘direct and high impact gender signal’ (Childs & Maher, 2003, p. 414). Gender of the spokesperson (Debevec & Iyer, 1986; Kanungo & Johar, 1975), placement of models of different genders in the ad (Harris & Stobart, 1986), frequency of appearance of male and female models (Rubie-Davies et al., 2013), gender of central character (Bretl & Cantor, 1988; McArthur & Resko, 1975), gender of main product user (Doolittle & Pepper, 1975) and gender of the person who delivers the end comment (Neto & Pinto, 1998) are various ways in which advertisers make use of models of different genders to indicate the gender suitability of the advertised product. An exclusive or higher incidence of male models in any of the above forms is a powerful gender cue that specifies the advertisers’ attempt to pursue men and vice versa. Further, some research also indicates that the imagery in ad, as communicated by the ad setting (Bailey, 2006; Smith, 1994), graphics (Fugate & Phillips, 2010), gendered images (Shepard et al., 2011), collection of gendered objects visible in the ad (Knupfer, 1998), aggression and activity level (Browne, 1998), and exhibits of gendered activities that can be performed with the aid of the advertised product (Kaufman, 1999), is a powerful product gender-typing hint. Outdoor and office settings target male consumers, and domestic and indoor settings target female audience (Johar, Moreau, & Schwarz, 2003; Rutherford, 1994). Images that denote or convey power, strength, knowledge, control, dominance, achievement and so on sway the consumer base towards men (Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005; Mazzella, Durkin, Cerini, & Buralli, 1992). On the other hand, images of beauty and attractiveness appeal to female consumers (Downs & Harrison, 1985). Advertisers seeking to connect the advertised product with men also conspicuously display male-gendered objects, such as, masculine clothes, power tools, footballs, male supplies, weapons and so on in the ad (Knupfer, 1998). Similarly, a collection of female stereotyped objects, for example, cosmetics and utensils polarize the product as fit for women (Orenstein, 2011; Rutherford, 1994). High aggression and activity levels in the ad attract male consumers and vice versa (Ali et al., 2012; Browne, 1998). Last but not least, the advertiser’s claim that the activities typically associated with women, such as cleaning and shopping, can be performed more efficiently with the aid of the advertised product indicates an attempt to conflate the product with women and vice versa (Kaufman, 1999).

Other gender cues documented in advertising research are ad focus (Knupfer, 1998) and frequency of telecast of gendered ads (Smith, 1994). Ads focusing on product features and function typically target men. Ads that focus on looks particularly aim to attract women (Knupfer, 1998). If for the same product differently gendered ads are on air, a higher frequency of telecast of a female-gendered ad indicates an attempt to imply that the advertised product may be more appropriate for women than men and vice versa (Smith, 1994).

A review of the relevant literature indicates that while gender cues in ads have been extensively researched, the ability of the gender cues to confer a gender identity on the advertised product remains relatively unexplored. In her famous work on advertising and gender, Woolfolk (1995) hypothesizes, but does not claim, that gender cues in advertisements significantly help confer gender identities on products. Other researchers who examined the same phenomenon established that gender characteristics in advertisements significantly impact the audiences’ perceived eligibility for the purchase and use of the advertised products (Childs & Maher, 2003; Knupfer, 1998; Sandhu et al., 2012; Taris & Bok, 1998). However, with the exception of Debevec and Iyer (1986), the author did not come across any other study that categorically examined the impact of gender cues in advertisements on the gender identity of the product. Debevec and Iyer (1986) examined the impact of the gender of the spokesperson on the product gender identity and empirically established that products endorsed by female spokespersons are perceived as significantly more feminine than those endorsed by male spokespersons and vice versa.

Since little literature is available that indicates the apt gender cues that can be effectively used to gender type products (Fugate & Philips, 2010), the present study is justified. Therefore, with the help of a multi-method experimental design, the present study attempts to examine the impact of gender cues in audio-visual commercials on the perceived gender identity of the advertised product. It also seeks to underscore the difference between the perceptions of men and women.

Methodology

The present study used a multimethod design to assess the phenomenological impact of gender cues in audio-visual television commercials on the perceived gender identity meanings of the advertised product. The study design constituted exposure of three separate groups of participants to differently gendered ads of the same product. Immediately following the exposure to the ads, the perceptions of the participants regarding the identity meanings of the advertised product were captured on a predesigned coding sheet. Literature on product gender identities offers a ready repository of adjectives/words/phrases that operationalize the gender of the product (Alvesson & Billing, 1997; Avery, 2012; Bem, 1974; Brannon, 1976; Holt & Ellis, 1998; Thompson & Holt, 2004). This warehouse was used to distinguish the gender identity meanings of the product from the non-gender identity meanings of the product.

