This content analysis examined portrayals of scientist characters in 14 television programs popular among or likely to have been viewed by middle school—age children. While male scientists significantly outnumbered and appeared in significantly more scenes than did female scientists, males and females were depicted similarly in reference to professional position, marital status, and parental status. Gender-stereotyped behavior was largely absent in portrayals of scientist characters. Additionally, both male and female scientists were portrayed most often with the wishful identification attribute of intelligence. Implications for middle school—age children’s perceptions of scientists and for cultivating girls’ interest in science careers are discussed.
American Association of University Women. ( 1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Association of University Women. ( 2000). Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
3.
Archer, S.L. ( 1985). Career and/or family: The identity process for adolescent girls. Youth & Society, 16, 289-314.
4.
Aubrey, J.S., & Harrison, K. ( 2004). The gender-role content of children’s favorite television programs and its link to their gender-related perceptions. Media Psychology, 6, 111-146.
5.
Bandura, A. ( 1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
Bandura, A. ( 2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 121-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. ( 1963a). A comparative test of the status envy, social power, and secondary reinforcement theories of identificatory learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 527-534.
8.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. ( 1963b). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 2-11.
9.
Barman, C.R. ( 1997). Students’ views of scientists and science: Results of a national study. Science and Children, 35, 18-23.
10.
Behm-Morawitz, E., & Mastro, D.E. ( 2008). Mean girls? The influence of gender portrayals in teen movies on emerging adults’ gender-based attitudes and beliefs. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 131-146.
11.
Bem, S.L. ( 1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
12.
Bem, S.L. ( 1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing . Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
13.
Brown, J.D., & Pardun, C.J. ( 2004). Little in common: Racial and gender differences in adolescents’ television diets. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 266-278.
14.
Brown, L.M., & Gilligan, C. ( 1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women’s psychology and girls’ development. New York: Ballantine.
15.
Bussey, L.M., & Bandura, A. ( 1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation . Psychological Review, 106, 676-713.
16.
Calvert, S.L., Kotler, J.A., Zehnder, S.M., & Shockey, E.M. ( 2003). Gender stereotyping in children’s reports about education and information televised programs. Media Psychology , 5, 139-162.
17.
Calvert, S.L., Murray, K.J., & Conger, E.E. ( 2004). Heroic DVD portrayals: What US and Taiwanese adolescents admire and understand. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 669-716.
18.
Chambers, D.W. ( 1983). Stereotypical images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255-265.
19.
Cherney, I.D., & London, K. ( 2006). Gender-linked differences in the toys, television shows, computer games, and outdoor activities of 5- to 13-year-old children. Sex Roles, 54, 717-726.
20.
Chory-Assad, R.M., & Cicchirillo, V. (2005). Empathy and affective orientation as predictors of identification with television characters. Communication Research Reports, 22, 151-156.
21.
Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development. (2000 ). Land of plenty: Diversity as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
22.
Corbett, J.B. ( 2001). Women, scientists, agitators: Magazine portrayals of Rachel Carson and Theo Colborn. Journal of Communication, 51, 720-749.
23.
Dunn, R.G. ( 1979). Science, technology and bureaucratic domination: Television and the ideology of scientism. Media, Culture & Society , 1, 343-354.
24.
Durkin, K. ( 1985). Television and sex-role acquisitionI. Content. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 101-113.
25.
Durkin, K., & Nugent, B. ( 1998). Kindergarten children’s gender-role expectations for television actors. Sex Roles, 38, 387-402.
26.
Eccles, J.S. ( 2006). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199-212). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
27.
Eggermont, S. ( 2004). Television viewing, perceived similarity, and adolescents’ expectations of a romantic partner. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 244-265.
28.
Eisenstock, B. ( 1984). Sex-role differences in children’s identification with counter-stereotypical televised portrayals. Sex Roles , 10, 417-430.
29.
Faber, R.J., Brown, J.D., & McLeod, J.M. (1979). Coming of age in the global village: Television and adolescence. In E. Wartella (Ed.), Children communicating: Media and development of thought, speech, understanding (pp. 215-249). Beverly Hills, CA; Sage.
30.
Flicker, E. ( 2003). Between brains and breasts-Women scientists in fiction film: On the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 307-318.
31.
Fort, D.C., & Varney, H.L. ( 1989). How children see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26, 8-13.
32.
Gerbner, G. ( 1987). Science on television: How it affects public conceptions . Issues in Science and Technology, 3, 109-115.
33.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. ( 2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
Gibson, H.L., & Chase, C. ( 2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693-705.
35.
Hawkins, R.P., Pingree, S., Hitchon, J., Gorham, B.W., Kannaovakun, P., Gilligan, E., et al. (2001). Predicting selection and activity in television genre viewing. Media Psychology, 3, 237-263.
36.
Hawkins, R.P., Pingree, S., Hitchon, J., Radler, B., Gorham, B.W., Kahlor, L., et al. (2005). What produces television attention and attention style? Genre, situation, and individual differences as predictors . Human Communication Research, 31, 162-187.
