The two key studies in this field (i.e. by David Morley and James Lull) both found that the main differences in television usage were related to gender. Although the majority of their findings have been supported by the work of both earlier and later studies (e.g. Herzog, Gray, Brunsdon) their research has been subjected to various criticisms. Morley's study only examined working class families, most with minimum education levels, living in inner city London. In the majority of cases the mothers in the households did not go out to work. Therefore this study only looks at a very small cross-section of the country. Lull's study was more widely based, but still mainly only observed blue collar workers and farm labourers. However, he did include some families from the lower classed end of white collar workers. Again all these families were from a similar area in southern California. Morley even states in his report that generalisations for families from different areas of Britain, different classes or different educational levels can not be made from his research findings. He even says that 'Indeed, I would be amazed if it [the television viewing patterns he found] were repeated among more highly educated professional families' (Morley 1992:145).
This case study evolves around two families from middle class suburban areas. However, the two families differ in everything from education levels to the distribution of the sexes within them. The purpose of this study is to see whether there are similarities between the findings from these two families, and between these families and the findings of the various published studies. Firstly this essay shall outline the main findings of Morley's and Lull's works.
Morley's study found that the significant factor which influenced the differences in his findings was gender. He claims that this affects: power and control over programme choice; viewing style; planned and unplanned viewing; the amount of viewing; television related talk; use of the video; solo viewing; programme and channel preferences; and preference for the type of news that was watched.
It was found that men (especially fathers) had the most control over what was watched, while mothers usually had the least control. Lull's research reinforces this point. In his study 'observations indicate that fathers controlled more programme decisions than any other single family member or combination of family viewers' (Lull 1990:91). They were twice as likely to make a decision than their female counterparts and made 90% of their decisions without consulting anyone else in the room. In many houses if there were conflicting views about what should be watched the oldest male's choice would reside, as one father in Morley's study declared: 'Man Family Four 'We discuss what we all want to watch and the biggest wins. That's me. I'm the biggest' (cited in Morley 1986:147). The video also tended to be a male orientated device, which most adult females had not even attempted to find out how to operate.
Men were also more likely to plan their viewing, with women knowing when and where the few programmes they liked to watch were on. Mothers tended to watch the most television, mainly because they had the most access with being at home all day. However, between 4:00 and 5:00 television is likely to be dominated by the children (Comstock et al. 1978), and after that the father/husband.
With regards to programme and news preferences, in general men preferred factual programmes: documentaries, national news, sports programmes and action films. Lull attributes this to Gans' theory that 'these programmes minimise dialogue and provide a flow of masculine images that, according to the author, permit the viewer to live his life vicariously, the way he would like to in the real world' (Lull 1990:162). Women were more likely to prefer dramas, soap operas and situation comedies. They would be more likely to watch local news rather than national news. This was because they believed they had a duty to know what was happening in their local community, so that they could protect their children. From Lull's research, he stated that these patterns in programme preferences were the same all over the world. Although he notes the effect of gender, he claims that the differences in usage and viewing style can also be contributed to family-interaction type, which falls under two categories socio-oriented and concept-oriented.
Lull summarised the differences in viewing styles between men and women in Morley's study as 'men plan their viewing carefully, watch television attentively, watch 'whole-heartedly' and are able to relax with television.' He concluded that 'Women watch less attentively...because they are constantly trying to manage their domestic responsibilities in addition to whatever viewing they can do at night. They are forced to construct other instances for watching television' (Lull 1990:163). These responsibilities affecting their viewing may explain why lots of women talk while they view, whereas men usually view in silence. It would also explain why women often view television during times when they are alone in the house, as alone they can forget their responsibilities and do not have to feel guilty about inflicting their preferences on the other family members.
Like Morley and Lull I conducted my study through observations and in-depth interviews. I observed two families which are very well known to me. This had the advantage that my presence would barely affect their behaviour, but it would also have the disadvantage that my pre-formed opinions and bias may affect the data I collected and my interpretation of it. To minimise this problem I conducted a group interview with each family. A group interview meant that family members corrected what each other said, and hence would give a more accurate picture of their actual behaviour. However, this can not be completely relied on as the family members may have felt restricted by being in a group situation, and may have subconsciously adopted their idea of their 'supposed' family role in the discussions. Another factor that has to be taken into consideration is Ang's point that 'viewers' statements about their relation to watching can not be regarded as self-evident facts. Nor are they immediate transparent reflections of the viewer's 'lived realities' that can speak for themselves' (Ang 1995 :47). There is also possible error in my interpretation of the statements that are made. In my research I also talked to an outsider for each family to further eliminate bias from my observations. These observations took place over a four day period, during the school term, for each family. This included two week days and a weekend. This was to ensure that a balanced picture of the families' viewing practices was obtained, as time, attitudes and responsibilities would obviously differ depending on whether the day was a working day, or not.
