Children and Youth Services Review 113 (2020) 104965

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Femvertising as a media strategy to increase self-esteem of adolescents: An T

experiment in India
Neema Varghese, Navin Kumar
⁎

School of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Katpadi Road, Vellore 632014, Tamil Nadu, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The new trend of pro-woman, counterstereotype advertisements termed ‘femvertising’ is gaining popularity and
Gender stereotype social acceptance. Social cognitive theory postulates that children learn from social experiences including those
Counterstereotype from media by identifying with other individuals, observing such models, processing their behaviour and later
Advertising imitating such behaviour most often in a way considered gender-appropriate by society. We conducted an ex-
Self-esteem
periment in India, a collectivist society with a strong patriarchal culture, to test the effects of advertisements on
Gender roles
Media strategy
the self-esteem of adolescent boys and girls and to examine the impact of media strategies applied in the
Sex role stereotype classroom and aimed at stereotype reduction. In the study, adolescent boys and girls were randomly treated with
Gender bias stereotypical, neutral or femvertising ads. A three-way mixed ANOVA identified a significant effect of treatment
Gender sensitization and time in the femvertising group. The study demonstrates the efficacy of femvertising ads depicting women
empowerment and counterstereotype imagery as classroom aids, as part of media strategies to minimize the
effects of gender bias at homes and communities, and to enhance gender sensitization.

1. Introduction
The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has
gender equality as one of its goals, which many countries have identi-
fied as a fundamental human right and as a critical marker of a healthy
society (United Nations, 2016). There exists unconscious biases and
implicit associations in society starting from childhood (Baron,
Schmader, Cvencek, & Andrew, 2014) creating barriers to the goal of
equal opportunity (United Nations, 2015). Such biases and associations
exist in classrooms too. Among the many experiences of gender in-
equality is the undermining portrayal of women in media and adver-
tisements. Efforts that recognize such detrimental portrayals can be
seen in the recently effected regulatory restrictions on advertising that
abolishes harmful stereotyping including objectification, sexualization
and body shaming of women, and restrictive assumptions about gender
roles (Crush & Hollings, 2017, The Advertising Standards Authority,
2017).
Education policies of governments are also incorporating initiatives
to overcome gender stereotyping. Classroom behaviour is dominated by
historical gender-stereotypical expectations about the roles of men and
women in society, elusive sexism, subtle inequity, segregations and
careless generalizations (Klein et al., 1994, Sadker, 2006, Frawley,
2005, Cassidy, 2016). Teachers play an important role in countering the
gender bias in classrooms amid the growing concerns about national
education standards. Stereotypes portrayed in the media often activate
assumptions related with a person or group of persons
(Ramasubramanian, 2007). For example, women are stereotyped as
homely, warm, sensitive, non-dominant or cooperative (Koenig, 2018).
The harm comes when adolescent girls are restricted in their choices by
implicit attitudes that curb their self- concept, contrary to inherent
skills and talents.
The recent trend of pro-female advertising or “femvertising” (Pérez
& Gutiérrez, 2017; Kapoor & Munjal, 2017) has been propagating views
that accentuate women’s talents, spread pro-woman messages and
decimate stereotyping (Skey, 2015). Defined as advertising that chal-
lenges traditional advertising stereotypes (Akestam, Rosengren, &
Dahlen, 2017), such ads are also popularly shared on new media,
making these high value gender-sensitive productions useful as trigger
points for online conversations on gender experiences among young
girls, who see the digital space as ‘safe’ space to learn about women’s
issues and feminism (Jackson, 2018).
Gender biases exhibit both universal prevalence and significant
variation across countries. For example, India is ranked 108th in the
gender gap index (World Economic Forum, 2018) and accordingly fares
poorly in sex ratio at birth, health life expectancy, literacy rate, eco-
nomic participation and opportunity for women. Even though female