Table 1.

Content Analysis of Selected Ads

Content Analytic Measure	Advertisement 1 (Theme—a Coder Finds His Dream) (Datsun India, 2016a)	Advertisement 2 (Theme—a Dancer Finds Her Dream) (Datsun India, 2016b)
Gender of voiceover (Childs & Maher, 2003; Maher & Childs, 2003)	Male only	Female only
Gender of main product user (Childs & Maher, 2003)	Male only	Female only
Gender of dominant character (Bretl & Cantor, 1988; Maher & Childs, 2003; Sandhu et al. 2012)	Male only	Female only
Gender of spokesperson (Debevec & Iyer, 1986)	Male only	Female only
Gender of person who delivers the end comment (Ali et al., 2012; Furnham & Bitar, 1993)	Male only	Female only

Source: The author.

Selection of Advertisements

To meet the purpose of the current study, it was vital that the selected advertisements satisfy two criteria. First, availability of differently gendered ads of the same product was imperative. Second, in order to avoid response bias because of participants’ previous exposure to the ads, previously unseen ads were required. As such, in February 2016, the launch ads of the car Datsun Go were recorded. The author carefully examined the gender roles in the ads. Previous literature indicates that content analysis of ads is the most popular and effective method of assessing the use of gender in ads (Rouner, Slater, & Domenech-Rodriguez, 2003; Rubie-Davies et al., 2013; Sandhu et al., 2012). This method was employed and, after much deliberation, two ads that suited the present requirement were shortlisted. Table 1 captures the content analysis of the two selected ads.

As can be seen from Table 1, both the selected ads are either male-gendered or female-gendered. This gender exclusivity was the main reason for the selection of the ads (despite the fact that a number of ads of Datsun Go were simultaneously on air). Further, since the launch ads were recorded and the experiment was conducted a few days after these ads were first telecast on national television networks, very few study participants had previously seen the ads. The responses of such participants were discounted in the final analysis. To sum up, it can be said that the shortlisted ads qualified both the prerequisites for ad selection, and over and above the two prerequisites, both English and Hindi versions of the selected ads were available.

Preparation of Coding Sheet

In order to design the coding sheet for capturing the responses of participants to the experimental conditions, an unaided elicitation task was used (Avery, 2012), ‘if we personify Datsun Go, describe the kind of person it would be’. The elicited meanings helped structure a set of 17 differential scale items contained in the final coding sheet. Exact opposites for 10 of the 17 scale items were readily available (Stylish/Unstylish, Rural dweller/Urban dweller, Modern/Traditional, Young/Old, Stays in a nuclear family/Stays in a joint family, Male/Female, Rich/Poor, Reckless/Safe, Masculine/Feminine, Ordinary/Extraordinary). For the remaining seven items, it was difficult to find perfect opposites (Someone looking for a good bargain, Innovative, Sports lover, Enthusiastic, Spendthrift, Career-oriented, Individualistic). Therefore, the former items were anchored on a bipolar scale, and the latter items were anchored on a unipolar scale. For each of the 17 scale items, a seven-point scale was used. Although the study was only concerned with the gender identity meanings of the advertised product, all the 17 items were retained in the coding sheet to mask the true purpose of the study. The coding sheet also contained questions related to the demographic profile of the participants.

The Study

The selected advertisements and the coding sheet became the basis of a study conducted at a North-Indian university in February 2016. The study utilized a randomly assigned participants design that manipulated the advertisements shown to each of the three groups of participants. The first group of participants was shown advertisement 1. It may be noted that all the content analytic measures used to examine gender roles in this ad established male exclusivity of the ad (for details of the advertisement refer to Table 1). The same advertisement was first shown in English and then in Hindi. Group 2 participants were shown advertisement 2. An examination of the advertiser provided gender cues used in this ad indicted female gendering of the ad (details of content analysis of the ad are available in Table 1). Once again, the ad was first shown in English and then in Hindi. The third group of participants was shown both the advertisements. In line with the routine, both the ads were first shown in English and then in Hindi. Immediately after airing the ads, the responses of the participants were recorded on the coding sheet. The study was conducted in three parallel sessions. In order to prevent response bias, the participants of the study were not allowed to talk to each other or leave the room during the conduct of the experiment. For the same reason, the responses of the participants who had previous exposure to the ads were not included in the final analysis (already discussed in a previous subsection).

Table 2.

