Daytime television soap operas primarily appeal to women, providing emotional release, personal gratification, companionship, and an escape from reality. This article reviews the extant literature on soap opera consumption to reveal a vulnerability system in which industry profits flow from a genre that specializes in conveying images of vulnerable women living in luxury to downscale viewers living in constrained circumstances and repeatedly exposed to unrealistic and inappropriate role models. The soap industry has recently acknowledged its audience’s vulnerability and has attempted to bring together producers, writers, and network executives to encourage awareness of the industry’s role in shaping consumers’ attitudes and behavior.
Abrams, M. H.1999. A glossary of literary terms. 7th ed.Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
2.
Babrow, A. S.1989. An expectancy-value analysis of the student soap opera audience. Communication Research16 (April): 155-178.
3.
Balasubramanian, S. K.1994. Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and public policy issues. Journal of Advertising23(4):29-46.
4.
Bandura, A.1976. Social learning theory. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
5.
Barker, C.1997. Television and the reflexive project of the self: Soaps, teenage talk and hybrid identities. British Journal of Sociology48(4):611-627.
6.
Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., and S. Meyes. 1981. Soap opera viewing: The cultivation effect. Journal of Communication31 (September): 108-115.
7.
Centers for Disease Control. 1999. Soap opera viewers and health information. Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/communication/healthsoap.htm (cited January 2, 2005).
8.
Churchill, G. A., and G. Moschis. 1979. Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research6 (June): 23-35.
9.
Coles, C. D., and J. Shamp. 1984. Somesexual, personality, and demographic characteristics of women readers of erotic romances. Archives of Sexual Behavior13 (3): 187-209.
10.
Diener, B. J.1993. The frequency and context of alcohol and tobacco cues in daytime soap opera programs: Fall 1986 and Fall 1991. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing12 (2): 252-258.
11.
Fiske, J.1987. Television culture. London: Methuen.
12.
Fox, S.2005. CDC award: Writers and producers gather to address the role of women in daytime dramas. http://www.soapsummit.org/cdcaward.htm (cited January 2, 2005).
13.
Gerbner, G., L. Gross, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli. 1994. Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Greenberg, B. S., and M. G. Woods. 1999. The soaps: Their sex, gratifications, and outcomes and statistical data included. Journal of Sex Research36 (August): 1-4.
15.
Herzog, H.1941. On borrowed experience: An analysis of listening to daytime sketches. In Studies in philosophy and social science, Vol. 9, 65-95. New York: Institute of Social Research.
16.
Hirschman, E. C.1988. The ideology of consumption: A structural-syntactical analysis of “Dallas” and “Dynasty.”Journal of Consumer Research15 (December): 344-359.
17.
Jewell, E. J., and F. Abate, eds. 2001. The new Oxford American dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
Kennedy, M. C., A. O’Leary, V. Beck, K. Pollard, and P. Simpson. 2004. Increases in calls to the CDC national STD and AIDS hotline following AIDS-related episodes in a soap opera. Journal of Communication54 (June): 287-301.
19.
La Guardia, R.1983. Soap world. New York: Arbor House.
20.
Larson, M. S.1996. Sex roles and soap operas: What adolescents learn about single motherhood. Sex Roles35 (July): 97-109.
21.
Lavin, M.1995. Creating consumers in the 1930s: Irna Phillips and the radio soap opera. Journal of Consumer Research22 (June): 75-89.
22.
Leiss, W., S. Kline, and S. Jhally. 1986. Social communication in advertising: Persons, products, and images of well-being. Toronto: Methuen.
23.
MacFarquhar, L.2002. Oakdale days: Why do so many terrible things keep happening in one town?The New Yorker, April 15, 64-71.
24.
Matelski, M. J.1990. Soap operas worldwide: Cultural and serial realities. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
25.
Mediamark Research Inc.2001. Television audiences—Spring 2001. New York: Mediamark Research Inc.
26.
Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford online dictionary: The definitive record of the English language. Oxford, UK. http://dictionary.oed.com [cited September 13, 2004].
27.
Rubin, A. M., and E. M. Perse. 1987. Audience activity and soap opera involvement. Human Communication Research14:246-268.
28.
Russell, C. A., A. T. Norman, and S. E. Heckler. 2004. The consumption of television programming: Development and validation of the Connectedness Scale. Journal of Consumer Research31 (June): 150-161.
29.
Russell, C. A., and B. Stern. 2004. Modeling consumption via parasocial interactions with television soap characters. Working paper, Rutgers Business School-Marketing—2004-14.
30.
Schudson, M.1986. Advertising, the uneasy persuasion: Its dubious impact on American society. New York: Basic Books.
31.
Signorielli, N.1989.Televisionandconceptionsaboutsex roles: Maintaining conventionality and the status quo. Sex Roles21 (September): 341-360.
32.
Soap Summit. 2005. CDC award: Writers and producers gather to address the role of women in daytime dramas. Studio City, CA.http://www.soapsummit.org/cdcaward.htm (cited January 2, 2005).
33.
Stern, B., C. A. Russell, and D. Russell. (in press). Soap opera heroines and women consumers: Images of vulnerability. In S. Gonzalez and D. Luna (Eds.), Latin American Advances in Consumer Research: Vol. 1.
34.
Tobin, F.2002. Report to Frank Tobin Public Relations from Bell-Phillip Television Productions, Los Angeles, CA.
35.
Ward, Mrs. H.1894/1984. Marcella. Repr. New York: Viking.
36.
Zenka, L.1995. Days of Our Lives: The complete family album. New York: HarperCollins.
