This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]

On: 06 November 2014, At: 01:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Atlantic Journal of Communication

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajc20

Violence in Television Advertising:

Content Analysis and Audience Attitudes
a
Amir Hetsroni
a
School of Communication Ariel University Center , Israel
Published online: 21 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Amir Hetsroni (2011) Violence in Television Advertising: Content
Analysis and Audience Attitudes, Atlantic Journal of Communication, 19:2, 97-112, DOI:
10.1080/15456870.2011.561170

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2011.561170

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Atlantic Journal of Communication, 19:97–112, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1545-6870 print/1545-6889 online
DOI: 10.1080/15456870.2011.561170

Violence in Television Advertising:

Content Analysis and Audience Attitudes

Amir Hetsroni
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

School of Communication
Ariel University Center, Israel

This article features a cross-cultural examination of the presentation of violence in advertising and
a description of public opinion trends concerning the appearance of this material in mainstream
TV commercials. A content analysis of 1,785 American ads and 1,467 Israeli ads maps the
representation of violence in TV advertising in the two countries and finds it present in 2.5%
of the American advertisements and in 1.5% of the Israeli advertisements. The most frequently
depicted conduct in the two countries is bare-handed assault. Sexual violence is not presented at
all. A public opinion survey shows that concerns over the appearance of violence in advertising
are correlated with an exaggerated estimation of its prevalence, and, specifically, an overestimation
of the frequency of vandalism and assaults that use a cold weapon.

For decades researchers have been documenting the appearance of violence in television shows
in different countries (Gunter, Harrison, & Wykes, 2003), but less attention was given to the
presentation of this material during commercial breaks, even though the appearance of this
material is a documented cause for a public concern (Dolliver, 1999). This study has two parts
and accordingly two purposes: The first is to map the representation of physical aggression
in mainstream television commercials. This aim is achieved through content analysis of TV
advertisements from America and Israel. By comparing the frequency in which violence appears
in advertisements in the two countries it would be feasible to determine the extent to which
the level of objectionable content varies across cultures within the Western world. The second
part of the study examines whether accurate or inaccurate estimation of the level of violence
in advertising is related to being set against the appearance of this content in a commercial
context. This helps in obtaining a profile of audience segments that object to using violence in
advertising.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amir Hetsroni, School of Communication, Ariel
University Center, 31 Erez Street, Carmei Yosef 99797, Israel. E-mail: amirhetsroni@gmail.com

97
 98 HETSRONI

WHY SHOULD WE STUDY THE PRESENTATION OF VIOLENCE IN

TELEVISION ADVERTISING?

It is important to measure the frequency in which violent content appears on the home screen,
because television portrayals help to shape viewers’ conceptions of reality (Comstock, Chaffee,
Katzman, McCombs, & Roberts, 1978; Comstock & Scharrer, 1999). Featuring violence in TV
programs has a documented influence on viewers’ aggressive behavior, boosted fearfulness,
distrust, desensitization, frustration, and pessimism (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Although
commercial broadcasting rarely uses a didactic tone to instruct the audience what to do and
what not to do, when it comes to violent reactions, and although its effect is not always among
the largest, it does, indirectly, build the image of justified aggression through processes of
modeling and the formation of parasocial relationships between viewers and models (Comstock
& Scharrer, 1999). The appearance of violence in advertising may have a lasting cultivation
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

effect, as viewers, who are at least partly inoculated to the commercial part of the message (by
their awareness of the advertiser’s intentions), are less reluctant to internalizing social norms,
which go beyond the purchase of specific products and services (Sheehan, 2004). The fact that,
as opposed to the programming, TV advertising constitutes a content sphere to which viewers
are exposed regardless of their specific viewing preferences intensifies the need to know how
violence is presented in this channel.

WHY SHOULD WE STUDY PUBLIC OPINION CONCERNING THE

APPEARANCE OF VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION ADVERTISING?

Because television in general, and TV advertising in particular, is a medium that tries to attract
and please large numbers of viewers, both the advertisers and the broadcasters tend to make
efforts not to annoy the audience (or a significant part of it) and therefore refrain from featuring
overly objectionable material. For instance, historical analyses show that the major American
networks toned down, at least temporarily, the level of violence in their shows when protest
on this matter evoked (Rowland, 2003).
Public opinion regarding the appearance of violence in advertising was not, heretofore,
the focus of a specific scientific investigation. However, evidence accumulated from related
works suggests that TV violence (regardless of any specific genre) is an issue of concern to
large publics. Svennevig (1998) asked British viewers what, in their opinion, could make a
show unsuitable for public broadcasting and found that “too much violence” was the number
one reason. Gunter and Stripp (1992) found that in the eyes of most of the public in the
United Kingdom and the United States, sexual violence is the most objected content on
TV. Fisher, Cook, and Shirkey (1994) surveyed TV viewers from the southern United States
and came up with the conclusion that aggressive scenes in general, and sexual aggression in
particular, are most likely to be deemed as something that should be censored. According to
that study, the most significant sociodemographic correlates of being set against TV violence
are religiosity, ethnicity (Hispanics are stronger than other ethnic groups in their objection to
violent programming), and gender (women are stronger than men in their objection to violent
broadcasts). Age and income did not surface as significant factors. Of the attitudinal and
 VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION ADVERTISING 99

behavioral factors, only concern about the effects of violent media was found to be consistently
correlated with objection to presenting violence on television.
Of interest, general media exposure and even consumption of exceptionally violent media
are not correlated with any attitude toward the appearance of violence in the media. However,
an exaggerated estimation of the amount of violence in the programming does contribute to
having stronger beliefs about the negative outcome of violent shows (e.g. “TV violence leads
to teen violence”), which in turn may lead the public to becoming more strongly opposed to
the undisturbed presentation of violence on TV (Hennessy, Bleakley, Busse, & Fishbein, 2008).
It should be noted that all of these conclusions rely on surveys that asked for opinions about
the programming and not about advertising.

