Social and Cultural Diversity Paper

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Vol. 32 (Special Issue) 2013, 119–130 © 2013, American Marketing Association ISSN: 0743-9156 (print), 1547-7207 (electronic) 119 Cultural Diversity in Television Narratives:

Homophilization, Appropriation, and Implications for Media Advocacy Cristel Antonia Russell, Hope Jensen Schau, and David Crockett This research explores the role of cultural diversity in the construction of consumer identity, and in particular, how cultural diversity is appropriated through television viewing. Data based on depth interviews and surveys of young adults who created brand collages centered on a television-based character reveal that viewers identify and engage with television narratives through a process of “homophilization”; that is, they actively envision various features of television narratives as similar to themselves and their own lived experiences. The data also show that homophilizing processes are enacted primarily by customizing the narrative, or textual poaching, in which the consumers insert themselves and their experiences into the narrative, and that consumption choices serve as primary mechanisms for poaching. Because media narratives are important in the formation and maintenance of consumer identity, the authors strongly recommend vigilance in the production and dissemination of socially conscious narratives that allow prosocial and realistic characters with whom consumers can actively engage.

Keywords: television influence, consumer culture theory, cultural diversity, narrative, homophily Cristel Antonia Russellis Assistant Professor of Marketing, Depart- ment of Marketing, Kogod School of Business, American University (e-mail: [email protected]). Hope Jensen Schauis Associate Professor of Marketing, Gary M. Munsinger Chair in Entrepreneur- ship and Innovation, Eller College of Management, University of Ari- zona (e-mail: [email protected]). David Crockettis Associ- ate Professor of Marketing, Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina (e-mail: [email protected]).

C ultural diversity is a central trope in contemporary cul- ture (Kymlicka and Norman 2000). Though almost universally regarded as ideal and socially desirable, cultural diversity is a polysemic text with highly contested meanings (Parekh 2000). Consumers must engage and rec- oncile these many meanings as they construct and commu- nicate their own identity. This research explores how con- sumers engage and reconcile cultural diversity-related meanings received through television. Television’s central role in shaping understanding of diversity makes this a compelling issue for public policy.

The hallmark feature of the cultural diversity trope is an idealized interpersonal relationship (of varying depth and intimacy) with a person from a marginalized cultural group (e.g., Naisbitt 1988). However, despite their idealized status, culturally diverse relationships are rare in practice. They tend to dissolve quickly when they occur and are unlikely to develop after the early school years (McPherson, Smith- Lovin, and Cook 2001). Media (e.g., television, Internet/social media, cinema, music) allows many to experience vir- tually what they do not experience interpersonally. The juxta- position of what occurs in daily life against what can be accessed through media raises the central question posed by this research: How do people appropriate cultural diversity through media consumption, particularly television?

Media scholars have long investigated related questions, and the scholarship provides the grounding assumptions that guide the current research. Prior research has identified a media culture that socializes and provides materials for con- structing identity, social reproduction, and change, as a cen- tral feature of the postmodern condition (Hutcheon 2002; Kellner 1995). In addition, Friedberg (1994, p. 179) notes that “electronic media reorganizes social space, breaking down the boundaries between here and there, lived and mediated, personal and public.” Media consumption is active and always negotiated (Mayne 2000). People stake personal identities inside media narratives, using them to legitimate identity positions such as gender and ethnicity (Gauntlet 2008; Morley and Robins 1995). As Briley, Shrum, and Wyer (2013 [in this issue]) detail, media also offers access to other identity positions (e.g., gender, ethnicity, race, class, geography). It mitigates and translates experience into the corporeality of the consumer (Friedberg 1994).

In line with these insights from prior research, we posit that television is uniquely important for understanding how cultural diversity is appropriated through media. Television instantiates reigning cultural logics; viewers observe and adopt the cultural logics it depicts. Thus, television is a prime site for acculturation and enculturation. To paraphrase Raymond Williams’ ([1974] 2003) famous insight, televi- sion blends narrative, information, and advertising into a vir- tually ceaseless flow of ideas. Television is also chiefly responsible for disseminating idealized narratives about cul- ture that viewers (i.e., consumers) may actively seek out (as documented in Brumbaugh and Grier 2013 [in this issue]) and appropriate for use in their identity construction (e.g, Crockett 2008). Little is known about how viewers appropri- ate these narratives. This research addresses the oversight by exploring the following questions: How do viewers engage with cultural diversity experienced through television pro- grams? What role is played by traditional markers of cultural diversity, such as gender and race, in connecting viewers with television narratives? In turn, how are viewers influ- enced by the consumption lifestyles of culturally diverse characters and narratives on television?

We treat the intersection of cultural diversity and media as a matter of social justice and welfare, and thus squarely within the scope of public policy. In the United States, issues pertaining to cultural diversity and media have long been investigated as matters of social justice and welfare, particularly role status and the depiction frequency of women and minorities. In 1968, for example, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (more com- monly, the Kerner Commission) admonished media outlets for their portrayal of blacks (Hrach 2011). Although the commission stopped short of linking negative media por- trayals directly to civil unrest, it legitimized treatment of minority role status and frequency of depiction on televi- sion as a social justice and welfare matter in public discourse—a pattern that has held since. In consumer research, Kassarjian’s (1969) almost simultaneously pub- lished analysis of blacks in advertising during the 20-year Baby Boom adopts a similar social justice and welfare stance, delivering a commentary to both business and civil rights groups about the state of race relations. Likewise, we offer our analysis and findings primarily to industry and advocacy groups rather than lawmakers and regulators. Literature Review Theories about how television narratives influence audi- ences abound in the fields of media communications and cultural studies, and they are also well represented within advertising and consumer research. Given the goal of understanding how viewers use television to understand diversity, we briefly review this expansive set of literature with an eye toward foregrounding the relevant constructs rather than exhaustive coverage.