Demographic Profile of the Participants in Percentages

Variable and its Categories	(Absolute Numbers in Parenthesis)
Variable and its Categories	Group 1 (n = 134)	Group 2 (n = 149)	Group 3 (n = 135)
Gender
Male	58.21 (n = 78)	53.69 (n = 80)	47.41 (n = 64)
Female	41.79 (n = 56)	46.31 (n = 69)	52.59 (n = 71)
Age (in years)
20–35	41.79 (n = 56)	22.15 (n = 33)	31.11 (n = 42)
35–50	38.06 (n = 51)	44.97 (n = 67)	42.96 (n = 58)
>50	20.15 (n = 27)	32.88 (n = 49)	25.93 (n = 35)
Income (in INR)
<500,000	19.40 (n = 26)	12.08 (n = 18)	15.56 (n = 21)
500,000–1,000,000	58.21 (n = 78)	61.74 (n = 92)	50.37 (n = 68)
>1,000,000	22.39 (n = 30)	26.17 (n = 39)	34.07 (n = 46)

Source: The author.

The Sample

After discounting the unusable responses, the final sample consisted of 418 responses (Group 1, n = 134; Group 2, n = 149; Group 3, n = 135). Table 2 exhibits the demographic profile of the respondents for each of the three groups of participants separately.

Results

In order to analyse the data, the author first conducted Levene’s test across the three different groups for each of the scale items. Further, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the collected data for each case in which the results of Levene’s test were not significant. For the one case in which Levene’s test produced significant results, the Welch and Brown Forsythe tests were used.

Gender Identity Meanings of the Advertised Product

The gender identity meanings of the advertised product extracted by the study have been shown in Table 3. The results related to the variables significantly influenced by the experimental conditions have been highlighted. Results establish that the advertised product shares 12 identity meanings across the three experimental groups and only five identity meanings (Sports lover, Male/Female, Individualistic, Masculine/Feminine, Ordinary/Extraordinary) were significantly impacted by the experimental conditions. It may be of particular concern to this study that two of these five identity meanings are closely linked to gender identity (Male/Female, Masculine/Feminine) and one of the variables is a common gender stereotype (Sports lover; Avery, 2012). This clearly indicates that gender cues in advertisements significantly influence the perceived gender identity of the advertised product.

It may also be noteworthy that participants of the study pronounced product gender identities consistent with the gender-typing cues employed in the ads. The participants of Group 1, exposed to the male-gendered ad, perceived the product as more male, masculine and more of a sports lover than Group 2 and 3 participants. Group 2 and 3 participants were exposed to the female-gendered ad, and both male- and female-gendered ads, respectively. Further, if we categorically compare the group means of Groups 2 and 3 across the three gender-related variables, the same holds true. Group 3 participants perceived the advertised product as more male, masculine and more of a sports lover than the participants of Group 2.

Table 3.

Gender Identity Meanings of the Advertised Product: A Comparative Assessment of the Perceptions of the Three Groups

Scale Item	Group 1 Mean	Group 2 Mean	Group 3 Mean	Levene’s Test	ANOVA
Scale Item	Group 1 Mean	Group 2 Mean	Group 3 Mean	Sig.	F	Sig.
Stylish/Unstylish	3.97	3.80	3.48	n.s.	1.089	n.s.
Someone looking for a good bargain	3.68	3.34	3.10	n.s.	0.224	n.s.
Rural dweller/Urban dweller	5.20	5.08	5.40	n.s.	1.444	n.s.
Innovative	3.66	3.68	3.63	n.s.	0.581	n.s.
Sports lover	3.82	4.76	4.30	n.s.	5.422	**
Modern/Traditional	4.10	3.81	3.75	n.s.	0.815	n.s.
Young/Old	3.87	4.00	3.86	n.s.	1.271	n.s.
Stays in a nuclear family/Stays in a joint family	3.30	3.42	3.43	n.s.	1.555	n.s.
Enthusiastic	3.81	3.98	3.64	n.s.	0.327	n.s.
Spendthrift	3.55	3.90	3.68	n.s.	0.924	n.s.
Career-oriented	3.98	3.90	4.11	n.s.	0.142	n.s.
Male/Female	4.05	4.94	4.69	n.s.	6.171	**
Individualistic	3.51	3.67	3.95	n.s.	1.092	*
Rich/Poor	3.94	4.01	3.86	n.s.	1.898	n.s.
Reckless/Safe	3.62	3.87	3.89	n.s.	0.163	n.s.
Masculine/Feminine	3.99	4.80	4.38	n.s.	6.421	**
Ordinary/Extraordinary	4.90	5.00	4.00	n.s.	3.647	*

Source: The author.