VIOLENT CONTENT ON AMERICAN TELEVISION

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

The thought that the level of violence in mainstream television programming has been steadily
high for decades is the dominant voice within the academic milieu (Gerbner, Morgan, &
Signorielli, 1994; Potter, 2003). Although a recent longitudinal review has pointed at changes
in the rate of violent scenes in some of the years in shows aired by the major networks, it does
not contradict the notion that physical aggression always had considerable presence in the TV
fare (Hetsroni, 2007a). Violence is often presented in a sanitized manner with a very limited
portrayal of death and gore and a preponderance of successful bare-handed assaults (Gunter
et al., 2003). The scripts rarely place the perpetrators’ actions in any meaningful context, nor do
they discuss the long-term effects of their aggressive behavior (Signorielli, 2005). Violence, as
portrayed on entertainment television, expresses gender distinction, because aggressive conduct
is considerably more prevalent among male characters and signifies a gender pecking order by
portraying women as victims more often than as perpetrators (Gerbner et al., 1994). However,
the explicit depiction of sexual violence targeted at women is rare (Hetsroni, 2007a).
Having said all of that about the presentation of violent content in the programming,
there is no guarantee that the same words apply to commercials. As opposed to programs,
advertisements face a tougher challenge, as they consist of limited time to please the masses and
cannot afford the benefit of momentary annoyance that 45-min episodes without an unequivocal
marketing intention may be allowed to have. Therefore, advertisements are prone to contain
an even smaller dose of objectionable content (Maguire, Sandage, & Weatherby, 2000).
Our knowledge of the representation of violent content in TV advertising is limited, as only
two studies measured the frequency in which this material pops out. An analysis of network
commercials from the 1996–97 season detected the presence of violent content in 2.8% of the
ads, about half of which took place in a socially appropriate context such as sport (Maguire
et al., 2000). The second study by Larson (2003) coded network and non-network commercials
that feature children and were broadcast in the 1997–98 season and detected a slightly higher
frequency of physical aggression, but the figure (4.1%) is still low by any standard.
Maguire et al. (2000) suggested a number of explanations as to the low rate of violence
in mainstream TV advertising: First, violence can provoke fear to an extent that becomes
counterproductive to the advertiser’s objective to glorify the product (Strong & Dubas, 1993).
Second, placing violent scenes (and particularly gory images that are perceived as unpleasant
by large publics) in temporal and spatial proximity to the advertised product can create a
 100 HETSRONI

negative association between the two and damage the brand’s image. Third, the advertisers,
on their part, may not be pushing the broadcast networks to take risks with ads loaded with
gore (Sheehan, 2004), because in light of the well-publicized campaigns to boycott violent
programming (Craig, 2001), they may be afraid of a similar fate to their products.
The fact that the actual presence of violent content in TV advertising is perhaps rather
minor has not discouraged the American public, when responding to polls, from agreeing with
statements such as “there is too much violence in television advertising” or “the frequency of
violence in television advertising is rapidly growing” (Dolliver, 1999). This attitude might be
facilitated by often-heard calls from famous politicians (see the words of senator and former
vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman in “Three U.S. Senators Speak Out,” 1999, p. 34),
educators and academic experts (see Kunkel, 1999) to put restrictions on the freedom to include
violent images in mainstream broadcasting. It is also possible that the public just does not make
the distinction between ads and programs or between ads and promo clips for programs, when
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

the programs and particularly their promo clips can be more violent than the commercials
(Walker, 2000).

A CROSS-CULTURAL LOOK AT THE PRESENCE OF VIOLENT

CONTENT IN ADVERTISING

The content of advertisements varies considerably across cultures (Frith & Mueller, 2003).
Thus, the portrayal of violence in American TV advertising is not necessarily representative
of the circumstances in other cultures. America is a relatively masculine society (ranked in the
upper third of Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity index) that emphasizes gender role distinction,
expects men to be assertive and tough, and anticipates women to be modest and tender. In
contrast, Israel is a feminine culture (ranked in the lowest third of Hofstede’s masculinity-
femininity index) that is characterized by overlapping of gender roles, expects both men and
women to be modest and tender, and exhibits lower tolerance of violence (Hofstede, 2001,
p. 297). Studies show that the TV programming of highly masculine cultures such as Japan
and the United States tends to carry a larger dose of violent material than the programming
of countries that are ranked low in masculinity like Scandinavia and the Netherlands (Gunter
et al., 2003).
Against this background, and particularly in light of the fact that the presence (or lack of )
violent content in mainstream TV advertising has not been systematically examined in any
country except the United States—and even in the United States the prevalence of violence
in commercials might have changed in the years that passed since Maguire et al. (2000) and
Larson (2003) had collected their data in the late 1990s—it is intriguing to conduct a cross-
cultural comparison. Such study would tell if the limited presence of violence in TV advertising
continues, and whether it is exclusive to America or perhaps reflects a universal norm. In the
current study, Israel plays that part of a culture that—in comparison with the United States—is
less masculine (Hofstede, 2001). The only content analysis of violence on Israeli television,
which took place in the early 1970s, found that, in comparison with American shows from
those years, the local programming was considerably less violent (Shinar, Parnes, & Caspi,
1972).
 VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION ADVERTISING 101

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RATIONALE

In light of the small number of previous studies about the appearance of violence in TV
advertising and the lack of any major work on attitudes toward the subject, we pose research
questions rather than direct hypotheses. Specifically, we ask three research questions. The
first two questions are two-part questions, which refer to the actual appearance of violence in
advertising:

RQ1a: How frequently does violent content appear on mainstream television advertising,
and what are the most frequently portrayed conducts?
RQ1b: Are there cultural differences in the patterns noted in RQ1a?