Television Delivers Narratives Television is a polysemic text that contains a virtually cease- less flow of content (i.e., narrative, information, and adver- tising) within and across programs (Butler 2007). Television producers build narrative by managing flow and interrup- tions of content in ways that privilege their preferred mean- ings. Television narratives center on characters, which are textual signifiers that communicate essence. Basic demo- graphic (e.g., age, ethnicity, gender) and/or physical signi- fiers (e.g., clothing, body type) often indicate essential fea- 120 Cultural Diversity in Television Narratives tures of a protagonist (antagonist) or secondary story partici- pant. Aspects of acting performances (e.g., voice, facial fea- tures, gestures) can further develop important features of the character in the narrative. In addition, some actors deliver meaning because they are stars. They have intertextuality; that is, audiences read their stardom across multiple texts— as characters in programming, as actors who are targets of professional criticism, as product endorsers, and as celebri- ties who are the subjects of intensive public scrutiny about their personal lives. Thus, the act of viewing is an open- ended engagement with the text filtered through personal and social discourses. Although television producers may have a preferred meaning, communicating it to an audience is always probabilistic rather than deterministic: viewers may or may not adapt the position of identification with the producer’s preferred meaning (Hall 1997; Newcomb 1994).

Television Influences Through Referential Relationships Theories have long established that influence stems from the structural relationship between agent and target. Thus, influences received from mediated agents in television nar- ratives are driven by the referential relationship targets (viewers) develop with characters/sources, even if they are socially, geographically, or culturally distant (Cocanougher and Bruce 1971). We describe the basic relationship types.

Upward-Looking Relationships Upward-looking relationships reflect a hierarchical struc- ture in which viewers look up to media sources, a prevail- ing notion in traditional models of media influence. Televi- sion is often viewed as an aspirational world, especially the idealized images of advertising (Richins 1991) and televi- sion series (Hirschman and Thompson 1997). The basic research tenets of celebrities’ credibility as advertising endorsers and agents of persuasion are that they ought to be perceived as attractive, powerful, and trustworthy (Kertz and Ohanian 1992; Ohanian 1990). These characteristics assume an upward-looking, mediated relationship to celebrities; viewers envy, admire, and want to emulate the consumption constellations and lifestyles displayed in the television series they watch (Festinger 1954; Hirschman and Thompson 1997). These hierarchical relationships are also central to McCracken’s (1989, 1998) meaning transfer model, wherein celebrities and characters emanating from popular culture and mediated texts serve as opinion leaders and inspire the consumer and lifestyle habits of those who revere them. However, it is important to note that media audiences generally (and television viewers especially) may relate to characters and celebrities in additional ways that have been less commonly highlighted in the literature.

Lateral/Peer Relationships Lateral/peer relationships reflect a horizontal relationship structure, in which media consumers are on par with the mediated characters with whom they interact. Because they commonly simulate real life, television-based characters often trigger parasocial relationships. Viewers think of recurring characters that seemingly evolve on a similar timescale as being real, even close friends and thus relate to those characters on the same level (Russell, Norman, and Heckler 2004). Social media platforms further foster a sem- blance of interactive relationship and closeness, as audi- ences can communicate directly (or seemingly so) with mediated celebrities. Such lateral relationships are prone to establish trust, a central tenet of credibility models, as well as perceptions of similarity. Indeed, people often assume that their television “friends” (interpersonal or mediated) are like them, sharing similar beliefs and attitudes, even when this is inaccurate (Huckfedlt and Sprague 1995; Jus- sim and Osgood 1989).

Such perceptions of similarity with close others are the underlying principles of homophily. Homophily broadly refers to the degree to which two or more people who inter- act are similar on certain attributes, such as beliefs, educa- tion, social status, and the like. Colloquially stated, “birds of a feather flock together” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). In their classic study on the subject, Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954) distinguish between “status” and “value homophily” as bases of similarity. Status homophily is based on membership in status categories (or behaviors associated with them), in which status may be ordered by ascribed characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, sex, age) or acquired characteristics (e.g., religion, education, occupa- tion). Value homophily is based on adherence to values, attitudes, and beliefs, which are internal states that presum- ably shape orientation toward future behavior. Because these internal states are rarely observed directly, they are often inferred from behavior.

This distinction between status and value homophily implies multiple broad bases on which viewers might per- ceive similarity to mediated others. They might perceive a physical resemblance or a more subjective, elaborated, even imagined resemblance. Alternatively, they might use observable behaviors, such as consumption, to infer simi - larity of values, attitudes, and beliefs. For example, a recent study of Facebook friendship ties among college students indicates that ties were more likely to form as a function of propinquity based on co-residence and similarities on non- racial categories than on more traditional status homophily markers such as race (Wimmer and Lewis 2010). In these relationships, credibility is established through perceived homophily (Eyal and Rubin 2003; McCroskey, Richmond, and Daly 1975). Distinct from having close, mediated rela- tionships with homophilous others, media audiences may even fully identify and live vicariously through these per- ceived relationships, in a type of merged relationship.

Merged Relationships In merged relationships, self and mediated others overlap entirely. Identification with a mediated character, a central construct in media (Cohen 2001), can allow the projection of oneself onto the other, which promotes vicarious experi- ences. Identification with a television character is a major contributor to self-identity development because the viewer experiences the social reality presented therein from the inside (Erikson 1968). Identification can promote narrative transportation into a story and vicarious experience of its events, as well as greater belief in the events and what they represent (Green and Brock 2000). Identification with media characters can also trigger adoption of displayed Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 121 behaviors (Cohen 2001). A study of Elvis impersonators (Fraser and Brown 2002) provides a compelling, if rather extreme, illustration. Some fans have adopted Elvis’ per- ceived attributes, values, and behaviors and have integrated them into their own, even undergoing surgery to enhance the physical resemblance.