⁎
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-8124496533.
E-mail addresses: varghese.neema@gmail.com, neema.varghese2015@vit.ac.in (N. Varghese), navin@vit.ac.in (N. Kumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104965
Received 3 December 2019; Received in revised form 25 March 2020; Accepted 25 March 2020
Available online 03 April 2020
0190-7409/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Varghese and N. Kumar
role models influences adolescents in their aspirations and educational
achievements (Beaman, Duflo, Pande, & Topalova, 2012), inclusion of
girls in science remains reclusive mainly due to unequal opportunities
and access to resources, lack of reforms and policy changes (Luk, 2018).
Social stereotypes are also a contributing factor (Gupta & Sharma,
2003). Thus, India is a good society to study the effects of femvertising
on adolescent girls.
The Indian society is highly patriarchal, and the moral ground of
patriarchy is rooted in religion and social practices of caste (Bannerji,
2016). Empowerment of women involves the difficult task of challen-
ging the dominant ideology in highly patriarchal societies (Batliwala,
1995). Along with existent patriarchy, several other gender dis-
crimination practices such as female infanticide, dowry, discrimination
in the provision of clothing, medical care, education, child marriage,
restriction in movement outside home, domestic and domicile role ex-
pectations remain as deterrents to the Government of India’s women’s
empowerment goals (Yesudian & Gupta, 2006). Though media has been
criticized for not fulfilling a social change role except under exceptional
situations (Prabhash, 2005), and reconstruction of women’s images
have failed to uplift women’s causes (Sarkar, 2014), femvertising has
ushered a fresh discourse of women empowerment themes and initiated
online and offline conversations on the topic among parents and stu-
dents. Increased television viewing has been found to increase egali-
tarian attitudes and cause changes in personal beliefs about gender
ideology (Coombe & Davis, 2013). Changing attitudes through media
campaigns have been reported to increase school enrolment of girls,
support girl’s careers, and encourage increased freedom of girls. It is
important to study the effects of femvertising on young adolescents,
especially in India where women who has access to media have been
found to be 1.3 times more likely to manifest higher decision autonomy
(Yesudian & Gupta, 2006). Our purpose was to examine whether
readily available high value productions of femvertising ads were useful
in realising positive changes in self-attitudes of adolescents. As previous
research studies have shown, efforts should be made to change attitudes
caused by implicit cognition (Baron et al., 2014). We propose that the
use of media texts such as femvertising ads can boost stereotype re-
duction in adolescents and promote psychological reactions such as
higher self-esteem.
1.1. Theoretical background
Social learning theory proposes that learning takes place both
through direct experience and modelling in the immediate environment
(Bandura, 1971). According to Maccoby (1990), social behaviour is not
a result of individual function alone but arises as a function of inter-
action among two or more persons. Human behaviour is influenced by
several physiological, environmental, and personal factors. Social cog-
nitive theory also suggests that biological, personal and environmental
determinants influence each other. In his research synthesis essay on
the social cognitive theory, Bandura (2001) suggests that symbolic
communication through socially mediated pathways such as media can
influence human thought, affection and action. Recent studies have
shown that mirror neurons are activated both when a person observes
and performs an action, or when a person observes and experiences a
sensation (Gallese, Eagle, & Migone, 2007). As an extension, the me-
chanism of ‘embodied simulation’ also happens when a person observes
others in a model action through symbolic experiences in movies, ads or
even in virtual reality spaces or video games.
Among media texts, advertising is already proven to cause vicarious
learning in children by modelling outcome expectations (Harris, Bargh,
& Brownell, 2009, Bandura, 2001). Media texts are often used as stimuli
in psychological studies involving stereotype process and stereotype
reduction (Ramasubramanian, 2007). The fact that brands are in-
creasingly embracing femvertising worldwide suggests that such high-
value gender-sensitive media texts might be used as classroom aids for
stereotype reduction.
2
Children and Youth Services Review 113 (2020) 104965
1.2. Gender stereotyping and classrooms
There are several roadblocks to gender equality in education in-
cluding gender stereotyping in textbooks (Blumberg, 2007). There is a
“difference in the way boys and girls experience classrooms” (Maccoby,
1990), and how they interact in classrooms. One of the solutions to
breaking gender stereotyping is to bring the gender lens into teaching
(Zecharia, Cosgrave, Thomas, & Jones, 2014). Through gender lens we
can identity and analyse what role gender plays in social life, and to
what level does assumptions on roles lead to perceptions and inter-
pretations about what girls can do and what boys can do (Howard &
Hollander, 1997). Empirical investigations have found that men and
women are more similar than different psychologically, but the expanse
of the differences felt is caused due to gender stereotyping (Ellemers,
2018). Maccoby’s studies have repeatedly shown a child’s acquisition of
sex-typed interaction styles is caused more by peer group settings. In-
teraction styles, social groups influence the large differences in the
behaviour of girls and boys (1990).
As far back as the 80′s, studies on sexism in elementary school
textbooks have been instrumental in leading publishers to follow
guidelines to ensure inclusiveness and gender neutrality, as a response
to a disproportionately small number of female main characters, limited
range of roles for women, stereotypical roles, and use of male generic
terminology to refer to both genders (Turner, 1990, Scott, 1980, Schau
& Scott, 1984, Harrison, 1975), and the interpretation is even more
biased depending on the gender of the instructor (Turner, 1990). In
addition to textbooks, stories for children also represent a source
identification and imitation, especially with same-sex role models
(Scott, 1980). For this reason, children more frequently exposed to fe-
male-inclusive language and portrayals of non-stereotyped roles models
in stories have more flexible attitudes towards gender roles (Scott &
Feldman-Summers, 1979, Flerx, Fidler, & Rogers, 1976). Studies have
documented how gender stereotyping in text books is a hidden and
invisible obstacle to educational equality with case studies from Syria,
Romania, China, India and the US (Blumberg, 2008). In India, despite
the National Policy of Education enacted by the Government in 1986
that emphasized the removal of disparities and discrimination in edu-
cation, and the Justice Verma committee recommendations on gender
equality to be integrated into the curriculum (National Council of
Educational Research and Training n.d.), the ground situation has not
changed (Alva, 2017). Gender stereotyping is rampant in textbooks
(Amruthraj, 2012) and there is a dire need to use interventional stra-
tegies suggested by the National Council of Education Research and
Training in India, such as use of empowering images as an inclusive
strategy for building self-esteem of girls by teachers in classrooms
(Srivastava, 2014).
1.3. Counterstereotypes
Studies have shown that priming individuals with counter-
stereotypes has clear attitudinal effects (Pedulla, 2014, Gocłowska,
Labuschagne, & Crisp, 2012). Use of counterstereotype image input
improved performance of boys in tests and had the opposite results in
girls (Morin-Messabel, Ferriere, Martinez, Devif, & Reeb, 2017).
Counterstereotypes induce more creative, innovative and flexible
thinking (Gocłowska et al., 2012). Counterstereotypes in textbook