In light of the results of earlier studies (Larson, 2003; Maguire et al., 2000), the share of
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

ads that contain any violent content might be minimal. Compared to American advertising,
Israeli advertising is likely to contain a smaller share of violent material due to Israel’s less
masculine cultural profile (Hofstede, 2001).

RQ2a: To what extent is the portrayal of violent content on mainstream television advertising
in line with common sex role stereotypes, such as women’s shunning of violent
behavior and their inclination to more often be victims and not perpetrators of
violence?
RQ2b: Are there cultural differences in the patterns noted in RQ2a?

We may detect considerable adherence to common sex role stereotypes because these
stereotypes often appear in scripts that guide people’s behavior (Mosher & Tomkins, 1988). To
please the masses, advertising should try to fit into these scripts. Indeed, analyses from the last
decade point out that although sex-role stereotypes have lost some of their cultural grip, they
are still quite common in advertising (Frith & Mueller, 2003). Israeli TV advertising might
be somewhat less saturated with sex role stereotypes than U.S. advertising due to the more
feminine character of Israeli culture (Hofstede, 2001).
The third research question is about the connection between exaggerated estimation of the
prevalence of violence in advertising and believing that violent advertising is harmful and
should be restricted.

RQ3: Will there be a difference in the strength of objection to violent advertising between
people who accurately estimate the prevalence of violence in television advertising
and people who overestimate this prevalence?

Previous research (see Hennessy et al., 2008) found a correlation between higher estimation
of the prevalence of violence in the programming and support of having stricter control over
violent broadcasters. Beyond the expansion of knowledge from programming to commercials,
our study sharpens the distinction between correct and incorrect estimations. Because the
content analysis part of the study would let us know how much violence is actually featured
in TV commercials, we will be able to tell whether negative attitudes toward violent ads result
from merely a vague overestimation of their prevalence or are nurtured by an incapability to
recognize their true share.
 102 HETSRONI

METHOD

The study consisted of a content analysis of advertisements that quantified the prevalence of
several violent contents in TV commercials and a survey that asked the general public for
views concerning the appearance of these contents in advertising.

Content Analysis
We coded American and Israeli TV advertisements that were broadcast in the major broadcast
networks during the prime-time hours. These networks attract the largest number of viewers
from different social strata and serve as arena for mass-orientated advertising.

Sample. A sample consisting of 1,785 American ads and 1,467 Israeli ads was composed
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

of four constructed weeks of commercials that were aired in the years 2004 and 2005 during
the prime-time hours (8 p.m.–11 p.m.) in the four major American broadcast networks (ABC,
NBC, CBS, FOX) and in the two most highly watched Israeli terrestrial stations (Channel 2,
Channel 10). The first constructed week represents the winter months (January–February), the
second represents the spring (April–May), the third represents the summertime (July–August),
and the fourth represents the fall (October–November). The rationale for taking different periods
of the year as strata is so as not to fail to notice seasonal variations in advertising. Within the
four 2-month periods, days were randomly picked until complete constructed weeks emerged.
Within the constructed weeks, all the ads that were aired during the designated hours were
sampled. Duplicate ads, as well as public service announcements, were omitted in order to
document commercial messages that make up the core of marketing communication (Ganahl,
Prinsen, & Baker-Netzley, 2003). A similar inclusion and omission policy was put into action
in previous studies of violent messages in TV advertising (see Maguire et al., 2000). Therefore,
our findings are comparable to past research.1 The larger number of American ads in the final
sample is due to the fact that the commercial breaks in American broadcasts (15 min per hour)
are longer than the respective breaks in Israeli broadcasts (12 min per hour).2

Coding book. Each ad was coded for the appearance of violence. The definition of
violence as an overt depiction of a credible threat or a physical force, or the actual use
of such force that physically harms (or is intended to harm) an animate being, group of
beings or property is based on a number of content analyses (Potter & Vaughan, 1997; Smith,
Nathanson, & Wilson, 2002). This definition does not discriminate on the basis of outcome or
context. More specifically, our categories are based on a coding scheme that had been developed
by Greenberg, Edison, Korzenny, Fenandez-Collado, and Atkin (1980) to study the portrayal
of aggression in television programs. This scheme was later found to be a reliable tool for
the coding of violence in TV commercials (Maguire et al., 2000). Violent conduct categories
were (a) minor violence: physical threat; vandalism (violence targeting property); bare-handed
assault (punching, kicking, etc.), and (b) major violence: assault that uses a cold weapon (knife,

1
Among the public service announcements that were not analyzed, there was not even one instance of violent
conduct.
2
The stipulated length of commercial breaks does not include time devoted to promotional clips for programs.
 VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION ADVERTISING 103

hammer, etc.), shooting (using a gun or a pistol), physical humiliation and torture, kidnapping,
rape and nonconsensual sexual violence, act of war.
For each violent act, the roles of men and women were coded as follows: male perpetrator
and male victim, male perpetrator and female victim, female perpetrator and male victim, and
female perpetrator and female victim.