The first family (F1) consisted of father, mother and four sons aged 11, 15, 17 and 20. Both parents left school at 16. The father is a journalist, and used to be a member of a paratroop regiment. The mother has been a housewife, who does piece work from home and childminding, for the past twenty years. All sons, except the seventeen-year-old are in full-time education. Both parents originate from working class families: the father from the East end of London and the mother from a village just outside London. In the father's side of the family there is a strong tradition of army life. The house contains two televisions. One is in the living room, the other in the oldest son's bedroom. This second set was only ever used late at night, so as not to disturb anyone, or if the oldest son wished to view something deemed too violent for the eleven-year-old to watch. Although the other family members had access to this set, they never used it.
Observations and interviews both revealed that the most television is watched by the eleven-year-old boy. However, the choice was nearly always determined by the oldest male present in the room. Frequently the father, or one of the older boys would turn over from the programme the youngest child was watching. Only once did he complain, and this was the time when the second youngest boy (who is considered by the others to be a bit of a wimp) turned over. When questioned he said that the reason that made him complain then and not at other times was that he could 'have' this brother, but not his other siblings who 'could kill me, if I fought them' (eleven-year-old, F1) The mother never had the television on if she was in on her own. When she did view, it was usually standing up from the doorway of the living room, and only for short periods at a time. She explained that this was because 'I'm not really that interested in watching the telly. I just get way laid when I'm doing things and end up standing watching it while I try to think of what I'm doing next' (Mother, F1). Occasionally she will watch thrillers if everyone else was out, or in bed, but that is very rarely. She said 'there's no point in trying to watch anything when this lot are around. It's too noisy and you miss all the important bits' (Mother, F1).
All the family members preferred sport programmes, which over ruled any other viewing preferences on the television. The father and twenty-year-old watched any war programme, or action based film. The three youngest children expressed a liking for soap operas and situation comedies, whereas the mother, father and twenty year old showed a strong dislike for them. All male members enjoyed watching most cartoons, especially the Simpsons. There were no programmes that are always watched, as soon as any of the male members were in the home the television was on all the time. Hence, nearly all the viewing was unplanned.
There were only a few conflicts about what would be watched, these would either be settled by the father, or by who would back down first in arguments, which with all the sons involved physical as well as verbal conflict. Apart from the oldest son no one admitted to talking about programmes with friends, or colleagues. The oldest son said he often discussed comedy shows, sport and especially the news with his friends when they went to the pub.
An implicit viewing rule was that the oldest male would always sit in the chair which had the best view of the television. He would also have possession of the remote control. The mother only had effective authority over the youngest two boys. Almost automatically when the oldest male vacated the room his seating position and authority would be taken over by the next oldest male, and vice versa. The oldest and youngest sons watched more television alone than in company. This is mainly due to the oldest having his own set and the youngest having shorter school hours and not sleeping in at the weekends. All except the father talk through about 90% of programmes. If the father wanted to watch something specific, the rest of the family would either have to be silent, or leave the room. The only time the television would not be on was if there were visitors.
All sons played with video games, but on weekdays they would have to be cleared up before the father came home. All family members could and did use the video recorder. The majority of videos owned and watched were Disney animated films, which all admitted enjoying. The twenty-year-old even admitted that 'I take [the eleven-year-old] to see films, or buy him them, so that I have an excuse to watch them' (twenty-year-old, F1). All except the youngest said they judged watching television as a negative activity and that they thought people should ideally do something active instead. However, apart from the mother who rarely watched television, they all denied experiencing feelings of guilt, even though they would watch almost non-stop from coming home to going to bed. Most nights tea would be in front of the television, but even on the nights it was not the father would have his carried in to him, where he would eat alone in front of the television, while the rest of the family ate in the kitchen.
The second family (F2) consisted of mother, father, nineteen-year-old daughter and seventeen-year-old son. The mother and father both work full-time, one in the medical profession and the other in the teaching profession. Both stayed in education up to degree level. Again both parents came from working class backgrounds, but from Celtic origins. Both sets of grandparents had moved from Celtic countries, one set to Liverpool, the other Irish immigrants to a small Yorkshire village. In this household there was one television set in the living room.