images can also improve comprehension in girl students (Good,
Woodzicka, & Wingfield, 2010). Counterstereotypes in media have been
found to strongly influence career choices of children even when de-
livered implicitly (Bond, 2016). Negative stereotypes also influence the
performance and interest of girls in STEM (Shapiro & Williams, 2011).
Thus, femvertising employing counterstereotypes in advertisements are
expected to effectively reduce stereotype threat, while bringing about
positive attitudinal changes especially in girls.
N. Varghese and N. Kumar
1.4. Femvertising
Research on femvertising has addressed both its effects on society
(Crosby, McKeage, & Rittenburg, 2015), and ways to increase its ef-
fectiveness (Grau & Zotos, 2016). Herby identified five pillars of fem-
vertising campaigns: (a) utilization of diverse female talent, (b) in-
herently profemale messaging, (c) pushing gender norm stereotypes,
(d) downplaying o sexuality catering to the male gaze, and (e) por-
traying women in an authentic manner (Becker-Herby, 2016). In India,
the progress in the women’s rights over the past decade is quoted as one
of the main reasons for brands and companies adopting femvertising
(Kapoor & Munjal, 2017). Although previous research has studied
femvertising as a new form of the feminism movement (Michelle,
2015), or as an exploitation and appropriation of the new trend of
espousing feminism (Rottenberg, 2013), its role in effecting attitudinal
changes remains controversial. While Rodigrues (2016) shows that
femvertising used by some brands put consumers in a self-reflective
position and helped deconstruct sexism and stereotyping and displayed
a commitment to feminist causes; other studies have criticized the use
of feminist rhetoric without additional significant efforts to empower
women at the ground level (Hakansson & Lindholm, 2017).
1.5. Self-esteem
Self-esteem is an individual’s set of thoughts and feelings about his
or her own worth and importance (Baccus, Baldwin & Packer, 2004).
This sense of worth may change depending on both internal and ex-
ternal influences. Girls’ self-esteem is found to drop in adolescence,
causing a detrimental effect on their future achievements (Mahaffy,
2004). Adolescent boys and girls may differ in the way self-esteem is
linked to their socioeconomic achievements. The lower self-esteem
exhibited by girls derive from various sources, including reduced en-
couragement to engage in STEM courses, and a male dominated cur-
riculum (Bauer, 2000, Lee, 1997, Shashaani, 1997). Even though pro-
grammes discussing sources of gender inequality were shown to
improve self-esteem in adolescents, especially girls (2004), and studies
demonstrated the positive influence of reflected appraisals on adoles-
cent girls and boys (Schwalbe & Staples, 1991), the effect of femver-
tising ads is yet to be explored.
1.6. Objectives and hypotheses
Previous studies provide convincing evidence that adolescents are
extremely vulnerable to classroom gender experiences, and therefore
suggest an opportunity for gender sensitization and self-esteem devel-
opment through femvertising. Here we first examine whether exposure
to advertisements influence self-esteem of adolescents, and then whe-
ther there a difference in the effect on self-esteem based on the types of
ads (stereotypical vs neutral vs femvertising). We also investigated
differences in response to ads between genders, and possible interaction
effects of treatment, time and gender. We specifically test the following
hypotheses:
H1a: Exposure to stereotype advertisements will have a negative
effect on the self-esteem of adolescents.
H1b: Exposure to neutral advertisements will not have an effect on
the self-esteem of adolescents.
H1c: Exposure to femvertising advertisements will have a positive
effect on the self-esteem of adolescents.
H2: The effect of advertisements on self-esteem is stronger for fem-
vertising ads groups than for neutral or stereotypical ad groups.
H3: There is a three-way interaction effect of exposure to treatment,
time of exposure and gender on the self-esteem of adolescents.
H4: There is a difference in the main effect of gender on the self-
esteem of adolescent boys and adolescent girls exposed to femver-
tising.
3
Children and Youth Services Review 113 (2020) 104965
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample
Data were collected from 191 adolescent boys (N = 93) and girls
(N = 98), of a private university in a semi-urban city in Tamil Nadu,
India. The participants of the study were students of a psychology
course aged between 17 and 19 years.
Participants were randomly split into three exposure conditions:
stereotypical ad, neutral ad, and femvertising ad, where each group had
an almost equal distribution of girls and boys.
2.2. Advertisements
Femvertising ads were selected based on elements adopted from the
five pillars of femvertising; (a) utilization of diverse female talent, (b)
inherently pro-female messaging, (c) pushing gender norm stereotypes,
(d) downplaying o sexuality catering to the male gaze, and (e) por-
traying women in an authentic manner (Becker-Herby, 2016), in com-
bination with our own review of the phenomenon in India and fol-
lowing discussions with experts. They were chosen by peers as
individuals with a deep understanding of women’s issues and with ex-
periences of working closely with or in various positions within the
media field. One sociologist, one child psychologist, one advertising
professional, and one media course faculty member formed the expert
group. The group finalized the 6 elements of femvertising used in this
research. The elements evaluated were (1) positive imagery of women’s
strength, individuality, or confidence, (2) positive messaging on wo-
men’s empowerment, (3) non-objectification of women, (4) stereotype
busting or counter stereotyping roles, (5) challenges presented to
gender norms, and (6) highlighting talents of women. The selected
femvertising ads were those which had at least one element of fem-
vertising listed above such as (1) positive imagery of men and women,
such as men in child-care or household roles (Raymonds, Dell), and
women in professional roles such as boxing (JSW Steel), combat (Indian
Navy, Stayfree), sports (Reebok) or as bosses (Airtel); (2) positive
messaging (Arrow, Brooke Bond), (3) non-objectification of women (all
ads had this element); (4) counter stereotyping roles (Raymonds, Dell,
Samsung); (5) challenging gender norms (Titan, Tanishq, Ariel); and (6)
highlighting talents of women (Samsung, Biba). Stereotype ads were
chosen based on two elements, stereotyping of women as passive and
menial in occupational roles, domestic roles, and in sports, and the
focused sexualization of women. Ads chosen had women portrayed in
traditional roles of mothers, teachers, nannies, nurses among others
(Everest, Sunlight, Horlicks) and ads that sexualized women as objects
of desire or as points of attraction (Axe, Wild Stone, Slice). The neutral
ads portrayed women and men in the same setting and sharing equal
screen space as colleagues, friends, or couples in at par situations such
as driving (Hynudai Creta, Fascino), hanging out (Philips, M4marry), or
at settings such as weddings (TBZ, iPhone). Two independent coders
evaluated the ads used for each treatment condition. A third in-
dependent coder acted as an additional coder for ads in which the co-
ders did not agree.
2.3. Methods
Each group was shown the same number of ads. Exposure to ads
occurred during class hours and separately for each of the three groups,
by the same faculty staff. Measurement of self-esteem was taken twice,
at the beginning of the experiment before treatment, and after 5 ses-
sions of treatment. Five participants had to be removed due either to
missing course sessions or incomplete answers in the questionnaire.
Participants were told the scores were part of a self-evaluation of stu-
dents randomly conducted by the institutions’ internal quality cell.
Socioeconomic and demographic details were collected along with
global self-esteem scores in a survey questionnaire after the experiment.
N. Varghese and N. Kumar Children and Youth Services Review 113 (2020) 104965