Note: * = p< 0.05, ** = p<0.01, n.s. = p>0.05.

Gender-Based Comparison of Participants’ Perceptions

This section highlights the perceptions of the male and female participants of the study regarding the gender identity meanings of the advertised product separately (for details, refer to Tables 4 and 5, respectively). Once again, results related to the variables significantly impacted by the experimental condition have been highlighted. A separate assessment of the perceptions of men and women has been undertaken to facilitate a gender-based comparison of the perceptions of the participants.

A distinct examination of the perceptions of male participants reveals that four variables were significantly influenced by the experimental conditions. Again, two of these variables denote gender identity—Male/Female and Masculine/Feminine, and one of them is a popular gender stereotype—Sports lover (Avery, 2012). A separate scrutiny of the perceptions of the female participants reveals that three variables were significantly influenced by the experimental conditions. In this case also, two identity meanings—Male/Female and Masculine/Feminine—refer to gender identity, and one of them is a popular gender stereotype—Reckless (Avery, 2012). The two variables denoting gender identity are significant in the overall model for both the male and female participants.

An interesting observation can be drawn from Tables 4 and 5. Exposure to the same ads, with the same gender cues, impacts the perception of men and women differently. Male participants of Group 1 perceived the advertised product as more male and masculine than the female participants of Group 1. Similarly, the male participants of Group 2 perceived the advertised product as more female and feminine than the female participants of Group 2. Therefore, in response to exposure to the same gender cues in ads, men tend to exaggerate the gender of the advertised product.

Table 4.

Gender Identity Meanings of the Advertised Product: The Perception of Male Participants

Scale Item	Group 1 Mean	Group 2 Mean	Group 3 Mean	Levene’s Test	ANOVA		Robust Tests of Equality of Means
				Levene’s Test	ANOVA		Welch		Brown Forsythe
				Sig.	F	Sig.	Statistic	Sig.	Statistic	Sig.
Stylish/Unstylish	3.97	3.83	3.48	n.s.	0.878	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Someone looking for a good bargain	3.62	3.38	3.09	n.s.	1.400	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Rural dweller/Urban dweller	5.28	5.05	5.42	n.s.	0.647	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Innovative	3.64	3.68	3.61	n.s.	0.016	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Sports lover	3.91	4.54	4.25	n.s.	3.175	*	–	–	–	–
Modern/Traditional	4.08	3.83	3.70	n.s.	0.526	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Young/Old	3.85	4.00	3.85	n.s.	0.105	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Stays in a nuclear family/Stays in a joint family	3.31	3.25	3.33	n.s.	0.030	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Enthusiastic	3.92	4.05	3.79	n.s.	0.389	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Spendthrift	3.54	3.95	3.64	n.s.	1.230	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Career-oriented	4.03	3.98	4.06	n.s.	0.041	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Male/Female	3.90	5.00	4.58	n.s.	5.861	**	–	–	–	–
Individualistic	3.46	3.88	3.94	n.s.	1.450	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Rich/Poor	3.97	4.10	3.64	n.s.	1.150	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Reckless/Safe	3.62	3.76	4.00	n.s.	0.715	n.s.	–	–	–	–
Masculine/Feminine	3.87	4.89	4.43	*	–	–	7.196	**	6.382	**
Ordinary/Extraordinary	3.54	3.00	3.67	n.s.	3.160	*	–	–	–	–

Source: The author.

Note: * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01, n.s. = p>0.05.

Table 5.

Gender Identity Meanings of the Advertised Product: The Perception of Female Participants

Scale Item	Group 1 Mean	Group 2 Mean	Group 3 Mean	Levene’s Test	ANOVA
Scale Item	Group 1 Mean	Group 2 Mean	Group 3 Mean	Sig.	F	Sig.
Stylish/Unstylish	3.96	3.79	3.48	n.s.	1.021	n.s.
Someone looking for a good bargain	3.77	3.30	3.12	n.s.	1.030	n.s.
Rural dweller/Urban dweller	5.16	5.11	5.37	n.s.	0.043	n.s.
Innovative	3.69	3.69	3.66	n.s.	0.142	n.s.
Sports lover	3.75	4.80	4.49	n.s.	1.011	n.s.
Modern/Traditional	4.13	3.80	3.67	n.s.	0.063	n.s.
Young/Old	3.88	4.00	3.87	n.s.	0.118	n.s.
Stays in a nuclear family/Stays in a joint family	3.28	3.67	3.51	n.s.	1.023	n.s.
Enthusiastic	3.99	3.91	3.58	n.s.	0.053	n.s.
Spendthrift	3.56	3.88	3.70	n.s.	0.772	n.s.
Career-oriented	3.91	3.83	4.16	n.s.	0.634	n.s.
Male/Female	4.26	4.88	4.79	n.s.	3.243	*
Individualistic	3.56	3.48	3.96	n.s.	0.623	n.s.
Rich/Poor	3.90	3.88	3.69	n.s.	1.119	n.s.
Reckless/Safe	3.62	4.00	3.78	n.s.	0.715	**
Masculine/Feminine	4.17	4.69	4.33	n.s.	6.201	**
Ordinary/Extraordinary	6.08	6.13	5.92	n.s.	0.183	n.s.