The literature suggests that homophily undergirds rela- tionships that viewers form with television characters, actors, and celebrities that have a lateral/peer or merged (but not upward-looking) structure. The premise of this research is that these mediated others convey meanings about cultural diversity through television narratives. View- ers then appropriate meaning about cultural diversity through their relationships (structured as upward-looking, lateral/peer, or merged) with characters, actors, and celebri- ties to aid in constructing their own identities. Given the important role media plays in shaping meanings associated with cultural diversity and producing images of it, we investigate the processes by which television narratives influence viewers’ understanding of cultural diversity. Methodology In the spirit of discovery-oriented research (Wells 1993), we examine how consumers relate to television-based nar- ratives and the characters therein. We began by theoreti- cally sampling university students (aged 18–35 years) who self-identified as television fans. We asked 137 of them to create a digital brand collage centered on a character in a television narrative of their choice and to complete an online semistructured questionnaire about their collage. A subset of these collage creators (N = 22) also agreed to par- ticipate in a long interview about their collage. For details on the informant set, see Table 1.

Collage Task Instructions for the collage task were (1) to select a charac- ter from a serial television program they watch and (2) to create a digital collage of products and services that they could envision the focal character using in a typical day.

Collages should contain at least five products/services but could be of any length. Participants could take up to ten days to prepare and submit their collages electronically (for examples, see the Appendix). This task is in keeping with the visual nature of most social communication and, thus, most consumption expressions (Zaltman 1997). In the inter- views, the collages served as a compelling projective tech- nique to elicit product/service-, character-, and self-related thoughts without explicitly asking for them (Belk, Ger, and Askegaard 2003). Collages of this nature provide a creative, unbounded, projective task that bypasses participants’ defense mechanisms, rationalization, and social desirability biases. This interpretive tool, similar to Zaltman’s (1997) metaphor elicitation technique, is useful to uncover deep insights into a specific phenomenon (Belk, Ger, and Askegaard 2003) or to unearth consumption’s implications for self-identity (Chaplin and John 2005).

Semistructured Questionnaires In an online questionnaire (link provided), participants responded to an open-ended prompt to describe their process for selecting a television character and creating their collage. They similarly discussed five products/ services in their collages and explained how the character is associated with each, how they personally relate to it, and what the product/service means to them. This semistructured online format provides an unobtrusive and confidential forum for the participants to express themselves, and their short narratives yield valuable insights across a range of self-character relationships as well as a variety of character– product and self–product connections.

Long Interviews The goal of the long interview is methodological empathy (Singleton, Straits, and Straits 1993). Therefore, we care- 122 Cultural Diversity in Television Narratives fully crafted an interview protocol flexible enough to reveal emic insights. A semistructured and open-ended interview format addresses a baseline set of similar issues across informants while maintaining sufficient flexibility to allow unanticipated themes to surface (Spradley 1979). The inter- views were scheduled shortly after participants submitted collages and lasted between 38 and 81 minutes. In a manner analogous to Heisley and Levy’s (1991) autodriving, par- ticipants walked the researcher through their collages, dis- cussing the meanings they attributed to the products/ services, the significance of their inclusion and placement within the collage, and the meaning of the constellation of consumption objects depicted in the collages. Participants routinely volunteered details about their feelings toward characters, what characters meant, and how characters Table 1. Informants Ethnicity/ Geographic Name Sex Age Race Location Show Character Length Frequency Yasmina F 21 Persian Southern The OCSummer Roberts 1.5 years 1/week California Kai M 28 Latino SouthernCurb Your Larry David All episodes 1+/week CaliforniaEnthusiasm(+DVD) Tandy F 22 White Southern Sex and the CityCarrie Bradshaw 6 years 1+/week California Todd M 22 White SouthernThe SimpsonsHomer Simpson 14 years 1+/week California Natalie F 22 White Southern The SimpsonsHomer Simpson Sporadically Not California regularly Wendy F 21 White/ PhiladelphiaFriendsPhoebe Buffay 10 years Every day Jewishor more Van M 22 Black PhiladelphiaBernie MacBernie Mac 1 year 1/week Fred M 22 Black PhiladelphiaChappelle’s ShowDave Chappelle 1 year 1/week Nandy F 20 Latina PhiladelphiaKing of QueensCarrie Heffernan 6 years 1+/week Reshay M 22 Black Philadelphia The Philadelphia Allen Iverson All life 1/week 76ers in season Nate M 21 White PhiladelphiaThe ApprenticeDonald Trump 2 years Sam M 20 White/ PhiladelphiaERDr. Pratt 2–3 years 1/week Jewish Elliott M 21 White PhiladelphiaThe ApprenticeDonald Trump 2 years 1+/week Vince M 22 Latino PhiladelphiaTil Death Do Carmen Electra <1 year Twice total Us Part Nelly F 21 White/ PhiladelphiaWill and GraceKaren Walker 5 years 1+/week Jewish Laura F 20 White PhiladelphiaFamily GuyLois 1 year 2/months Daeshona F 20 Black PhiladelphiaThe ParkersNikki Parker 4–5 years 3–5/week Tameca F 21 Black PhiladelphiaThe SopranosCarmella Soprano 3 years 1+/week Nashawna F 21 Black PhiladelphiaMy Wife and KidsJay Kyle 4 years 1+/week Vashan M 23 Black PhiladelphiaThe Fresh Prince Will Smith All episodes of Bel Air Shakeera F 34 Black PhiladelphiaThe Cosby Heathcliff 17 years 4–5/week ShowHuxtable Nelson M 22 Black PhiladelphiaAll of UsRobert James <1 year 1/week related (or do not relate) to their identities. Thus, the inter- views tap into the three distinct categories of narrative: a collage narrative, a television narrative and its consumption images, and each participant’s personal narrative, along with the relationships among the narrative categories.