Reliability. The coding was performed by a team of 25 students who were not privy to the
specific goals of the study. Each coder worked alone and analyzed about 250 ads. The coders
were trained in a group for 6 hr and on an individual basis for additional 2 hr. The employment
of a large number of coders, necessary because of the size of the sample, did not result in loss
of reliability. In fact, as Fleiss (1971) pointed out, the greater the number of coders (if properly
trained and working independently) the greater the reliability, because the results can be more
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

safely generalized to a “pool of coders” (as a population), and the potential for measurement
error by any singular coder is smaller.
Each category in each ad was analyzed twice by different coders. Cohen’s Kappa statistic
was computed to measure agreement between coders and coding reliability. Its value for any
pair of coders ranged from 0.80 to 0.87 across the categories. These figures are well above
the minimal values that the literature suggests for the coding of advertisements (Kassaarjian,
1977). Cases of disagreement between coders were presented at a tandem discussion, and if
they remained undecided after the discussion, they were resolved by the author.3

Survey
Due to logistic reasons, we were able to perform the survey only in Israel. Our questionnaire
was administered as part of an omnibus survey that was conducted in December 2005 and
used telephone interviews (based on a random digit dialing technique) to collect data. The
respondents (N D 305) constitute a nationwide representative sample of the Israeli adult
population (ages 18–70). To secure the representativeness of the sample, multiple callbacks
were made over the course of 1 week. The eventual response rate was 46%. The demographic
makeup of the sample offers an accurate reflection of the ethnic distribution in the target
population with 84% Jews (82% in the population) and 16% Arabs (18% in the population)
and just a slight overrepresentation of female participants (who make 54% of the sample). The
respondents’ age ranged from 18 to 69 with a median of 37.

Questionnaire. In addition to ordinary demographics, our questionnaire included items

that ask to estimate the prevalence of different violent contents in TV advertising and statements
about agreement/objection to using violence in advertising.

Violent advertising estimates. Five multiple-choice questions were presented. All of

them asked the respondents to estimate the share of advertisements that portray specific violent

3
Four cases, where the coders remained divided in their opinion after discussion, were resolved by the author.
 104 HETSRONI

TABLE 1
Frequency of Violent Conduct on American and Israeli Television Advertising

USAa Israel b 2 (1) 

Any violent conduct 2.47% 1.43 % 6.7** .001

Minor violence
Physical threat 0.28% 0.20% ns
Vandalism 0.00% 0.00% ns
Bare-handed assault 1.20% 0.43% 5.0* .001
Major violence
Assault with a cold weapon 0.43% 0.14% ns
Shooting 0.27% 0.34% ns
Physical humiliation and torture 0.05% 0.14% ns
Kidnapping 0.07% 0.11% ns
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

Rape and nonconsensual sexual violence 0.00% 0.00% ns

Act of war 0.17% 0.07% ns

a N D 1,785. b N D 1,467.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

behaviors from among all the TV commercials that are broadcast in Israel.4 The wording was
“What do you think is the percent of TV advertisements that feature [violent type]?” Each
question presented two optional answers (with random reordering of the options to prevent a
response set effect):

1. A correct TV advertising estimate, closely reflecting the television portrayal of violence

in advertising, as determined from the content analysis of Israeli commercials. Because
all the conducts were present in considerably less than 1% of the sampled Israeli
advertisements (see Table 1), we used “less then 1%” as an answer that is rounded
enough so as not to look “suspicious” (for an extended discussion of this rationale, see
Shanahan & Morgan, 1999, pp. 53–54).
2. An exaggerated TV advertising estimate, which is an exaggeration of the correct estimate
in the direction of overabundance of violent content. The answer we used, “approximately
5%,” reflects an estimate that is a round number, which is at the same time far enough
from the actual figure and still looks reasonable in the eyes of suspecting respondents.
A similar figure was used in cultivation studies that measured the impact of TV viewing
on overestimation of the likelihood of rare occurrences in the real world (Gerbner et al.,
1994; Shanahan & Morgan, 1999, pp. 53–54).

We used the forced-choice format and not open-ended items for a number of reasons. First,
many respondents find it hard to come up with estimates on their own in topics where their prior
knowledge is limited (Tanur, 1992). Second, forced-choice questions reveal systematic biases
in a way that open-ended questions are unable to, because some of the potential responses

4
Because in Israel the only major stations that are allowed to air commercials are Channel 2 and Channel 10,
whose broadcasts were recorded and coded, the figures drawn from our content analysis properly represent the gamut
of violence in Israeli advertising.
 VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION ADVERTISING 105

come into mind quickly, whereas others deem a trigger (Schwartz, 1999). Third, there is even
indication that open-ended questions that ask to estimate the prevalence of rare phenomena
have their indigenous response set bias, because of the respondents’ tendency to come up with
high figures, regardless of the topic, as meager prevalence is deemed too low to be an issue for
“serious research” (Hetsroni, 2008). Fourth and specifically in this case, we are interested not
only in knowing how accurate the public is in estimating the frequency of violence in television
advertising but also in examining differences between those who estimate this figure correctly
more or less and those who exaggeratedly estimate the share of violent advertisements.