A 3 × 2 × 2 three-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to investigate the Table 1

effects of treatment (stereotypical ads vs neutral ads vs femvertising Frequencies for the participants for each demographic variable (N = 191).
ads), gender (male vs female) and time (before vs after exposure) on Variable Frequency Percentage
self-esteem scores of adolescents (N = 191, 98 female and 93 male).
Self-esteem scores were normally distributed as assessed by Q-Q plot, Gender
Female 98 51.30
and there were no outliers as assessed by inspection of a box plot. There
Male 93 48.70
was homogeneity of variances across the three groups as assessed by Highest level of parental education
Levene's test both before (p = 0.141) and after (p = 0.237) exposure to Never gone to school 25 13.10
ads. Primany school educated 9 4.70
High school educated 57 29.80
Graduate 96 50.30
2.4. Scale used Post graduate 4 2.15
Family income
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), one of the most popular, Below 2.5 lakhs 74 38.70
2.5 lacs to 5 lakhs 43 22.50
researched, reputable measure for global self-esteem was used to 5 lacs to 10 lakhs 42 22.00
measure self-esteem. There are 10 statements to which respondents 10 lacs to 20 lakhs 20 10.50
must answer on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly 20 lacs to 50 lakhs 11 5.80
disagree which are assigned values ranging from 3 to 0. In order to Above 50 lakhs 1 0.50
Place of upbringing
reach the final score out of a maximum possible of 30, some statements
Rural 50 26.20
on the RSES are reverse scored since those statements are negative or Semi-urban 38 19.90
self-depreciating (Rosenberg, 1965). The scale has a reliability between Urban 87 45.50
0.72 and 0.87 (Sherrilene, Velozo, & William, 2007, McCreary, Slavin, Outside India 16 8.40
& Berry, 1996) and had been corrobarated multiple times for mea-
surement invariance and for its robustness (Alessandri, Vecchione,
Eisenberg, & Laguna, 2015, Gómez-Lugo et al., 2016). There is a debate 3.3. Interaction effects
on the factor structure of the RSES especially since the bi-factor model
was proposed by McKay, Boduszek, and Harvey (2014). Even though There was a statistically significant interaction between the treat-
the uni-dimensionality of Rosenberg scale was initially supported, re- ment and time on self-esteem [F(2, 185) = 61.67, p < 0.001, partial
cent research supports models with correlations between positively η2 = 0.400]. There was no interaction effect of gender and treatment
coded and negatively coded items. However, using composite scores [F(2, 185) = 0.709, p > 0.05, η2 = 0.008], or gender and time [F(2,
from RSES is concluded to be not misleading as it is still a robust 180) = 0.383, p > 0.05, η2 = 0.002] on the self-esteem scores. The
measure for global self-esteem (Donnellan, Ackermanb, & Brecheen, three-way interaction between time, gender and treatment was not
2015). The reliability of RSES for the current study’s sample was re- statistically significant [F(2, 180) = 0.812, p > 0.05, η2 = 0.009] and
corded as 0.872. hence H3 is rejected.

3. Results 3.4. Effect size of treatments

3.1. Descriptive statistics
Participants of the study had a cross section of students who had at
least one parent who was college educated (> 50%) or high school
educated (29%). 13% did not have either parent formally educated in
schools. 45% of the participants were brought up in urban areas of India
whereas 26% were from rural areas and almost 20% from semi-urban
areas. 60% are from low income families of < 500,000 INR (5 lakhs)
per year. 22% from between 500,000 to 1 million INR (5–10 lakhs) and
10.5% from 1 million to 2 million INR (10 to 20 lakhs) segments of low
and high middle income families. 5.8% are from high income families
of 2 million to 5 million INR (20–50 lakhs). Only 0.5% are from very
high income families of above 5 million INR (50 lakhs) (See Table 1).
There were no significant correlations between the highest parental
education and student’s self-esteem (r(189) = 0.03, p = 0.69), family
income and self-esteem (r(189) = 0.05, p = 0.52) or place of up-
bringing and self-esteem (r(189) = −0.02, p = 0.80).
Overall, the average self- esteem scores of adolescents did not ex-
hibit significant differences [F(2, 185) = 0.215, p > 0.05] across
treatment groups. See Table 2 for mean scores and standard deviation.
3.2. Main effects
There was no main effect of treatment, [F(2, 185) = 0.215,
p > 0.05, partial η2 = 0.002] on self-esteem scores. There was no
main effect of gender on self-esteem scores [F(1, 185) = 0.367,
p > 0.05, η2 = 0.002], thus we reject H4. There was a significant main
effect of time on the self-esteem scores [F(1, 185) = 33.86, p < 0.001,
partial η2 = 0.155].
A paired samples t-test was conducted for each treatment group.
There was a significant difference in self-esteem score before and after
exposure to ads in the stereotypical group [t(63) = 2.905, p < 0.01],
thus we accept H1a. There was no significant effect for the neutral group
[t(62) = −0.424, p > 0.05], and therefore we accept H1b. There was a
significant effect for the femvertising group [t(63) = −8.676,
p < 0.001]. Thus, we accept H1c.
As for the effect sizes in each treatment group, the stereotypical ads
group showed a 0.35 point decrease in scores after treatment
(davg = −0.19, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.44]). The neutral group showed 0.33
point increase but without a significant effect on scores (p > 0.05,
davg = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.26, 0.23]). The femvertising ad groups
showed a 1.74 point increase in self-esteem scores after treatment,
davg = −0.77, 95% CI [−1.05, −0.49]. Exposure to femvertising ads
has a greater effect on self-esteem of adolescents than the exposure to
stereotypical or neutral ads, and thus H2 is accepted.
4. Discussion
The experiment on media-assisted stereotype reduction investigated
if treatment with advertisements influences self-esteem through
learning via modelling. The study further investigated whether the ef-
fects vary with the type of ads (stereotypical, neutral and femvertising)
with the objective of proposing the use of femvertising ads as a media
strategy to enhance gender sensitization in classrooms. The treatment
effect was tested in separate homogeneous groups in order to explicate
which form of advertisements would increase the effect on self-esteem,
and whether such effect differs across genders. As predicted, adoles-
cents viewing femvertising advertisements exhibited significantly