Analysis Data analysis was guided by grounded theory as advocated in Glaser and Strauss (1967) and elaborated by Strauss and Corbin (1998); interviews were coded and themes were dis- tilled using the constant comparative method of analysis (Spiggle 1994). The initial interviews were analyzed sepa- rately and then reinterpreted comparatively. Subsequent inter- views were analyzed in light of previous interviews and per- formed in an iterative style, or hermeneutic circle of understanding (Schwandt 1997). Because the interviews were guided by participant-created collages, participants could pro- duce their own interpretations of their collages and influence researcher interpretations. This method brings the researcher a step closer to perceiving the signs consumers offer in the man- ner in which the consumers themselves do (Grayson 1998). Findings Our data reveal that consumers identify and engage with television narratives through a process of “homophiliza- tion”; that is, they actively envision various features of tele- vision narratives (e.g., settings, characters, actors) as simi- lar to themselves or to their lived experience. The data also show that viewers enact homophilizing processes by first evaluating available narratives and then customizing them.

In customizing narratives, often referred to as “textual poaching” (Jenkins 1992), viewers insert themselves and their experiences into the narrative. Consumption choices serve as primary mechanisms for poaching. We elaborate on homophilization and discuss its implications for cultural diversity from a social justice and welfare perspective.

Viewers Evaluate Available Narratives A prominent pattern across informants is how readily and directly they describe and comment on the array of narra- tives available in the mediascape. This unprompted but explicit discussion of available narratives is a robust find- ing, reflective of the television audience as “active produc- ers of perceived meaning” (Hirschman and Thompson 1997, p. 45). Shakeera describes what she views as a void in the mediascape and explains her choice of a classic tele- vision program, The Cosby Show, starring Bill Cosby as Dr.

Cliff Huxtable:

I love the premise: a strong black upper middle class family talking about morals and ethics and music. I really like that blend. Bill Cosby as a man is quite impressive. The show is a legacy for the people to follow. We’re not all thugs and hos [sic]. We’re real people with real, normal problems. I’d say we’re more like Bill Cosby’s family than the felons we usually see on TV. It is an important show; one that really broke color barriers and one that made black people look good—like people anyone might meet or know. We’re not just hired help. We’re doctors and lawyers and accountants.

Shakeera uses what she considers prominent depictions of black criminality (“thugs,” “hos,” and “felons”)—a percep- Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 123 tion that no doubt includes both news and entertainment programming—as a rhetorical foil to highlight what makes The Cosby Showan exceptional narrative. She articulates a story that actively foregrounds the importance of compara- tively rare depictions of middle-class black families in high-status occupations on television. The Cosby Show’s matter-of-fact depiction of black middle-class family life actively counterbalances prevailing stereotypes in a way that had not been previously done (Downing 1988).

Notably, because The Cosby Showis by definition excep- tional, it need not mirror Shakeera’s life to be compelling and useful for shaping her understanding of diversity.

Am I like [Bill Cosby]? Well, no. I’m a woman; a black woman; a 34-year-old black woman.... I’ll never be a doctor like he was on the show, or a lawyer like Clair, his wife on the show. I’ll just never be. My family was not middle-class. We lived paycheck to paycheck. We still do. It is what the show means to black people that makes it cool. It is the possibility that we can be doctors and lawyers; that some of us have made it and that we can too. When you see thugs and hos you think that’s all there is, but the show was something else to do, some- thing else to be. It kept me in school.

Shakeera notes her gender difference from Bill Cosby and the wide social class gap between her family and the fic- tional Huxtables. Nevertheless, she values The Cosby Show as an exceptional narrative about diversity because it articu- lates the possible. She credits the show’s morality-laden emphasis on education with inspiring her to remain in col- lege, even if only part-time.

Informants made regular note of their perceptions about the availability of television narratives that address multiple dimensions of social identity, particularly gender, social class, and our focus, ethno-racial identity. Their accounts are structured similarly to Shakeera’s: a perpetually limited or narrow range of available narratives in the mediascape limits their identity projects, but a subset of exceptional nar- ratives counterbalance the common by articulating or inspiring prosocial possibilities. Regardless of their empiri- cal accuracy, evaluations of available narratives function to mark some as exceptional so that viewers can incorporate them into identity projects. Next, we turn to the way con- sumers incorporate exceptional television narratives about diversity into their identity projects.

Homophily and the Narrative–Self Connection The most common way informants mark narratives as exceptional is to seek out aspects that are similar to their lives, a process researchers refer to as “homophily” (Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954). We ask informants directly about their connection to television narratives to highlight how they actively create similarity rather than simply notice it. Informants appropriate diversity through television view- ing by flocking together with like celebrities in an imagined social network based on the time they spend within the nar- rative. We note that homophily often occurs in relationships that are lateral/peer or merged and far less in upward- looking relationships. Drawing on McPherson, Smith- Lovin, and Cook (2001), we differentiate between status and value homophily and their roles in identity projects and understandings of cultural diversity. Status Homophily In status homophily, similarity is based on ascribed or achieved social status. Status homophily is composed of two main types: (1) perceived and acknowledged pheno- type (phenotype status homophily) and (2) perceived and acknowledged behavioral attributes (behavioral status homophily). Phenotype status homophily inherently involves subjectively noting resemblance to actors’ ascribed traits and is fairly pervasive. For example, Yasmina, a second-generation Persian immigrant, marked similarities between her own physical attributes and Summer, a charac- ter on the Fox drama, The OC. Phenotypically dissimilar to Summer in most respects, Yasmina latched on to hair color (not texture) and height to base resemblance claims.

Behavioral status homophily is more complex because it prevails on viewers’ ability to navigate the intertextuality that commonly accompanies actors in television narratives.

In this excerpt, Van established behavioral status homo - phily with the late Bernie Mac from the Fox sitcom The Bernie Mac Show:

Van: [Laughs.] OK. Everybody in the community knew [about the show’s premiere], and was excited about the show.… We all knew it was coming.

Interviewer: What do you mean “in the community”? People on campus? In your neighborhood?