37.
Hayes, A.F. ( 2005). Statistical methods for communication science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Hoffner, C. ( 1996). Children’s wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 389-402.
39.
Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. ( 2005). Young adults’ wishful identification with television characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology, 7, 325-351.
40.
Jones, M.G., Howe, A., & Rua, M.J. ( 2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education , 84, 180-192.
41.
Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004). Draw an engineer test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about engineers and engineering. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.
42.
Krippendorff, K. ( 2004). Reliability in content analysis, some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411-433.
43.
LaFollette, M.C. ( 1981). Wizards, villains, and other scientists: The science content of television for children. Report prepared for Action for Children’s Television, Newton, MA .
44.
LaFollette, M.C. ( 1988). Eyes on the stars: Images of women scientists in popular magazines. Science, Technology & Human Values, 13, 262-275.
45.
LaFollette, M.C. ( 1990). Making science our own: Public images of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
Landis, R.J., & Koch, G.G. ( 1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
47.
Lauzen, M.M., Dozier, D.M., & Horan, N. ( 2008). Constructing gender stereotypes through social roles in prime-time television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 200-214.
48.
Leaper, C., Breed, L., Hoffman, L., & Perlman, C.A. ( 2002). Variations in the gender-stereotyped content of children’s television cartoons across genres. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1653-1662.
49.
Long, M., Boiarsky, G., & Thayer, G. ( 2001). Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science education television: A content analysis. Public Understanding of Science , 10, 255-269.
50.
Maccoby, E.E., & Wilson, W.C. ( 1957). Identification and observational learning from films . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 76-87.
51.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. ( 1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist , 41, 954-969.
52.
Martin, C.L., & Halverson, C.F. Jr. (1983). The effects of sex-typing schemas on young children's memory. Child Development, 54, 563-574
53.
Miller, P.H., Blessing, J.S., & Schwartz, S. ( 2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education , 28, 363-381.
54.
National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Arlington, VA : Author.
55.
National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008. Arlington, VA : Author.
56.
Nelkin, D. ( 1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology . New York: W. H. Freeman.
57.
Nelkin, D. ( 1990). Selling science. Physics Today, 43, 41-46.
58.
Nielsen Media Research. (2004). Broadcast rank 9/22/2003-5/26/2004, Primetime Daypart, ages 12-17. New York: Author.
59.
Nihlen, A.S., & Bailey, B.A. ( 1988). Children’s display of gender schemas through interaction with nontraditional workers. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19, 155-162.
60.
Orenstein, P. ( 1994). School girls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New York: Doubleday.
61.
Packard, B.W.-L., & Nguyen, D. ( 2003). Science career-related possible selves of adolescent girls: A longitudinal study. Journal of Career Development , 29, 251-263.
62.
Renn, J.A., & Calvert, S.L. ( 1993). The relation between gender schemas and adults’ recall of stereotyped and counterstereotyped televised information. Sex Roles, 28, 449-459.
63.
Reeves, B., & Miller, M.M. ( 1978). A multidimensional measure of children’s identification with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting, 22, 71-86.
64.
Scheirer, C.J., Ray, W.S., & Hare, N. ( 1976). The analysis of ranked data derived from completely randomized factorial design. Biometrics, 32, 429-434.
65.
Signorella, M.L., & Liben, L.S. ( 1984). Recall and reconstruction of gender-related pictures: Effects of attitude, task difficulty, and age. Child Development , 55, 393-405.
66.
Signorielli, N. ( 1982). Marital status in television drama: A case of reduced options. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 585-597.
67.
Signorielli, N. ( 1993). Television, the portrayal of women, and children’s attitudes. In G. L. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds.), Children & television: Images in a changing sociocultural world (pp. 229-242). Newbury Park , NJ: Sage.
68.
Signorielli, N., & Kahlenberg, S. (2001). Television’s world of work in the nineties. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 4-22.
69.
Spelke, E.S., & Grace, A.D. ( 2006). Sex, math, and science. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 57-67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
70.
Steinke, J. ( 1997). A portrait of a woman as a scientist: Breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 409-428.
71.
Steinke, J. ( 1999). Women scientist role models on screen: A case study of Contact. Science Communication, 21, 111-136.
72.
Steinke, J. ( 2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27, 27-63.
73.
Steinke, J., Lapinski, M., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Nwulu, P., Crocker, N., Williams, Y., et al. (2007). Middle school-aged children’s attitudes toward women in science, engineering and technology and the effects of media literacy training. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 12, 295-323.
74.
Steinke, J., & Long, M. ( 1996). A lab of her own? Portrayals of female characters on children’s educational science programs. Science Communication , 18, 91-115.
75.
Valian, V. ( 2006). Women at the top in science-and elsewhere. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 27-37). Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.
76.
Weingart, P., Muhl, C., & Pansegrau, P. ( 2003). Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film. Public Understanding of Science , 12, 279-287.
77.
Weisgram, E.S., & Bigler, R.S. ( 2006). Girls and science careers: The role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 326-348.