4
N. Varghese and N. Kumar Children and Youth Services Review 113 (2020) 104965

Table 2
Overall and group wise means and standard deviations for the dependent variables.
Stereotypical Ads Neutral Ads Femvertising Ads Total

Gender Time N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Male Before 31 17.55 1.61 32 16.84 2.26 30 16.30 2.59 93 16.90 2.22
After 31 17.29 1.85 32 16.78 2.15 30 18.23 2.40 93 17.42 2.20
Before + After 31 17.42 1.73 32 16.81 2.21 30 17.27 2.50 93 17.16 2.21
Female Before 33 17.21 2.01 31 17.10 2.09 34 16.06 2.17 98 16.78 2.13
After 33 16.79 1.87 31 17.23 2.16 34 17.56 1.71 98 17.19 1.92
Before + After 33 17.00 1.94 31 17.17 2.13 34 16.81 1.94 98 16.99 2.03
Male + Female Before 64 17.38 2.01 63 16.97 2.16 64 16.17 2.36 191 16.84 2.17
After 64 17.03 1.86 63 17.00 2.15 64 17.88 1.91 191 17.30 2.06
Before + After 64 17.21 1.94 63 16.99 2.16 64 17.03 2.14 191 17.07 2.12

higher positive effects on self-esteem than adolescents viewing stereo-
type advertisements. The stereotype group had a significant negative
effect with a smaller effect size. When viewing all sets of advertise-
ments, a difference was found in the self-esteem score levels of ado-
lescent girls and boys. As seen in previous literature, adolescent boys
recorded higher self-esteem than adolescent girls (Quatman & Watson,
2001) but there was no statistical significance for the effect of gender
on self-esteem scores and on the treatment effect across stereotype,
neutral and femvertising groups. The study only examined the overall
self-esteem and didn’t include the separate domains of self-esteem. This
should be included in future studies. Further, a treatment condition of a
longer period and recordings at more than two treatment periods might
be more effective in revealing possible effects of period of exposure on
self-esteem.
4.1. Exposure to femvertising advertisements improves self-esteem of
adolescents
The results indicate that femvertising ads help in improving the self-
esteem of adolescents, with no difference between the genders. The
message from ads using femvertising reflects ideals of inclusion, and of
modern societies where women take up diversified roles and responsi-
bilities outside homes while also portraying as normal for men to be
involved in domestic roles such as home making and child or elderly
care, broadening the outlook of adolescents towards what a man or
women could do.
4.2. Women empowerment themes or femvertising presents an opportunity
to use ads as part of media strategy in classrooms
adolescent girls and boys. A third data set taken after a longer period of
treatment could have helped investigate this more thoroughly, and
therefore longer-term empirical studies are required. We plan to un-
dertake studies further exposing students to femvertising in a controlled
exposure for longer periods while evaluating their level of self-esteem
using multi-dimensional scales to explain the effect across specific
components of self-concept and to suggest interventions resulting in
positive outcomes.
4.4. The effects of femvertising advertisements on self-esteem is the same for
adolescent boys and girls
The experiment showed that gender did not have a main effect on
self-esteem scores. Although self-esteem scores of adolescent boys were
slightly higher as described in previous literature (Quatman & Watson,
2001), gender did not affect the degree to which the treatment affected
self-esteem. This is consistent with the studies comparing self-esteem
across countries that have proved lesser gender gap in collectivist,
poorer and developing nations with greater gender inequality such as
India (Bleidorn, Arslan, Rentfrow, Gebauer, & Potter, 2015), than in
developed and liberal countries (Zuckerman, Li, & Hall, 2016). Recent
studies have also shown similar self-esteem levels among adolescents in
India (Seema and Kumar, 2017).
The unconscious biases caused by lack of real-life counter stereo-
typing models can be reduced through learning via modelling in ad-
vertisements. Seeing a changed perspective from what adolescents have
been conditioned to accept is essential to show adolescents how they
can be change makers, transforming themselves to break and go beyond
the expected behaviour and to aim higher stronger self-esteem.

Over the last few years, women empowerment has become demo-
cratised, with celebrities and corporates expressing their support to the
cause through their social media handles, external communication and
CSR initiatives. Cause marketing has given an impetus to the public
outcry over women’s rights, with brands proclaiming and calling for
better participation of women through inclusion or by counter stereo-
typing gender roles. Femvertising subtly profess the changing gender
roles through portrayal of characters such as a baby caring dad, a lady
boss, a boxing mom, a stay-home husband or a taxi driving woman. Our
experiment has demonstrated that exposure to such messaging can be
used as a part of a media strategy in classroom teaching for affecting
and improving self-esteem, not only for adolescent girls but also for
adolescent boys.
4.3. A longer treatment time with femvertising advertisements improves the
effect on self-esteem
We have shown that using femvertising adverts as a treatment is an
effective method for temporary change in attitudes and beliefs, but to
sustain a long-term behaviour there should be a constant as well as
conscious effort from the teaching fraternity to be inclusive to
4.5. Limitations
One of the major limitations of this study is its location in India, a
country that still experiences strong gender discrimination. Additional
studies on femvertising in other countries, both developed and devel-
oping will strengthen the results. Another way to address this limitation
would be to assess the socio-moral values of the participants and in-
clude that as a data point in the analysis. While well validated the use of
the RSES has some limitations which can be addressed in future studies
by using a multi dimensional scale. Lastly, the time of exposure was
limited due to the location and nature of this study, future research
which expands the amount of exposure will decrease this limitation.
5. Conclusion
The cumulative effects of advertising in reinforcing harmful ste-
reotypes can also work in the opposite direction by strengthening
counterstereotypes. The current experiment provides evidence for the
effects of gender counterstereotype advertisements on the self-esteem of
adolescents and how devising a treatment of exposure to such adver-
tisements can boost their confidence. Our results support earlier studies