Van: Oh, I mean black people. The black community. We knew he was coming on the TV and we talked about it. It was in Vibe [magazine]. [Bernie Mac] is a well-known comedian in the community. We were hoping the show [would] be like an updated Cosby Show; some good examples of black folks not in jail or pimping. Something real.

In this instance, “something real” refers to the character’s and the show’s decidedly middle-class aesthetic and sensi- bility. In some crucial respects Bernie Mac, a renowned stand-up comedian who plays himself as a full-time parent on the show, updates Bill Cosby as the embodiment of black middle-class comportment. He is a self-employed profes- sional with a professional spouse, a family man who lives comfortably though not lavishly. Mac’s character comports with what Van presumes to be the black community’s ideal.

“We,” which is to say the black community, hoped for an updated Cosby Showto counter that which is not real; inac- curate stereotypes of black masculinity thought to be abun- dant in television as noted by Van and by other informants.

Van’s comments also echo those in contemporary consumer culture theory research (see Thomas 2013 [in this issue]), in which African American male informants note that their consumption practices are constrained by long-standing stereotypes. When asked about his specific connection to Bernie Mac, however, Van articulates a less direct connec- tion than did Shakeera to Bill Cosby:

Interviewer: Why exactly did you choose Bernie Mac?

Van: He’s not trying to be white; not selling out to go main- stream. He’s a black man.

Interviewer: So, you think there are a lot of people selling out?

Van: Most black people on TV or in the movies are definitely selling out. They are black people; B-I-S-O. 124 Cultural Diversity in Television Narratives Interviewer: What does B-I-S-O mean?

Van: Black-in-Skin-Only. They aren’t black any more cultur- ally. I guess you could say they pass.

Interviewer: And you think a lot of black people pass?

Van: Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

Interviewer: OK, so what makes Bernie Mac… real?

Van: He’s black. He talks black. He looks very black. He never pretends he’s white or that he’s same as white.

Interviewer: OK. So it is the way he talks—?

Van: And the way he looks. He dresses black. He has bold col- ored clothes and he’s—ah—trendy. He knows what’s stylin’ now and he wears it.

Interviewer: And you like that about him?… Cool. I noticed you don’t have clothing items in your collage.

Van: Well, he’s not really that stylin’, but I mean you wouldn’t see a white dad on TV dress like that.… He’s like me in a lot of ways. Fame and money didn’t get to him yet.

Unlike Shakeera, for whom The Cosby Show counterbal- ances prevailing stereotypes and articulates the possible, we note that Van’s connection to the Bernie Mac character and actor is woven together from essentialized notions of cul- tural and masculine identity. “Essentializing” involves drawing boundaries (typically narrow and fixed boundaries) around a category of representation, such as race or gender, and making hard distinctions between the authentic and inauthentic, in-groups and out-groups (Hall 1997). For Van, ways of being or acting (behaving) black (which include speech, general appearance, and dress) are clearly distinct from ways of being white, and they mark membership in black (masculine) culture. Van accuses some of “passing,” spurning membership in a presumably low-status group to pursue mainstream success. Bernie Mac’s fealty to pre - sumably black cultural conventions, despite his popularity with white audiences, marks him as simultaneously an aspi- rant figure and a peer for Van. That is, Van rejects a sim- plistic phenotype homophily, built on uncritical ethno- racial solidarity, in favor of behavioral homophily built on adherence to cultural convention. He places Bernie Mac— both the character and the actor—in a particular milieu comprised of particular cultural and gendered practices, to which he also adheres. To clarify, Van does not mimic Bernie Mac’s behavior. Mimicry is a hallmark of upward- looking relationships. Van sees Mac as a peer, even being mildly critical of his dress while noting its distinction from white television dads. Van creates behavioral status homophily by perceiving that he and Mac opt into the same milieu based on adherence to a set of distinguishing prac- tices. Their practices are not identical. As such, this excerpt challenges the conventional wisdom that viewers only (or mostly) mimic celebrities such as Bernie Mac to establish behavioral status homophily (cf. Schor 1998).

Value Homophily In value homophily, similarity is based on attitudinal and belief systems that are revealed only upon reflection (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). Having estab- lished certain points of status homophily, informants con- sider their connection to characters, actors, and narratives through values and beliefs. Van connects personally to Bernie Mac’s ability to keep money and fame from “getting to him.” Similarly, Tandy connects initially to the charac- ters in Sex and the Citybut expands to other features of the narrative:

I’m in love with fashion, and that is what I want to do. I want to go to an art school for fashion design and stuff, so seeing the clothes and costume designs in Sex and the Cityis like the most unbelievable thing to me. I really enjoy looking at all the fashion.

Tandy articulates a connection to the fashions, a narrative feature for which the show gained notoriety. Value homo - phily often results from elaboration on the similarities between self and narrative that begin with status homophily but then extend to values, attitudes, and beliefs. In this instance, Nashawna relates to the character Janet (Jay), the matriarch in the situation comedy My Wife and Kids:

[T]hey don’t act like they’re perfect. In fact, the oldest son and his girlfriend are having a baby this season. So Michael and Jay are going to be grandparents! Very young ones. They didn’t plan on that, and that is what I mean. They aren’t perfect peo- ple, but they’re good people trying to make good choices.

Nashawna revealed that she was born to an unwed teenage mother and that, like Jay, she became a grandparent in her thirties. Nashawna’s experiences parallel the show’s narra- tive plot, but importantly, she connects to the characters’ efforts to do what she considers the right thing. Using the program as a guide, she navigates complicated family relationships.

Because value homophily is often based on unarticulated attitudes and beliefs, it is often established superficially through inferences about consumption that require an elab- orate filling in of prodigious knowledge gaps. In this excerpt, Nandy elaborates on Pantene shampoo in her col- lage of Carrie Heffernan, the female lead on the sitcom King of Queens:

I thought Pantene because it’s one of the best you can buy at the grocery, though maybe she’d buy it at the salon, like Sebastian.