Source: The author.

Note: * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01, n.s. = p>0.05

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

First, the results of the current study establish that gender cues in ads significantly impact the viewers’ perception regarding the gender of the advertised product. As such, advertisers can confer gender on advertised products with the help of appropriate gender-typing cues. Also, the gender cues used in the ads compliment the gender identity meanings bestowed on the advertised product.

Second, the study establishes that use of the same gender-typing cues in ads impacts the perception of men and women differently. Previous literature indicates that men tend to perceive masculine products as more masculine and feminine products as more feminine (Alreck et al., 1982; Frieden, 2013). As such, men tend to exaggerate the gender of different products. Conversely, under the same external stimuli, women have more moderate perceptions regarding the gender of products (Frieden, 2013). The results of the present study support these findings.

Implications for Marketers

Evidence is available that establishes that the consumer behavior of a person compliments his/her gender identity (Fugate & Philips, 2010). People tend to match their own gender with the product gender (Avery, 2012; Fugate & Phillips, 2010). Within this context, the results of the present study may be particularly useful for advertisers intending to confer gender on products with a view to specifically target either men or women. This will help consumers understand ‘what is culturally theirs’ (Milner & Fodness, 1996, p. 41) and easily connect with the advertised product. Thus, advertisers seeking to elicit a positive response from men may use more male gender-typing cues in ads and vice versa.

Advertisers may also selectively use a mix of different gender-typing cues in ads to moderate or bend the gender of existing products. This will encourage men and women to use products traditionally targeted towards a particular gender only, and enhance the overall appeal and market of the product in question. This strategy may be particularly useful given the emergence of the ‘unisex’ trend in products and brands. Marketers may find the results of the present study specifically helpful in the design of cross-gender marketing strategies.

Extant research also shows that ads activating any schema, particularly gender, tend to be more effective and enhance the likelihood of product purchase (Maldonado, Tansuhaj, & Muehling, 2003). Given this understanding, the results of the present study have a definite practical significance since they establish that gender cues in ads activate the gender schema. Advertisers may find the results of the present study helpful in developing ads.

Limitations and Future Research

It is the author’s understanding that the results of the present study may be subject to ad-specific, product-specific and experiment-specific limitations. Though the ads for the study were chosen after much deliberation, the results of the study may be tied to the particular ads used. As already pointed out, the ads used for the study were severely gendered. Results may change if less or even more severely gendered ads are used. The results may also change if the gender cues in the ads change. Further, though Datsun Go is not considered a particularly masculine brand (Sandhu & Singh, 2017), an automobile is basically a male-gendered product (Belk, 2004; Fugate & Phillips, 2010; Lane & Sternberg, 1985; Thompson & Holt, 2004). This may have also influenced the study results. Future investigators may examine if these results hold good under different treatments—change of product, ads and so on.

Further, apart from the gender-related variables, only two other variables—Individualistic and Ordinary/Extraordinary —were significantly influenced by the experimental conditions. The other variables denote economic status, social class and the likes. Future researchers may try to establish the advertising cues that significantly impact these identity meanings.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

About the Author

Namrata Sandhu has 14 years of experience in research, consulting and teaching postgraduate management courses, both in India and abroad. She has authored two books and over 60 research papers published in journals of academic repute such as Global Business Review, Journal of Human Values, Paradigm, and Business Perspectives and Research. She regularly presents her research at various international and national conferences and has thrice won the Best Research Paper Award (2015 IMRA-IIMB International Conference, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, December 2015; 14th AIMS International Conference on Management, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad, December 2016; International Conference on Management and Information Systems, Bangkok, Thailand, September 2017). She also acts as session chair/discussant/resource person at many of these conferences. She is the recipient of the Outstanding Young Woman Researcher Award from the Association of Indian Management Scholars and the Management Teacher Award from AIMS International, USA. Her areas of interest include ethics, finance and gender studies. She is currently employed as Professor with Chitkara Business School, Chandigarh. She can be reached at sandhunamrata@gmail.com.