5
N. Varghese and N. Kumar
demonstrating self-activating effects of advertisement, and how ads can
cause viewers to draw inferences and contribute to implicit associations
and knowledge (Trampe, Stapel, & Siero, 2011).
Earlier research has also shown a positive effect of egalitarian fa-
thers who share maternal tasks such as comforting, planning and ar-
ranging child-care on the self-esteem on children (Deutsch, Servis &
Payne, 2001). In India, due to the prevalence of strong patriarchy, it is
even more difficult to break free of implicit cognitions developing from
unconscious associations to stereotype gender roles, but the use of
femvertising campaigns addresses this gap through short, effective
messaging on roles and responsibilities of men and women as well as by
supporting and highlighting talents of women.
Studies have demonstrated how gender self-esteem is higher in
women who are more supportive of feminism as compared to men
(Burn, Aboud, & Moyles, 2000). However, the willingness to consider
oneself as a feminist often conflicts with the actual support for feminism
in men as well as women (Toller, Suter, & Trautman, 2004). Several
pro-woman organizations are now using the power of social media to
further ideas of women empowerment and raise awareness about in-
herent sexism in everyday communication, business and domestic, as
exemplified by #unstereotype alliance and #seeher, spearheaded by
The Female Quotient. The Girls’ Lounge, an initiative from this orga-
nization to create a community of women to activate change has re-
ceived increasing support from leading brands including Google,
Adobe, Facebook, Johnson & Johnson etc. (The Female Quotient,
2018).
Corporate participation in activism confirms that the ideas of em-
powerment of women and female forward campaigns are gaining mo-
mentum at leadership levels (Unstereotype Alliance, 2018). In addition,
gender diversity in executive teams was shown to exhibit a positive
correlation with financial performance markers (profitability and value
creation), while better inclusion strategies give organizations a com-
petitive edge (Hunt, Yee, Prince, & Dixon-Fyle, 2018). Therefore, di-
versity and inclusion are the two critical areas of female forward
campaigns, as well as women’s rights movements today.
Garnering support and action at the grass root levels of classrooms,
where the future men and women are moulded, has been rarely con-
sidered as a strategy for promotion of gender equality. Future research
needs to specifically research the effects of counterstereotype imagery
and messaging through femvertising on self-esteem domains such as
personal security, home and parents, peer popularity, attractiveness,
academic competence, personal mastery, psychological permeability,
and athletic competence. Also, investigating long-term exposure to
femvertising is needed to understand its effects on self-belief, con-
fidence and choice of careers. Further studies of the correlations be-
tween socio-moral values, familial socialization and femvertising need
to be undertaken.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. There were no external
influences in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or
interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the de-
cision to publish the results.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104965.
References
Akestam, Nina, Rosengren, Sara, & Dahlen, Micael (2017). Advertising “like a girl”:
Toward a better understanding of “femvertising” and its effects. Psychology and
Marketing, 795–806.
Alessandri, Guido, Vecchione, Michele, Eisenberg, Nancy, & Laguna, Mariola (2015). On
6
Children and Youth Services Review 113 (2020) 104965
the factor structure of the Rosenberg (1965) general self-esteem scale. Psychological
Assessment, 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000073.
Alva, Niharika. 2017. Time of India. 28 June. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/study-finds-gender-stereotypes-
aplenty-in-ncert-textbooks/articleshow/59343915.cms.
Amruthraj, R. M. (2012). Gender discrimination in the primary school english language
textbooks in Tamil Nadu. The Primary Teacher, 78–101.
Baccus, Jodene R., Baldwin, Mark W., & Packer, Dominic J. (2004). Increading implicit
self-esteem THrough classical conditioning. Psychological Science (Sage Publications
Inc. for Association for Psychological Science), 1t5(7), 498–502.
Bandura, Albert (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Corporation.
Bandura, Albert (2001). Theoetical integration and research sysnthesis essay. Media
Psychology, 3, 265–299.
Bannerji, Himani (2016). Patriarchy in the era of neoliberalism: The case of India. Social
Scientist, 44(3/4), 3–27.
Baron, Andrew Scott, Schmader, Toni, Cvencek, Dario, & Meltzoff, Andrew N. (2014). The
gendered self-concept: How implicit gender stereotypes and attitudes shape self-de-
finition. Gender and Development, 109–132.
Batliwala, S. (1995). “Defining women's empowerment: a conceptual framework, edu-
cation for women's empowerment.” The fourth world conference on women, Beijing.
Beijing: Asia-South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education.
Bauer, John F. (2000). “A technology gender divide: Perceived skill and frustration levels
among female preservice teachers.” The University of Memphis. KY: Annual Meeting
of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.
Beaman, Lori, Duflo, Esther, Pande, Rohini, & Topalova, Petia (2012). Female leadership
raises aspirations and educational attainment for girls: A policy experiment in India.
Science, 335(6068), 582–586.
Becker-Herby, Elisa. (2016). The rise of femvertising: Authentically reaching female
consumers. Thesis or Dissertation, Minneapolis and Saint Paul: University of
Minnesota - Twin Cities. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/181494.
Bleidorn, Wiebke, Arslan, Ruben, Rentfrow, Peter, Gebauer, Jochen, & Potter, Jeff (2015).
Age and gender differences in self-esteem — A cross-cultural window. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
Blumberg, Rae Lesser (2008). The invisible obstacle to educational equality: Gender bias
in textbooks. Prospects, 38, 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9086-1.
Blumberg, Rae Lesser. (2007). Gender bias in textbooks: a hidden obstacle on the road to
gender equality and education. Virginia: Paper commissioned for the EFA Global
Monitoring Report 2008 Education for All 2015: will we make it?.