I don’t know. I just think she’s a Pantene girl. She wants great hair, but she’ll save brand names for when it matters—when other people can see. No one knows what hair products you use, but your clothes—they need to be good brands, especially your shoes.

Consistent with prior research, a great deal of value homophily is inferred after status homophily is established (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). Nandy assumes her tastes constitute dimensions of similarity with the character. She thinks that Carrie is like her and will make similar trade-offs.

Homophilization Processes Our data demonstrate that informants contrive similarity to television narratives through a process we term “homo - philization.” Informants actively weave similarity together from traits associated with actors, characters, and various features of narratives. Building on Schau and Gilly’s (2003) findings that brands are vehicles of self-definition and com- munication, our study shows that informants use them to establish connections to television narratives. We highlight Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 125 three specific practices by which informants contrive simi- larity to available television narratives: aspiration and imi- tation, legitimation, and opposition.

Aspiration and Imitation Aspiration and imitation are the most consistent with com- mon conceptions of homophily and views of mediated rela- tionships as upward-looking. We characterize aspiration and imitation as practices that may exist (even prevail) in any mediated relationship. However, lateral/peer and merged relationships more often provide a basis for homo - philization. Informants desire a consumption object, prac- tice, or lifestyle highlighted in a television narrative, as Tandy explicitly states: “[Sarah Jessica Parker, the female lead in Sex and the City] is who I want to be when I finish school and move to New York City.” Informants project themselves into television narratives and actively imitate some aspects (e.g., lifestyle, skills, phenotype, personality).

Because the narratives and their intertextual connections are so rich in consumption images, consumption references abound and we find that brands are the most readily appro- priable features of the mediated world. Many informants are highly receptive to product placements and official celebrity endorsements, at times embracing them uncondi- tionally. In this way, at times, our informants embody the materialism-fueled over-consumers highlighted by numer- ous critics of media (Postman 1985; Schor 1998; Shrum, Burroughs, and Rindfleisch 2005).

Legitimation Informants also adopt media narratives that provide post hoc justifications for behavior. This is especially prevalent in establishing value homophily. For example, one inter- view respondent states, “Sure the fashion on Sex and the Cityis over the top, but that’s OK. It sure makes my fashion addiction at [trendy clothing retailer] Forever 21 more acceptable.” She favorably compares her “fashion addic- tion” to a discount retailer to the characters’ fundamentally similar attitude toward shopping. Her similar attitude is nevertheless morally superior because she is not acquiring expensive luxury brands at high-end retailers. Informants find congruence between media narratives that substantiate (even excuse) their lived experience. Even cartoon charac- ters like Homer Simpson serve as benchmarks for justifying consumption practices such as Todd’s “Homering on the couch,” which involves drinking beer and eating pizza or donuts while watching television and which many timidly admit is a guilty pleasure. The related assumption that everyone who watches the Simpsons does this legitimates the behavior. This legitimation process has troublesome implications for public health, given the abundance of illicit substances, portrayals of underage drinking, and generally unhealthy lifestyles depicted on television (Avery et al.

1997; Russell, Russell and Grube 2013; Story and Faulkner 1990).

Opposition Perhaps less obvious is that informants sometimes disap- prove of consumption objects and practices that characters perform or endorse. Informants distance themselves from particular media narratives, in some instances outright defining their identity against them. This process is espe- cially prevalent for informants contriving status homophily.

Sometimes opposition involves active resistance, in which the informants reject something they do not like.

“Ke$ha is a total ho [sic] but that is why I watch her. She’s not me. She’s nothing like me.” Note that rejection involves only a refusal to establish status or value homophily. It does not preclude watching or utilizing the narrative. As Calvin notes, “[Characters] say s— you could never say in pub- lic.… It’s like they say it for me so I don’t have to. I can relive their rude behavior while being civilized.” For some informants, rejected narratives remain useful objects of catharsis or displacement. Informants can relish a character or narrative they do not intend to mimic.

Opposition also includes more traditional notions of rejection. One young adult informant, Natalie, expressed strong negative views about media narratives that had “severely” affected her identity during adolescence and from which she had recently escaped:

The only time I ever watched TV was in my youth and I can see how severely it affected my life because I kind of took those images…. Growing up in Orange County, you have that infil- tration from LA. It affected my youth a lot and I have a lot of animosity towards some of the shows that were projected towards me. Like [Beverly Hills] 90210. Girls look at that and think that is really how it is supposed to be. Then they see those images and mimic them, which I don’t think is portraying the right age group to the right people.

Natalie eventually concluded that watching television made her “very insecure” and opted to turn it off. A conscious distancing and separation from television is readily visible in her collage: it includes only fictional brands within the Simpsons’ world, because she considers it all fiction.

Building Diversity Narratives Through Appropriation Informants relate to television narratives through an active process of homophilization. They appropriate what they see and build their own narratives, or stories, about diversity.

Stories are the primary mechanism by which people share and attach meaning to experiences and objects (Labov 1972). They become part of communal mythology (Durkheim [1912] 1965). They situate the person’s identity within the broader context of community identity (Creed and Scully 2000) and allow people to grapple with identity issues. Open text stories leave room for fans to write them- selves into them and locate resonant themes (Derecho 2006). These informants craft stories about available televi- sion narratives, mark some as exceptional, and establish upward-looking, lateral/peer, or merged relationships to actors and characters. They then appropriate key pieces of exceptional narratives through aspiration and imitation, legitimation, and opposition. They contrive homophily by revising exceptional narratives, interweaving their identities throughout.

Informants intertwine television narrative and characters with their own stories through what Jenkins (1992) calls “textual poaching.” It is a form of customization in which media consumers use elements of the primary text and their imagination to augment, modify, and reconstitute the text to 126 Cultural Diversity in Television Narratives fit their specific needs. Media consumers fill in knowledge gaps, fix problems, and extend the text’s meaning. Some narratives, such as The Simpsons, a prevalent source of col- lages in this data set, constitute easy texts for poaching given their slate of oddly colored characters and fictional brands. However, homophilization practices allow viewers to contrive similarity, even when none is apparent. There- fore, any television narrative can be poached. Discussion Our findings are consistent with the widely held notion that television plays a critical role in the transmission of culture.