Objection to violent advertising (attitudinal scale). Three Likert-style statements that

were used by Dudley (1999) to measure objection to using sex in advertising were translated
and rephrased, so that they would fit the target of measuring objection to using violence
in advertising. The statements were “It disturbs me to see violence in advertising,” “I think
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

that there is too much violence in advertising,” and “It is important to have regulation on
TV advertisements—so that they will not contain too much violence.” The respondents were
requested to mark their agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1
(totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The value of Cronbach’s index of internal consistency
(˛ D .801) points at adequate consistency for the scale. Therefore, our tests of statistical
inference use the scale’s mean as a variable.

RESULTS

RQ1
To answer RQ1, which asked about the stakes to find violent content in TV advertisements, we
measured the frequency of belligerent conducts. Table 1 gives the frequency for a variety of
behaviors in America and Israel. Cross-cultural differences were estimated by the chi-square
statistic. The size of the effect was measured by an asymmetric lambda coefficient (with the
country occupying the role of the independent variable).
The most salient finding in both countries is the scarcity of violent content. Violence of
any type appears in just 2.47% of the American ads and in only 1.43% of the Israeli ads.
Although the inclination of Israeli advertising to be less violent than American advertising is
statistically significant for all the contents together, and specifically for bare-handed assault
(the most frequent content), one cannot avoid the conclusion that violence, in general, is a rare
sight in mainstream TV advertising in America and Israel. As far as the distinction between
major and minor violence is concerned, minor violence makes up 60% of the violent content
in America and 45% of the violent content in Israel. The cultural difference in the distribution
of major versus minor violence is not significant, 2.1/ D 0.5 p > .50.
To sum up, in both countries the frequency in which violent content appears on TV
advertising is minute. Israeli advertisements contain a somewhat smaller share of violent
content.

RQ2
RQ2 asked to what extent the violent content that is featured on American and Israeli TV
 106 HETSRONI

TABLE 2
Gender Distribution for Violence Perpetrators and
Victims on American and Israeli Television Advertising

USAa Israel b

Male perpetrator and male victim 82% 70%

Male perpetrator and female victim 0% 25%
Female perpetrator and male victim 18% 5%
Female perpetrator and female victim 0% 0%

aN D 44. b N D 21.

advertising adheres to sex role stereotypes. We examined two gender stereotypes pertaining to
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

violent behavior: women’s nonparticipation in this conduct and their tendency to more often
be victims and not perpetrators. Table 2 shows, for each country, the gender distribution of
perpetrators and victims.
In both countries violence appears to be a man’s job: In 70% of the violent incidents depicted
in Israeli advertisements and in 82% of the incidents shown on American commercials, both
the perpetrator and the victim are men. In Israel, the share of female victims (25%) is higher
than the share of female perpetrators (5%), but in the United States there are no female victims
at all and 18% of the perpetrators are women. Cultural differences in the gender distribution of
perpetrators and victims are not significant, 2.2/ D 5.6 p > .05, mainly due to the high share
of men, who are both perpetrators and victims, in the two countries. To sum up, the portrayal
of violence leaves women mostly out of the picture, but there is no tendency that crosses over
countries to portray them as victims more often than as perpetrators.

RQ3
The third research question was concerned with the connection between objection to using
violence in advertising and the accuracy of the audience’s estimates of the prevalence of
violence in advertising. Before we move on to answering this question, we briefly review
relevant figures from the survey. Most of the respondents were capable of identifying the
correct estimate of violent content: 56% did so in vandalism, 70% were successful in assaults
that use a cold weapon, 65% made an accurate estimation in acts of war, 59% chose the
correct figure in bare-handed assaults, and 82% knew what the right estimate is in rape and
nonconsensual sexual aggression. The means of the 5-point statement items, of which the
Objection to Using Violence in Advertising scale consisted, ranged between the scale’s midpoint
(3), which signifies neither acceptance of nor objection to using violence in advertising, and the
next point in the scale (4), which signifies moderate objection to using violence in advertising.
The means were 3.73 (SD D 1.25) for the item “It disturbs me to see violence in advertising,”
3.18 (SD D 1.17) for the item “I think that there is too much violence in advertising,” and
3.98 (SD D 1.22) for the item “It is important to have regulation on TV advertisements—so
that they will not contain too much violence.” The scale’s mean and standard deviation (M D
3.63, SD D 1.01) also point to a similar trend, namely, moderate objection to using violence
in advertising.
 VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION ADVERTISING 107

TABLE 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Objection to Using Violence in Advertising for
Exaggerated Estimators and Correct Estimators of the Prevalence of Violent Content in Advertising
and ANCOVA Results for the Differences Between Them

Exaggerated Correct
Estimators Estimators
Significance Partial
Violent Content M SD M SD F(1, 299) Level 2

Vandalism 3.80 1.14 3.51 1.01 6.445 * .019

Bare-hand assault 3.73 1.06 3.59 0.98 1.493 ns .004
Assault with a cold weapon 3.81 1.05 3.55 0.99 4.325 * .013
Rape and sexual violence 3.84 1.12 3.59 0.99 2.599 ns .008
Act of war 3.74 1.09 3.56 0.96 2.235 ns .007
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

Note. ANCOVA D analysis of covariance.

*p < .05.