For the first week of each holiday, or when the daughter was home for weekends she reported to watch the most television. The reason for this being 'when I first come home I watch anything. It's a novelty, because I rarely see any at university' (Daughter, F2). Apart from that the son watched most, but in a fragmented way. He watches to fill in time while he eats breakfast and lunch, while waiting for dinner and when he comes in at night. The mother watched about twice as much as the father. However she rarely watched television before 9:00. Her main reason for watching was 'as a kind of little reward, or wind down just before going to bed, because I just want some gap between work, housework and things like that before going to sleep. She said she used it 'like a gin and tonic' (Mother, F2).
Although the father admitted to watching programmes just to be sociable, none of the other members of the family reported doing this. Most viewing was done in isolation, as the mother explained 'We all have different bits of the day when we've got gaps to watch television' (Mother, F2). This meant that conflicts over what to watch were rare within this family. All said that if there were conflicting views over what to watch they would be resolved by determining who wanted to watch their programme most. Usually someone would only ask for their choice if they knew they wanted it more than the other person wanted theirs. As with F1, all members of the family could and did activate the video. Videos were usually chosen by the mother. These were usually films that contained a social comment, e.g., Dead Man Walking.
Unlike F1, members of F2 were not satisfied with the service given by television. The father thought that only about 25% of programmes were worth watching. The mother liked arts programmes and complained that these were shown too late for most people to watch. The father said that he would prefer just to watch videos all the time. During the evenings no one said that they feel guilty watching television, however during the day was another matter. The mother admitted, 'I'd feel naughty... I'd start watching it thinking I'm not really going to watch this and then I'd carry on watching it, sitting on the edge of my seat and not relaxing' (Mother, F2).
The father's preferred genres of programmes were adaptations of Shakespearean plays, anything to do with the Celtic lands, boxing and the news. The son claimed to never watch the news, only watching American situation comedies and skateboarding videos. The daughter also liked sitcoms as well as action and adventure films. The mother preferred old films, documentaries, gardening and travel programmes. Although ion the past the father used to regularly follow Coronation Street, he now hated 'so called realistic soaps' (Father, F2). The mother hated anything political and rarely watched the news for this reason. The preferred channel by all the family was channel four, even for the news, because it included human interest stories.
With regards to planning viewing all members, except the son, did this. They would go through the TV times each weekend deciding what they would like to watch, but it was rare if anyone actually viewed what they had planned to watch, hence it happened that most viewing was unplanned.
Both children talked about television with their friends. The father also talked about all genres of programmes with colleagues. However, the mother only talked about medical documentaries with her colleagues. She would make an effort to watch documentaries about her field of work, whereas the father would specifically avoid doing the same. All members talked through programmes, and all except the daughter found this irritating. The mother is the only person who watches attentively. The father and daughter would, in the majority of cases, be involved in another activity at the same time.
There were no explicit rules involving viewing in this family. Before the daughter started university meals would only be in front of the television on a Sunday night. This ritual has been modified, usually because the son specifically wants to watch a particular programme. 'Sometimes we follow him through there, 'cos we think lets be sociable with him' (Mother, F2). There are set places from which people view the television, however, these are not enforced rules, though the children would always offer the father his chair if he came into the room. However, he said he only sits there if he is feeling in an unsociable mood. The remote control is used by all except the mother, who would always ask others in the room to change channels for her. The possession of the remote control is usually dependent on who starts watching the television first. If a programme is part way through family members ask before they change channels. If it is between programmes about 50% of changes were not communicated with the other people in the room first. Unlike F1, this house does not have the television on as a filter. Both parents find that annoying and turn it off if they leave the room, or if they find it empty.
These two families differ from each other in almost all aspects of television practices. Though parts of behaviour from members in both families do correspond with the patterns found in published studies. For example all the males enjoyed watching at least one sport. However, there were other parts that contradict these studies, such as neither of the mothers liking soap operas, or situation comedies.
F1 fitted the patterns generalised from Lull's and Morley's work to a much greater extent than F2. The only main differences were that the mother's preference in genre were more masculine,i.e. sports and thrillers, and that she watched significantly less television than all other family members.
However, the findings from F2 differed greatly from the findings of the studies. Control over what was watched, or chosen to be watched was usually determined by a female figure. The mother was also the only person who was never employed in another activity whilst watching television. Her most viewed genres of programmes were documentaries and factual programmes, in comparison the father preferred more feminine genres like dance and music, and it was he that was the avid soap opera follower, when these used to be regularly viewed in the house. It is also the mother's choice of programme that is most inflicted on other members of the family and most rarely the father's. There are also, however, some of the generalised gender patterns present in this family; such as the mother viewing the most television; and the father watching the news everyday, whereas the mother watches it once or twice per week.