References

Ali

Kumar

Hafeez

M. H.

Ghufran

(2012). Gender role portrayal in television advertisement: Evidence from Pakistan. Information Management and Business Review , 4(6), 340–351.

Alreck

P. L.

Settle

R. B.

Belch

M. A.

(1982). Who responds to ‘gendered’ ads and how? Journal of Advertising Research , 22(2), 25–31.

Alvesson

Billing

Y. D.

(1997). Understanding gender and organizations . London: SAGE Publications.

Avery

(2012). Defending the markers of masculinity: Consumer resistance to brand gender-bending. International Journal of Research in Marketing , 29(4), 322–336.

Bailey

A. A.

(2006). A year in the life of the African–American male in advertising. The Journal of Advertising , 35(1), 83–104.

Belk

R. W.

(2004). Men and their machines. Advances in Consumer Research , 31(1), 273–278.

Bellizzi

J. A.

Milner

(1991). Gender positioning of a traditionally male-dominant product. Journal of Advertising Research , 31(3), 72–79.

Bem

S. L.

(1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 42(2), 155–162.

Brannon

(1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint of manhood and what it’s done for us lately. In David

Brannon

(Eds.), The forty-nine per cent majority: The male sex role (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Random House.

10.

Bretl

D. J.

Cantor

(1988). The portrayal of men and women in U.S. television commercials: A recent content analysis and trends over 15 years. Sex Roles , 18(9/10), 595–609.

11.

Browne

B. A.

(1998). Gender stereotypes in advertising on children’s television in the 1990s: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Advertising , 27(1), 83–96.

12.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity . New York: Routledge.

13.

Butler

(2004). Undoing gender . New York: Routledge.

14.

Childs

N. M.

Maher

J. K.

(2003). Gender in food advertising to children: Boys eat first. British Food Journal , 105(7), 408–419.

15.

Collinson

D. L.

Hearn

(1994). Naming men as men: Implications for work, organizations and management. Gender, Work & Organization , 1(1), 2–22.

16.

Craig

(1990). A content analysis comparing gender images in network television commercials aired in daytime, evening and weekend telecasts. Retrieved 23 January 2017, from www.theculturelab.umd.edu/uploads/1/4/2/2/14225661/craig_effecttv.pdf

17.

Czarniawska

(2013). Negotiating selves: Gender at work. Tamara—Journal of Critical Organization Inquiry , 11(1), 59–72.

18.

Datsun India. (2016a, 22 January). A coder finds his dream—#IsayYes . Retrieved 27 September 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5jbuarwtpI

19.

Datsun India. (2016b, 22 January). A Dancer Finds Her Dream—#IsayYes . Retrieved 27 September 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2VlFrr2hg

20.

Davies

P. G.

Spencer

S. J.

Steele

C. M.

(2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88(7/8), 276–287.

21.

Debevec

Iyer

(1986). The influence of spokes-persons in altering a product’s gender image: Implications for advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising , 15(4), 12–20.

22.

Doolittle

Pepper

(1975). Children’s TV ad content. Journal of Broadcasting , 19(2), 131–142.

23.

Downs

A. C.

Harrison

S. K.

(1985). Embarrassing age spots or just plain ugly? Physical attractiveness stereotyping as an instrument of sexism on American television commercials. Sex Roles , 13(1/2), 9–19.

24.

Eagly

A. H.

(2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation . New York, NY: Psychology Press.

25.

Firat

A. F.

(1994). Gender and consumption: Transcending the feminine? In Costa

J. A.

(Ed.), Gender and consumer behavior (pp. 205–225). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

26.

Fischer

Gainer

(1994). Masculinity and the consumption of organized sports. In Costa

J. A.

(Ed.), Gender and consumer behavior (pp. 84–103). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

27.

Frieden

L. R.

(2013). The role of consumer gender identity and brand concept consistency in evaluating cross gender brand extensions. Retrieved 23 January 2017, from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4488/

28.

Fugate

Phillips

(2010). Product gender perceptions and antecedents of product gender congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing , 27(3), 251–261.

29.

Furnham

Bitar

(1993). The stereotype portrayal of men and women in British advertisements. Sex Roles , 29(3/4), 297–310.

30.

Gainer

(1993). An empirical investigation of the role of involvement with a gendered product. Psychology & Marketing , 10(4), 265–283.

31.

Galinsky

Aumann

Bond

J. T.

(2012). Times are changing: Gender and generation at work and at home in the USA. In Shaffer

M. A.

Joplin

J. R.

Hsu

Y. S.

(Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of work-family research: A vision for the future (pp. 279–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.