Specifically, RQ3 asked whether people who exaggeratedly estimate the share of violent
content in TV advertising are stronger in their objection to having this content presented
in commercials. To answer this question we ran a series of one-way analyses of covariance
(ANCOVAs), where the violent content estimate (correct or exaggerated) was the independent
variable, the mean of objection to using violence in advertising scale was the dependent variable,
and religiosity, ethnicity, and sex were covariates (in light of what we know about their impact
from past research; see Fisher et al., 1994; Hennessy et al., 2008). The ANCOVA was performed
separately for each of the following violent contents: vandalism, bare-handed assault, assault
with a cold weapon, rape and nonconsensual sexual violence, and act of war. The results
(F values with a notation their statistical significance and partial eta squared values that estimate
the size of the effect) appear on Table 3 along with the means and standard deviations for
exaggerated estimators and correct estimators in each violent content.
Across the board, respondents who exaggeratedly estimate the frequency of violence in
advertising score higher in objection to using violence in advertising than respondents who
correctly estimate the prevalence of this content. However, the differences between the two
groups of respondents are significant only in vandalism and assault with a cold weapon. They
are not significant in bare-handed assault, act of war and sexual violence. The effects are not
among the largest: 2% of the variance at the most (in vandalism). Religiosity, ethnicity, and
sex have stronger effects: between 5% to 7% in the case of religiosity (religious people are
stronger than secular respondents in their objection to using violence in advertising), between
2% to 3% in the case of ethnicity (Arabs are stronger than Jews in their objection to using
violence in advertising), and between 4% to 6% in the case of sex (women are more determined
than men in objecting to using violence in advertising). Complete sets of tables that describe
the impact of the covariates, which are outside the study’s main focus, are available from
the author.
To sum up, an exaggerated estimation of the prevalence of violent content in advertising is
related to a greater objection to having this material presented, but this tendency falls below
the statistical significance threshold in some of the violent conducts.
 108 HETSRONI

DISCUSSION

Findings Regarding the Prevalence of Violent Content in TV Advertising

The most consistent finding that crosses over cultures is the low frequency of violent content.
This material is, by all means, a rare sight that pops out onto the screen in just about 1 of every
40 ads in the United States and in only 1 of every 65 ads in Israel. This rate is lower than the
frequency of violence in commercials aired a decade earlier in America (Larson, 2003; Maguire
et al., 2000). A decrease in the rate of violence shown in broadcasts carried by mainstream
American TV networks was also found in a recent analysis of the programming (Hetsroni,
2007a) and may result from a lingering public campaign to clean up the screen (see Signorielli,
2005, pp. 1–15). Another similarity with the programming is noted in the most frequently
depicted violent content, which is bare-handed assault (see Gunter et al., 2003, pp. 84–85).
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

The share of violent commercials in America is higher than the respective share in Israel,
as one might have expected in light of the more masculine character of American society
(Hofstede, 2001), and the fact that American television is renowned as one of the most violent
in the world (Potter, 2003), and certainly more violent than Israeli television (Shinar et al.,
1972). However, violence-wise the commercial fare in both countries is best described as TV-G,
as less than 1% of the ads feature major violence.
One way to look at the relative similarity in the presentation (or lack) of violent content in
the two countries is to see it as a sign of a general cultural resemblance. This resemblance,
which finds expression in various forms of popular culture—from TV game shows (Hetsroni,
2001), through children’s toys (Bloch & Lemish, 2003), and up to corporations’ trademarks
(Avraham & First, 2003)—might have evolved from the undisguised economic and political
dependency of Israel on the United States. Another reason for the cultural similarity in the
depiction of violent content in advertisements might be that a significant number of the senior
advertising professionals in Israel have learned their trade in America (Hetsroni, 2011), where
they might have adopted persuasion techniques that abstain from featuring brutal aggression
so as not to associate the brand with controversy (Maguire et al., 2000).
The fact that men are solely responsible for three fourths of the violent acts that are portrayed
in advertising may be regarded as a confirmation of the trite stereotype that “violence is not for
girls.” Such presentation has a lot in common with what the programming has been portraying
for decades (Gerbner et al., 1994); however, before we come to the conclusion that television
advertising (and TV entertainment in general) distorts reality by representing women as helpless
creatures who are afraid to stand up for their rights, let us not forget that—according to official
police statistics—the share of women among violent crime offenders is quite similar to their
share as violence perpetrators in advertising (Potter, 2003).
The null presence of sexual violence in TV advertising in both countries can stem from a
number of reasons. It can be the result of the advertisers’ hesitation to deal with sex, which is
yet another objectionable content, and particularly fear of depicting violent sex that has often
been the target of feminist protest (Sheehan, 2004). Another explanation is that the absence of
sexual violence from advertising merely reflects the rarity of sexual violent crime in reality—
compared to nonsexual violent crime (Zimring & Hawkins, 1997). Whatever the reason may
be, this study adds to the accumulated evidence that explicit sex (violent or consensual) is a
hot potato that mainstream advertising prefers not to touch (Hetsroni, 2007b).
 VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION ADVERTISING 109