Beyond this insight, we offer a more complete account of media consumers’ relationship to culture as instantiated in television than has been typical in consumer research.

Because consumption markers (e.g., product placements, imagined consumption constellations) are especially useful to media consumers for ascertaining homophily, this research has implications for standard programming and for advertising practices embedded in television shows (Cain 2011). As such, this research contributes to discourse about the media and social justice/welfare that can inform public policy beyond regulation and censorship.

Our investigation highlights the myriad ways television narratives, homophily, and textual poaching operate to transmit culture and influence enculturation processes. If we consider McCracken’s (1998) insights about the move- ment of cultural meaning, metaphorically speaking, this research expounds on the “arrows” that connect cultural producers to individual consumers in the model. The find- ings generate nuanced (and we believe more useful) insights into such phenomena and their implications.

Viewers have limited ability to directly influence the pro- duction of television narratives. In general, they can bestow (or withhold) legitimacy and/or loyalty on programming that is already network approved, filmed, and aired. Net- work executives and advertisers retain primary (if no longer exclusive) control over television narratives, including nar- ratives about diversity. They wield effective veto power throughout the process of ideation, filming, and airing.

Thus, television transmits culture through a fundamentally hegemonic relationship between network executives and advertisers, writers and producers, and viewers. An under- girding logic and language of business imperative natural- izes the relationship.

Despite their comparatively limited power, viewer agency remains evident in our data. They mark available television narratives—or parts of them—as exceptional and appropriate aspects of them through textual poaching to construct their own meaningful narratives about cultural diversity. Despite their agency, viewers are shackled to the hegemonic logic and language of business imperative that networks prefer. According to this logic, viewers are con- sumers whose choices are limited to the products (narra- tives) networks make available. It affords viewers little practical input into the production of television narratives about diversity (or any topic). 1 1We readily acknowledge that networks are increasingly responsive to viewers, even to the point of cocreation efforts, and that viewers are increasingly creating their own content. At times however, issue-oriented advocates have adopted a competing logic of social justice and welfare to exert direct influence on the production of narratives, particularly those related to cultural diversity. As we noted previously, the Kerner Commission legitimized this competing logic. Since then, advocacy organizations such as the National Associa- tion for the Advancement of Colored People and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting have incentivized and pressured producers to increase cultural diversity narratives in both entertainment and news media. The logic and language of social justice and welfare render the production of television narratives about cultural diversity a matter of public rather than exclusively private interest. Television’s widely acknowledged role in transmitting cultural meaning drives such logic. Even so, narratives have typically remained part of an ongoing conversation between advocates, industry, and viewers rather than a matter for formal legislation or censor- ship (Levin 1980; O’Malley 2004)—with the notable excep- tion of child-focused programming and indecency/obscenity.

As such, the policy implications of this research are primarily for advocates, industry, and the public rather than regulators.

In the broadest sense, this research suggests that public discourse on television and culture should move beyond its simplistic “aspire and imitate” assumptions about viewers.

Instead, public discourse is sorely in need of updating to reflect a nuanced understanding of how viewers actually build narratives about cultural diversity out of available nar- ratives. Clearly, viewers at times aspire to what they see on television and imitate it, but they do not swallow network- generated narratives whole. Rather, they mark some as exceptional and find ways to make features of exceptional narratives similar to themselves (while holding obvious dis- similarities at arm’s length, at times self-consciously so).

We direct our remaining discussion specifically to media advocacy, which includes research-focused organizations (e.g., Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism) as well as traditional advocacy ones (e.g., Berkeley Media Studies Group). Our findings suggest that organizations aiming to engage networks about cultural diversity narratives must first recognize the fundamental hegemony characterizing the relationship. Advocates seeking change must craft mes- sages for the array of network executives and advertisers who hold veto power at multiple points in the narrative pro- duction process. For example, despite an array of successful examples, some network executives and advertisers still consider narratives that foreground cultural diversity to be too risky for general audiences. Not surprisingly, such nar- ratives have historically faced significant barriers in the approval process, asThe Cosby Show’s initial rejection at ABC illustrates (Downing 1988). Even when approved, net- works can remain hesitant to incorporate diversity into cast- ing, relying instead on episodic minority characters to sup- ply diversity. For example, a three-year study of the Los Angeles viewing market, which is nearly half Latino/ Latina, reports a high percentage of episodic characters in local network television, which includes many syndicated shows (Chicano Studies Research Center 2004).

Sophisticated advocates seeking to influence the narrative production process must craft messages that address the interests of network executives and advertisers, who wield considerable power. We suggest that, in addition to docu- Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 127 menting the paucity of diversity narratives on television, media advocates also devote greater energy and resources to understanding how viewers create diversity narratives. We demonstrate that cultural diversity is important enough to some viewers that they use self-relevant narrative elements from all manners of programming, and make them similar, to appropriate it. Understanding viewers in this way pro- vides a basis for crafting compelling messages to network executives and advertisers about their engagement with diversity, which is a perpetual network challenge. Our infor- mants revealed connections to characters, storylines, actors, and consumption portrayals that go well beyond “aspire and imitate.” They searched extensively for exceptional narra- tives and sought to engage them in deep, enduring, and complex ways. Advocates might also include insights on viewer engagement with existing diversity narratives to devise more compelling messages that build in space for episodic characters to recur or even spin off.

To be clear, we are in no way suggesting that advocacy organizations substitute the logic and language of business imperative for that of social justice and welfare—quite the opposite. Such a substitution would be self-defeating for advocates whose own public legitimacy is tied to the latter.