Bond, Bradley (2016). Fairy godmothers > robots: The influence of televised gender
stereotypes and counter-stereotypes on girls’ perceptions of STEM. Bulletin of Science,
Technology, and Society, 36(2), 91–97.
Burn, Shawn Meghan, Aboud, Roger, & Moyles, Carey (2000). The relationship between
gender social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42(11–12), 1081–1089.
Cassidy, Kimberly Wright. (2016). Gender differences in cognitive ability, attitudes and
behaviour. In: Gender in the classroom: Foundations, skills, methods, strategies
across the curriculum, by Sadker, edited by David M. Sadker and Ellen S Silber.
Routledge.
Coombe, Jacqueline, & Davis, Shannon N. (2013). Gender differences in the influence of
television on gender ideology? TV hours and attitudes toward employed mothers
1988–2008. International Review of Modern Sociology, 39(2), 205–218.
Crosby, Elizabeth, McKeage, Kim, & Rittenburg, Terri (2015). “Marginalization, re-
sistance, and stealth shopping: Subalternity in the gendered marketplace”. Edited by
Carolyn Yoon and MN Duluth Kristin Diehl. Advances in Consumer Research
(Association for Consumer Research), 43, 254–259. http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/
1020232/volumes/v43/NA-43.
Crush, Debra, & Hollings, Polly (2017). Qualitative research for gender stereotyping in ad-
vertising: Report for the Advertising Standards Authority, prepared by GfK UK. London:
Advertising Standards Authority UK.
Deutsch, Francine M., Laura Servis, J., & Jessica Payne, D. (2001). Paternal participation
in child care and its effects on children's self-esteem and attitudes toward gendered
roles. Journal of Family Issues.
Donnellan, M. Brent, Ackermanb, Robert A., & Brecheen, Courtney (2015). Extending
structural analyses of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale to consider criterion-related
validity: Can composite self-esteem scores be good enough? Journal of Personality
Assessment, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1058268.
Ellemers, Naomi (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1),
275–298.
Flerx, V. C., Fidler, D. S., & Rogers, R. W. (1976). Sex role sterotypes: Development as-
pects and early intervention. Child Development, 998–1007.
Frawley, Timothy (2005). Gender bias in the classroom: Current controversies and im-
plications for teachers. Childhood Education (Academic OneFile), 81(4), 221.
Gallese, Vittorio, Eagle, Morris N., & Migone, Paolo (2007). Intentional attunement:
Mirror neurons and the neural underpinnings of interpersonal relations. Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association, 55(1), 131–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00030651070550010601.
Gocłowska, M. A., Labuschagne, K., & Crisp, R. J. (2012). Can counter-stereotypes boost
flexible thinking? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (Sage), 16(2), 217–231.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212445076.
Gómez-Lugo, Mayra, Espada, José P., Morales, Alexandra, Marchal-Bertrand, Laurent,
Soler, Franklin, & Vallejo-Medina, Pablo (2016). Adaptation, validation, reliability
and factorial equivalence of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in Colombian and
Spanish population. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19.
Good, Jessica J., Woodzicka, Julie A., & Wingfield, Lylan C. (2010). The effects of gender
stereotypic and counter-stereotypic textbook images on science performance. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 150(2), 132–147.
Grau, Stacy Landreth, & Zotos, Yorgos (2016). Gender stereotypes in advertising: A
N. Varghese and N. Kumar
review of current research. International Journal of Advertising, 35, 761–770.
Gupta, Namrata, & Sharma, A. K. (2003). Gender inequality in the work environment at
institutes of higher learning in science and technology in India. Work, Employment
and Society, 17(4), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017003174001.
Gupta, Kamla, & Yesudian, P. Princy (2006). Evidence of women’s empowerment in India:
A study of socio-spatial disparities. GeoJournal, 65(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10708-006-7556-z.
Hakansson, Emma, & Lindholm, Rebecka (2017). Co-opting feminism - How brands hijack
social movements. A comparative study between the illustrative cases of RedFit & Ladylike.
Master Thesis. Sweden: Lund University School of Economics and Management.
Harris, Jennifer L., Bargh, John A, & Brownell, Kelly D (2009). Priming effects of tele-
vision food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychology, 28(4), 404–413.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014399.
Harrison, L. (1975). Sexism in langauge of elementary school text books. Science and
Children, 22–25.
Howard, Judith A., & Hollander, Jocelyn A. (1997). Gendered situations, gendered selves: A
gender lens on social psychology. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hunt, Vivian, Yee, Lareina, Prince, Sara, Dixon-Fyle, Sundiatu, (2018). Delivering
through diversity. Mckinsey and Company. January. https://www.mckinsey.com/
business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity.
Jackson, S. (2018). Young feminists, feminism and digital media. Feminsim and
Psychology, 28(1), 32–49.
Kapoor, Deepa, & Munjal, Alka (2017). Self-consciousness and emotions driving fem-
vertising: A path analysis of women’s attitude towards femvertising, forwarding in-
tention and purchase intention. Journal of Marketing Communications. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13527266.2017.1338611.
Klein, Susan S., Ortman, Patricia E., Campbell, Patricia, Greenberg, Selma, Hollingsworth,
Sandra, Jacobs, Judith, et al. (1994). Continuing the journey toward gender equity.
Educational Researcher (American Educational Research Association), 23(8), 13–21.
Koenig, Anne M. (2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive stereotypes about
children, adults and the elderly. Frontiers in Psychology.
Lee, K. (1997). Impediments to good computing practice: Some gender issues. Computers
and Education, 28(4), 251–259.
Luk, Ching Yuen (2018). A human rights-based approach to bridge gender digital divide:
The case study of India. Gender Gaps and the Social Inclusion Movement in ICT, by
Idongesit Williams, Olga Millward and Roslyn Layton. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-
5225-7068-4.ch002.
Maccoby, Eleanor E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account.