Findings Regarding Public Opinion About Violent Content in

TV Advertising
The results signify that the public at large (at least in Israel) moderately objects to using
violence in TV advertisements. This objection was found to be moderately correlated with
religiosity, gender, and ethnicity, which are well-known influential factors from past research
(see Fisher et al., 1994; Hennessy et al., 2008), and weakly correlated with an exaggerated
estimation of the prevalence of violence in advertising, which is where our unique contribution
to the scholarship stands. People who overestimate the level of violence in advertising are
stronger in their opposition to allowing this material to be presented. Although the effect is not
statistically significant for all sorts of violence, the trend maintains an unequivocal direction
across the belligerent conducts.
Why does the tendency to overestimate the level of violence in advertising contribute to being
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

set against the presentation of this material? We suggest that behind the statistical correlation
stands a psychological mechanism that connects the perception of an unwanted phenomenon
as omnipresent with fears of this phenomenon’s impact. Excessive fears of something may
nurture strong opposition toward this thing (Fisher et al., 1994). It is true that the specific
effect of exaggerated estimation of violent content on attitudes that object to the presentation
of this content is not strong, but because attitudes toward objectionable media are shaped first
and foremost by a profound conservative religious worldview (Fisher et al., 1994; Hennessy
et al., 2008), we should not expect to find strong correlations here.
Ironically, although in all the items that called for an estimation of the prevalence of specific
violent contents in advertisements the majority of respondents chose the correct estimate
(less than 1%), most of them also tended to agree with the statement, “I think that there
is too much violence in advertising.” The inevitable question is, How come there is such
remarkable difference between the accurate estimation of the presence of violence in advertising
as something extremely minor and the perception that this minor presence is “too much”? We
offer three explanations: First, even a tiny percentage of gory ads may seem “too much” in
the eyes of people who oppose any presentation of violence (Fisher et al., 1994). The second
explanation relies on the drench hypothesis (Greenberg, 1988), according to which a small
number of particularly salient programs (or advertisements), which receive extensive press
coverage, can have a profound impact that overshadows the larger bulk of less salient and less
talked about shows and advertisements. Much discussed scandalous campaigns that feature
exceptionally disturbing images like the Israeli ad from 2005 for a local soft drink brand
that used the Oedipal tragedy as a source of inspiration and included a close-up shot of a
bleeding dad, who was shot by his own son in an attempt to gain possession on a soda can, can
create the false impression that many of the advertisements are full of depictions of violence.
Finally, because the typical reception of the commercial text is a low-involvement task, which
does not include a detailed mental storage of source details, the viewers may lump together
memories of recent TV commercials with recollections of some of the stations’ promotions for
future programming, where violent content is approximately 10 times more frequent than in
ads (Walker, 2000). Thus, they might agree that “there is too much violence in advertising.”
However, when asked to estimate the prevalence of specific aggressive conducts, people operate
a more thoughtful cognitive process, for example, a sort of recount and count, which yields a
correct estimate in most of the cases in our study.
 110 HETSRONI

Study Limitations and Final Words

The content analysis findings, which point to the absence of violence from mainstream TV
advertising, are—like the results of any study that is based on a coding book—not only
reflective of broadcasters and advertisers’ determination not to take risks with objectionable
content but also shaped to some extent by the researcher’s operational definitions and sam-
pling decisions. Therefore, before we draw final conclusions, we have to recall what was
measured in terms of study population and coding scheme. We sampled commercials from
network programming because these stations attract the largest number of viewers. However,
the growing penetration of cable and other multichannel services, currently reaching nearly
85% of the households in America and Israel (Second Authority for Television and Radio,
2005; Webster, Phallen, & Lichty, 2006), brought with it a significant decrease in the share
of network viewers. This went down from nearly 70% in 1984 to 30% twenty years later
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

(Webster et al., 2006). Although the networks still attract more viewers than other stations, their
most loyal audience are religious-conservative people, who show concern about the potential
harmful effects of televised violence and support the censorship of such content (Fisher et al.,
1994). These are certainly not the kind of people that would be enchanted by advertisements
loaded with gory pictures. The noncontroversial approach of network advertising in an effort
not to annoy the more conservative viewers is part of a more general Least Objectionable
Programming (LOP) strategy, according to which the most popular stations try not to distance
themselves from loyal audiences more than they try to conquer new markets (Webster et al.,
2006). From a public policy perspective, it seems that major broadcasters and prominent
advertisers maintain the home screen relatively free of violence, at least during commercial
breaks. However, in an era typified by gradual abandonment of diversified stations and large
networks in favor of segmented channels, further studies that will analyze advertisements from
cable stations are needed before we can confirm that the findings that point to the meager
presence of violent content apply to the gamut of television advertising or characterize only
its mainstream part.
The coding scheme considered only physical violence, as it consists of well-defined conducts
that were measured in previous analyses of violent content on television (Greenberg et al., 1980;
Potter & Vaughan, 1997) and are in line with what the man on the street defines as “televised
violence” (Potter, 2003). On the other hand, the application of a relatively strict scheme might
have left out of the picture nonviolent antisocial behavior (e.g., verbal aggression, hostile
looks), which cannot be regarded as “violent conduct” in the literal sense, but some may
see them, nonetheless, as expressions of “belligerence.” If these dubiously violent expressions
were also coded, we could have possibly detected a higher frequency of apparently violent
content.
As for our survey, because it was conducted in one country, the cross-cultural validity of
the findings still requires further proof. Polls suggest that in other Western countries public
opinion about violence in advertising is probably not so radically different from what we
found in Israel (see Dolliver, 1999, for American figures). However, the fact that some of
our survey findings fall slightly short of significance, or are barely significant, makes it quite
plausible that if we conduct the study in another culture, the statistical conclusions might
be somewhat dissimilar because the significance threshold can fall in a slightly different
location.
 VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION ADVERTISING 111