Morley claims that 'programme type, family position, and cultural background interrelate to produce the dynamics of family viewing behaviour' (Morley 1986:17). He goes on to argue that the differences between men and women's behavioural patterns in relation to television 'are not to be related to biology but to the particular character of gender relations that have emerged within patriarchal society, as a result of which the home itself has become highly gendered' (Morley, cited in Silverstone 1994:39). Other researchers have also mentioned the importance of parental influence (not just explicit influence through gatekeeping, but also the implicit influence from using parental behaviour and attitudes as a role model) on children's viewing habits (Chaffee and Tin (1976)). The basis of these arguments lead to explain the differences between the findings in my case study.
Family one who conformed most with published findings is a very patriarchal family. A strong link of army traditions runs through the family, hence definitions of gender differentiation are very important in this household. This is reflected by looking at how the family members rated themselves as to the extent of masculine and feminine traits in their personality, on the BSRI scales for androgyny. In this family all of the male members rated themselves seven for masculinity and one for femininity. The only female gave herself a score of two for masculinity and six for femininity. If one compares this with F2 one notices the extent of the gender definitions for F1. F2 results were for the males: six and four for masculinity, with four for the former and one for the latter for femininity. The female scores were also not so near the extreme ends of the scales with self-ratings of six and four for femininity and respectively three and four for masculinity. The extent of the range of difference in scores for the two traits in F1 reveal the strength of their own self-concepts of their gender identities.
This household is also very male orientated, with five out of six members being male. It is the father who is the main 'bread winner'. The mother is the only person who does any housework. The father grew up in a working class area in the East end of London, and hence could have shared a similar upbringing and similar views to those in Morley's study. The rise for this family into the middle classes is not through education, but hard work. In Morley's study the differences from the 'norms' were due to higher education levels, which are not existent in this family. This family still has very strong and close links to its relations of the previous generation (i.e. grandparents). Hence, a combination of all these factors could explain why there is such a strong patriarchal power in this household and why, although they are a middle class suburban family, the majority of patterns in their use of television can be related to gender in the way that the findings from the families in Lull's and Morley's studies can.
Although family two also originates from working-class backgrounds, both parents come from Celtic families, which have a strong matriarchal influence. Both undertook further education, which Morley claims can have an influence on gender attitudes. Attending university may be an influencing factor, since this means that the parents did not go straight from living in the paternal home to marriage. This means that the father would have experienced, through necessity, life of fitting in work around domestic chores. In this family the father and mother both share these chores, and so do the children, but to a lesser extent. The family is very arts orientated and there are often more alternative past times being tried. The children are encouraged to be open minded, hence stereotypical views of masculinity and femininity, though not overtly discouraged, are not encouraged. There is not a great deal of contact with the extended family, and hence there are no strong stereotypical role models reinforced.
These differences in family structure that rule the attitudes between family members and influence behaviour and interaction in the house, are more likely, in my opinion, to influence habits involving the usage of television than gender is.
Although my study is too small to draw any conclusions, or generalisations from I conclude that it is unlikely that sex is the main factor influencing television usage and viewing styles. However, I do believe that gender definitions and the importance one places upon one's own gender identity does have an influence, as it is very interesting, and perhaps significant that the overall masculine/feminine personality scores on the BSRI are strongly either masculine, or feminine in F1 and not so strong in F2 (see appendix 1). Also the self-rating differences of the individual trait 'masculine' and 'feminine', which was discussed earlier, show the extent of the various individuals self concepts of their own gender identity, and this does appear to correspond with the amount of power they have (or their sex has) in the household.
These conceptions about one's own gender role and how gender roles should be, (from influence from parents and grandparents) are likely to reinforce set patterns of gendered behaviour and hence produce; the power roles which are demonstrated around the television set; and influence the viewing preferences, which lead to the differences in the behaviour I observed within and between these two families.
The following is a table of the final masculinity and femininity scores for each member of the two families. The lowest possible score is zero and the highest seven. These scores were obtained from the BSRI, designed by Bem et al.
Person Masculinity Femininity
Score Score
Father (F1) 6.35 4.55
Mother (F1) 3.25 5.50
Male aged 20 (F1) 7.00 5.20
Male aged 17 (F1) 6.15 4.65
Male aged 15 (F1) 5.45 3.95
Male aged 11 (F1)* 5.4 2.95
Father (F2) 5.65 5.35
Mother (F2) 4.70 5.25
Female aged 19 (F2) 4.60 4.65
Male aged 17 (F2) 4.80 3.75
* The eleven-year-old boy did not understand a lot of the terms and so they were explained to him by one of his older brothers, through watching the explanations a problem with this type of questionnaire became apparent. This was that everyone has slightly different definitions of the same concepts, hence no two people are answering the same question.
April 1997