32.

Gherardi

(1995). Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

33.

Grubb

E. L.

Grathwohl

H. L.

(1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behaviour: A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing , 31(4), 22–27.

34.

Hans

J. D.

Kersey

Kimberley

(2012). Self-perceived origins of attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality , 59(1), 4–17.

35.

Harris

P. R.

Stobart

(1986). Sex role stereotyping in British television advertisements at different times of the day: An extension and refinement of Manstead and McCulloch (1981). British Journal of Social Psychology , 25(2), 149–154.

36.

Holt

C. L.

Ellis

J. B.

(1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem sex-role inventory. Sex Roles , 39(11/12), 929–941.

37.

Holt

D. B.

Thompson

C. J.

(2004). Man-of-action-heroes: The pursuit of heroic masculinity in everyday consumption. Journal of Consumer Research , 31(2), 425–440.

38.

Iyer

Debevec

(1986). Gender stereotyping of products: Are products like people? In Malhotra

Hawes

(Eds.), Developments in marketing science (pp. 40–45). Atlanta, GA: Academy of Marketing Science.

39.

Johar

G. V.

Moreau

Schwarz

(2003). Gender typed advertisements and impression formation: The role of chronic and temporary accessibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 13(3), 220–229.

40.

Johnson

T. W.

Wassersug

R. J.

(2010). Gender identity disorder outside the binary: When gender identity disorder-not journalwise specified is not good enough. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 39(3), 597–598.

41.

Kanungo

R. N.

Johar

(1975). Effects of slogans and human model characteristics in product advertisements. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science , 7(2), 127–138.

42.

Kanungo

R. N.

Pang

(1973). Effects of human models on perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 57(2), 172–178.

43.

Kaufman

(1999). The portrayal of men’s family roles in television commercials. Sex Roles , 41(5/6), 439–458.

44.

Kerr

B. A.

Cohen

(2001). Smart boys: Talent, masculinity, and the search for meaning . Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

45.

Kerr

B. A.

Multon

K. D.

(2015). The development of gender identity, gender roles, and gender relations in gifted students. Journal of Counseling & Development , 93(2), 183–191.

46.

Knupfer

N. N.

(1997). Gendered by design. Educational Technology , 37(2), 31–37.

47.

Knupfer

N. N.

(1998). Gender di visions across technology advertisements and the www: Implications for educational equity. Theory into Practice , 37(1), 54–63.

48.

Lane

R. C.

Sternberg

(1985). Use of automobile as a narcissistic object, extension of the self, and a personal metaphor. In Strean

H. S.

(Ed.), Love and narcissism in psychoanalytic practice (81–97). New York, NY: Haworth Press.

49.

Latif

Syed

A. A.

Halepoto

A. H.

Nazar

M. S.

Shaikh

F. M.

(2012). Advertising effectiveness on brand judgment and consumer preference in purchasing decision in Pakistan. Journal of Asian Business Strategy , 2(1), 9–13.

50.

Lorber

(1994). Paradoxes of gender . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

51.

Macklin

Kolbe

R. H.

(1983). Sex role stereotyping in children’s advertising: Current and past trends. Journal of Advertising , 13(2), 34–42.

52.

Maher

J. K.

Childs

N. M.

(2003). A longitudinal content analysis of gender roles in children’s television advertisements: A 27 year review. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising , 25(1), 71–81.

53.

Maldonado

Tansuhaj

Muehling

D. D.

(2003). The impact of gender on ad processing: A social identity perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Review , 52(3), 1–14.

54.

Mazzella

Durkin

Cerini

Buralli

(1992). Sex roles stereotyping in Australian television advertisements. Sex Roles , 26(7/8), 243–259.

55.

McArthur

L. Z.

Resko

B. G.

(1975). The portrayal of men and women in American television commercials. The Journal of Social Psychology , 97(2), 209–220.

56.

McCracken

(1988). Culture and consumption: New approaches to the symbolic character of consumer goods and activities . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

57.

McDonald

(2013). Conforming to and resisting dominant gender norms: How male and female nursing students do and undo gender. Gender, Work and Organization , 20(5), 561–579.

58.

Milner

L. M.

Fodness

(1996). Product gender perceptions: The case of China. International Marketing Review , 13(4), 40–51.

59.

Morton

L. P.

(2002). Targeting generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly , 47(2), 46–48.

60.

Neto

Pinto

(1998). Gender stereotypes in Portuguese television advertisements. Sex Roles , 39(1/2), 153–165.