REFERENCES

Avraham, E., & First, A. (2003). “I buy American”: The American image as reflected in Israeli advertising. Journal
of Communication, 53, 282–299.
Bloch, L.-R., & Lemish, D. (2003). The megaphone effect: The international diffusion of cultural media via the USA.
Communication Yearbook, 27, 159–190.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media
misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489.
Comstock, G., Chaffee, S., Katzman, N., McCombs, M., & Roberts, D. (1978). Television and human behavior. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Comstock, G., & Scharrer, E. (1999). Television: What’s on, who’s watching and what it means. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Craig, S. (2001, April). From Married : : : With Children to Touched by an Angel: Politics, economics, and the
battle over “family values” television. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Popular Culture Association/
American Culture Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

Dolliver, M. (1999). Is there too much sexual and violent imagery in advertising? Adweek, 21, 22.
Dudley, S. C. (1999). Consumer attitudes toward nudity in advertising. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
7(4), 89–95.
Fisher, W. A., Cook, I. J., & Shirkey, E. C. (1994). Correlates of support for censorship of sexual, sexually violent,
and violent media. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 229–240.
Fleiss, J. R. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 378–382.
Frith, K. T., & Mueller, B. (2003). Advertising and societies. New York: Peter Lang.
Ganahl, D. J., Prinsen, T. J., & Baker-Netzley, S. (2003). A content analysis of prime-time commercials: A contextual
framework of gender representation. Sex Roles, 49, 545–552.
Gerbner, G., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Television violence profile no. 16: The turning point from research
to action. Philadelphia: The Annenberg School of Communication.
Greenberg, B. S. (1988). Some uncommon television images and the Drench Hypothesis. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Television
as a social issue (pp. 88–102). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, B. S., Edison, N., Korzenny, F., Fenandez-Collado, C., & Atkin, C. K. (1980). Antisocial and prosocial
behaviors on television. In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Life on television: Content analyses of U.S. TV drama (pp. 99–128).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gunter, B., Harrison, J., & Wykes, M. (2003) Violence on television: Distribution, form, context and themes. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Gunter, B. & Stripp, H. (1992). Attitudes towards sex and violence on television in the United States and in Great
Britain: A comparison of research findings. Medien Psychologie, 4, 267–286.
Hennessy, M., Bleakley, A., Busse, P., & Fishbein, M. (2008). What is the appropriate regulatory response to wardrobe
malfunctions? Fining stations for television sex and violence. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52,
387–407.
Hetsroni, A. (2001). What do you really need to know to be a millionaire—The question of knowledge in quiz shows
from America and Israel. Communication Research Reports, 18, 418–428.
Hetsroni, A. (2007a). Four decades of violent content on prime-time network programming: A longitudinal meta-
analytic review. Journal of Communication, 57, 759–784.
Hetsroni, A. (2007b). Sexual content in mainstream TV advertising: A cross cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 57,
201–210.
Hetsroni, A. (2008). Over-estimates, under-estimates and the cultivation effect. Communication Research Reports, 25,
200–210.
Hetsroni, A. (2011). Israeli advertising: From oriental dilettantism to professional westernism. In E. C. Alozie (Ed.),
Advertising in developing and emerging economies. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences; Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across
nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kassaarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8–18.
Kunkel, D. (1999, May 18). Testimony of Professor Dale Kunkel before the United States Senate committee on com-
merce, science, and transportation: Hearing on television violence. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/
ppo/issues/pkunkel.html
 112 HETSRONI

Larson, M. S. (2003). Gender, race and aggression in television commercials that feature children. Sex Roles, 48(1/2),
67–75.
Maguire, B., Sandage, D., & Weatherby, G. A. (2000). Violence, morality and television commercials. Sociological
Spectrum, 20, 121–143.
Mosher, D. L., & Tomkins, S. S. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine socialization and enculturation.
Journal of Sex Research, 25, 60–84.
Potter, W. J. (2003). The 11 myths of media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Potter, W. J., & Vaughan, M. (1997). Aggression on television entertainment: Profiles and trends. Communication
Research Reports, 14, 116–124.
Rowland, W. D. (2003). The television violence debates. In M. Hilmes (Ed.), The television history book (pp. 132–137).
London: British Film Institute.
Schwartz, N. (1999). Self reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.
Second Authority for Television and Radio. (2005). Seker tsfiya batelevizia [TV Exposure Survey]. Retrieved July 6,
2007, from http://www.rashut2.org.il/editor/UpLoadSeker/
Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 01:06 06 November 2014

Sheehan, K. (2004). Controversies in contemporary advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shinar, D., Parnes, P., & Caspi, D. (1972). Structure and content of television broadcasting in Israel. In G. Comstock
(Ed.), Television and social behavior: Vol. 1—Media content and control (pp. 493–532). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Signorielli, N. (2005). Violence in the media. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Smith, S. L., Nathanson, A. I., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). Prime-time television: Assessing violence during the most
popular viewing hours. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 84–111.
Strong, J., & Dubas, K. (1993). The optimal level for fear-arousal in advertising: An empirical study. Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 15, 93–99.
Svennevig, M. (1998). Television across the years: The British public’s view. Luton, UK: University of Luton Press.
Tanur, J. M. (1992). Questions about questions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Three U.S. senators speak out: Why cleaning up television is important to the nation. (1999). Academic Enterprise,
10(2), 32–34.
Walker, J. R. (2000). Sex and violence in program promotion. In S. T. Eastman (Ed.), Research in media promotion
(pp. 101–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Webster, J. G., Phallen, P. F., & Lichty, L. W. (2006). Ratings analysis: The theory and practice of audience research
(3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1997). Crime is not the problem: Lethal violence in America. New York: Oxford
University Press.