American Psychologist, 45(4), 513–520.
Mahaffy, Kimberly A. (2004). Girls' low self esteem: How is it related to later socio-
economic achievements? Gender and Society, 18(9), 309–327.
McCreary, M. L., Slavin, L. A., & Berry, E. J. (1996). Predicting problem behavior and self-
esteem among African American Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research,
216–234.
McKay, Michael T., Boduszek, Daniel, & Harvey, Séamus A. (2014). The Rosenberg self-
esteem scale: A bifactor answer to a two-factor question? Journal of Personality
Assessment, 654–660.
Michelle, Charlotte. (2015). CharlotteSimonsen.com Femnisin and Post Feminism in
Advertising. 2 June. Accessed March 28, 2017. http://www.charlottesimonsen.com/
blog/2015/6/2/feminism-and-postfeminism-in-advertising-is-femvertising-a-result-
of-fourth-wave-feminism.
Morin-Messabel, Christine, Ferriere, Severine, Martinez, Frederic, Devif, Julie, & Reeb,
Laurence (2017). Counter-stereotypes and images: An exploratory research and some
questions. Social Psychology of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-
9370-5.
National Council of Educational Research and Training. n.d. Analysis of the Textbooks of
Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha,
Maharashtra, Manipur and Rajasthan: An Overall Report. New Delhi: Department of
Gender Studies.
Pedulla, David S. (2014). The positive consequences of negative stereotypes: Race, sexual
orientation, and the job application process. Social Psychology Quarterly (American
Sociological Association), 77(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0190272513506229.
Pérez, María Pilar Rodríguez, & Gutiérrez, Miren (2017). Femvertising: female empow-
ering strategies in recent spanish commercials. Investigaciones Feministas, 8(2),
337–351. https://doi.org/10.5209/INFE.54867.
Prabhash, J. (2005). Mediated rights: Media, women and human rights in India. The
Indian Journal of Political Science (Indian Political Science Association), 53–74.
Children and Youth Services Review 113 (2020) 104965
Quatman, Teri, & Watson, Cary M. (2001). Gender differences in adolescent self-esteem:
An exploration of domains. The Jounwl of Generic Psycholo, g, 162(1), 93–117.
Ramasubramanian, Srividya (2007). Media-based strategies to reduce racial stereotpes
activated by news stories. Journal & Mass Communication Quarterly, 249–264.
Rodrigues, Rita Abreu. (2016). #Femvertising: Empowering women through the hashtag?
A comparative analysis of consumers' reaction to feminist advertising on Twitter.
Masters Thesis, Lisbon: Lisbon School of Economincs and Management, Unidversity
of Lisbon.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rottenberg, Catherine (2013). The rise of neoliberal feminism. Cultural Studies, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2013.857361.
Sadker, David (2006). Gender equality: Still knocking at the classroom door. Equality &
Excellence in Education (Taylor & Francis), 33(1), 80–83.
Sarkar, Sumita (2014). Media and women image: A Feminist discourse. Journal of Media
and Communication Studies, 6(3), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.5897/JMCS2014.0384.
Schau, C. G., & Scott, K. P. (1984). Impact of gender characteristics on instructional
materials: An integration of the research literature. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76(2), 183–193.
Schwalbe, Michael L., & Staples, Clifford L. (1991). Gender differences in sources of self
esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly (Americam Sociological Association), 54(2),
158–168.
Scott, Kathryn P. (1980). Sexist and nonsexist materials: What impact do they have? The
Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 46–52.
Scott, K. P., & Feldman-Summers, S. (1979). Children's reactions to text book stories in
which females are portrayed in tradiiotnally male roles. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 396–1302.
Seema, B. G., & Kumar, Venkatesh G. (2017). Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(3),
435–438.
Shapiro, Jenessa R., & Williams, Amy M. (2011). The role of stereotype threats in un-
dermining girls' and women's performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles,
66(3–4), 175–183.
Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37–52.
Sherrilene, Classen, Velozo, Craig A., & William, Mann C. (2007). The Rosenberg self-
esteem scale as a measure of self-esteem noninstitutionalized elderly. Clinical
Gerontologists, 31(1), 77–93.
Skey, Samantha. (2015). “Iblog magazine she knows femvetising feature.”
SheKnowsMedia.com. www.sheknowsmedia.com/attachments/204/iBlog_Magazine-
SheKnows-FemvertisingFeature.pdf.
Srivastava, Gouri (2014). Gender concerns in education. Module, New Delhi: National
Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). http://www.ncert.nic.in/
departments/nie/dws/modules/RMSA_Module.pdf.
The Advertising Standards Authority (2017). Depictions, perceptions and harm. London:
The Committies of Advertising Practice.
The Female Quotient. 2018. Modern guide to equality. https://mgte.thefemalequotient.
com.
Toller, Paige W., Suter, Elizabeth A., & Trautman, Todd C. (2004). Gender role identity
and attitudes towards feminism. Sex Roles, 51(1–2), 85–90.
Trampe, Debra, Stapel, Diererik A., & Siero, Frans W. (2011). The self-activation effect of
advertisements: Ads can affect whether and how consumers think about the self.
Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1030–1045.
Turner, Robyn Montana (1990). Gender-related considerations for developing the text of
art instructional materials. Studies in Art Education, 32(1), 55–64.
United Nations. (2015). “Gender equality: Why it matters?” Goal 5: Gender equality.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/5.pdf.
United Nations. (2016). United Nations: Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment. 1
January. Accessed July 12, 2019. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
gender-equality/.
Unstereotype Alliance. (2018). Unstereotype Alliance Ho,e. http://www.un-
stereotypealliance.org/en.
World Economic Forum (2018). Global gender gap report 2018. Geneva: World Economic
Forum.
Zecharia, Anna, Cosgrave, Ellie, Thomas, Liz, Jones, Rob. (2014). “Through both eyes:
The case of gender lens in STEM.”.
Zuckerman, Miron, Li, Chen, & Hall, Judith A. (2016). When men and women differ in
self-esteem and when they don’t: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality,
34–51.