61.

Orenstein

(2011). Cinderella ate my daughter: Dispatches from the front lines of the new girlie-girl culture . New York, NY: Harper Collins.

62.

Palan

K. M.

(2001). Gender identity in consumer behavior research: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Marketing Science Review . Retrieved 23 January 2017, from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/palan10-2001.pdf

63.

Patterson

Elliot

(2002). Negotiating masculinities: Advertising and the inversion of the male gaze. Consumption, Markets, and Culture , 5(3), 231–246.

64.

Penaloza

(1994). Crossing boundaries/drawing lines: A look at the nature of gender boundaries and their impact on marketing research. International Journal of Research in Marketing , 11(4), 359–379.

65.

Quester

P. G.

Karunaratna

Goh

L. K.

(2000). Self-congruity and product evaluation: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Consumer Marketing , 17(6), 525–535.

66.

Rouner

Slater

M. D.

Domenech-Rodriguez

(2003). Adolescent evaluation of gender role and sexual imagery in television advertisements. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 47(3), 435–454.

67.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

Liu

Lee

K. K.

(2013). Watching each journal: Portrayals of gender and ethnicity in television advertisements. Journal of Social Psychology , 153(2), 175–195.

68.

Rutherford

(1994). The new icons: The art of television advertising . Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.

69.

Sandhu

(2016). Disadvantaging the disadvantaged: Television and women. International Journal of Social Science and Business , 1(2), 41–54.

70.

Sandhu

(2017). Consumer response to brand gender bending: An integrated review and future research agenda. Business Perspectives and Research , 5(2), 151–166.

71.

Sandhu

(2018). Preferred image of women on Indian television: A move from classic stereotypes. Antyajaa: Indian Journal of Women and Social Change , 3(1), 19–136.

72.

Sandhu

Mahajan

Sharma

(2012). Gender in financial services advertising—Issues and implications. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Contemporary Marketing Issues, Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece.

73.

Sandhu

Singh

(2017). Gender contamination in Indian automobile advertisements: Male acceptance or alienation? Paradigm , 21(2), 139–155.

74.

Schiffman

Kanuk

(2007), Consumer behavior (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

75.

Schroeder

J. E.

Zwick

(2004). Mirrors of masculinity: Representation and identity in advertising images. Consumption, Markets and Culture , 7(1), 21–52.

76.

Shepard

S. J.

Nicpon

M. F.

Haley

J. T.

Lind

Liu

W. M.

(2011). Masculine norms, school attitudes, and psychosocial adjustment among gifted boys. Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 12(2), 181–187.

77.

Siu

A. K.

(1997). Women in advertising: A comparison of television advertisements in China and Singapore. Marketing Intelligence and Planning , 15(5), 235–243.

78.

Smith

(1994). A content analysis of gender differences in children’s advertising. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 38(3), 323–338.

79.

Stern

B. B.

Gould

S. J.

Tewari

(1993). Sex-typed service images: An empirical investigation of self-service variables. Service Industries Journal , 13(3), 74–96.

80.

Stuteville

J. R.

(1971). Sexually polarized products and advertising strategy. Journal of Retailing , 47(2), 3–14.

81.

Taris

T. W.

Bok

I. A.

(1998). On gender specificity of person characteristics in personnel advertisements: A study among future applicants. The Journal of Psychology , 132(6), 593–610.

82.

Thompson

C. J.

Holt

D. B.

(2004). How do men grab the phallus? Gender tourism in everyday consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture , 4(3), 155–159.

83.

Tuncay

Otnes

(2008). The use of persuasion management strategies by identity-vulnerable consumers: The case of urban heterosexual male shopper. Journal of Retailing , 84(4), 487–499.

84.

Verna

M. E.

(1975). The female image in children’s TV commercials. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 44(2), 329–348.

85.

West

Zimmerman

D. H.

(1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society , 1(2), 123–151.

86.

Wetherell

Edley

(1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism and Psychology , 9(3), 335–356.

87.

Whipple

T. W.

Courtney

A. E.

(1980). How to portray women in television commercials. Journal of Advertising Research , 25(2), 26–34.

88.

Wood

J. T.

(2012). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture . Independence, KY: CengageBrain.

89.

Woolfolk

A. E.

(1995). Educational psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

90.

Wolin

L. D.

(2003). Gender issues in advertising–An oversight synthesis of research. Journal of Advertising Research , 43(1), 111–129.

91.

Worth

L. T.

Smith

Mackie

D. M.

(1992). Gender schematicity and preference for gender-typed products. Psychology and Marketing , 9(1), 17–30.