Rather, we suggest that media advocacy sits at the intersec- tion of the two. As such, it is uniquely well positioned to interject the logic of social justice and welfare into the nar- rative production process by crafting messages that can speak to the needs of networks and advertisers as well as to the interests of viewers.

References Avery, Rosemary J., Alan Mathios, James Shanahan, and Carole Bisogni (1997), “Food and Nutrition Messages Communicated Through Prime-Time Television,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16 (Fall), 217–27.

Belk, Russell, Guliz Ger, and Sören Askegaard (2003),“The Fire of Desire: A Multisited Inquiry into Consumer Passion,” Jour- nal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 326–51.

Briley, Donnel A., L.J. Shrum, and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2013), “Factors Affecting Judgments of Prevalence and Representa- tion: Implications for Public Policy and Marketing,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 112–18.

Brumbaugh, Anne M. and Sonya A. Grier (2013), “Agents of Change: A Scale to Identify Diversity Seekers,” Journal of Pub- lic Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 144–55.

Butler, Jeremy G. (2007), Television: Critical Methods and Appli- cations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cain, Rita Marie (2011), “Embedded Advertising on Television:

Disclosure, Deception, and Free Speech Rights,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30 (Fall), 226–38.

Chaplin, Lan Nguyen and Deborah Roedder John (2005), “The Development of Self–Brand Connections in Children and Ado- lescents,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 119–29.

Chicano Studies Research Center (2004), “Looking for Latino Regulars on Prime-Time Television: The Fall 2004 Season,” CSRC Research Report, 4, (accessed March 2, 2012), [availa- ble at http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/research/documents/crr_ 04Dec2004.pdf] Cocanougher, A. Benton and Grady D. Bruce (1971), “Socially Distant Reference Groups and Consumer Aspirations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August), 379–81.

Cohen, Jonathan (2001), “Defining Identification: A Theoretical Look at the Identification of Audiences with Media Charac- ters,”Mass Communication & Society, 4 (3), 245–64.

Creed, W.E. Douglas and Maureen A. Scully (2000), “Songs of Ourselves: Employees Deployment of Social Identity in Work- place Encounters,” Journal of Management Inquiry, 9 (4), 391–412. 128 Cultural Diversity in Television Narratives Crockett, David (2008), “Marketing Blackness: How Advertisers Use Race to Sell Products,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 8 (2), 245–68.

Derecho, Abigail T. (2006), “Illegitimate Media: Race, Gender and Censorship in Digital Remix Culture,” doctoral dissertation, Depart- ment of Comparative Literary Studies, Northwestern University.

Downing, John D.H. (1988), “‘The Cosby Show’ and American Racial Discourse,” in Discourse and Discrimination, Geneva Smitherman and Teun Adrianus van Dijk, eds. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 46–73. Appendix. Sample Collages Durkheim, Emile ([1912] 1965), The Elementary Forms of Reli- gious Life, trans. J.W. Swain. New York: The Free Press.

Erikson, Erik H. (1968), Identity Youth and Crisis. New York:

Norton.

Eyal, Keren and Alan M. Rubin (2003), “Viewer Aggression and Homophily, Identification, and Parasocial Relationships with Television Characters,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47 (1), 77–98.

Festinger, Leon (1954), “A Theory of Social Comparison Pro- cesses,” Human Relations, 7 (2), 117–40.

Fraser, Benson P. and William J. Brown (2002), “Media, Celebri- ties, and Social Influence: Identification with Elvis Presley,” Mass Communication and Society, 5 (2), 183–206.

Friedberg, Anne (1994), Window Shopping: Cinema and the Post- modern. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gauntlet, David (2008), Media, Gender and Identity, 2d ed. New York: Routledge.

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.

Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Grayson, Kent (1998), “The Icons of Consumer Research: Using Signs to Represent Consumers’ Reality,” in Representing Con- sumers: Voices, Views, and Visions, Barbara B. Stern, ed. Lon- don: Routledge, 27–43.

Green, Melanie C. and Timothy C. Brock (2000), “The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701–721.

Hall, Stuart (1997), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Heisley, Deborah D. and Sidney J. Levy (1991), “Autodriving: A Photoelicitation Technique,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (2), 257–72.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Craig J. Thompson (1997), “Why Media Matter: Toward a Richer Understanding of Consumers’ Relationships with Advertising and Mass Media,”Journal of Advertising, 26 (1), 38–43.

Hrach, Thomas (2011), “An Incitement to Riot: Television’s Role in the Civil Disorders in the Summer of 1967,” Journalism His- tory, 37 (3), 163–71.

Huckfedlt, Robert and John Sprague (1995), Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hutcheon, Linda (2002), The Politics of Postmodernism: New Accents. London: Routledge.

Jenkins, Henry (1992), Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (Studies in Culture and Communication).

London: Routledge.

Jussim, Lee, and D. Wayne Osgood (1989), “Influence and Similar- ity Among Friends: An Integrated Model Applied to Incarcerated Adolescents,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 52 (2), 98–112.

Kassarjian, Harold (1969), “The Negro and American Advertis- ing, 1946–1965,” Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (February), 29–39.

Kellner, Douglas (1995), Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Iden- tity, and Politics Between the Modern and the Post-modern.

London: Routledge.

Kertz, Consuelo Lauda and Roobina Ohanian (1992), “Source Credibility, Legal Liability, and the Law of Endorsements,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11 (Spring), 12–23. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 129 Kymlicka, William and Wayne Norman (2000), Citizenship in Diverse Societies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Labov, William (1972), Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl- vania Press.

Lazarsfeld, Paul and Robert K. Merton (1954), “Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis,” in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, Morroe Berger, Theodore Abel, and Charles H. Page, eds. New York: Van Nos- trand, 18–66.

Levin, Harvey J. (1980), Fact and Fancy in Television Regulation:

An Economic Study of Policy Alternatives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mayne, Judith (2000), Framed: Lesbians, Feminists and Media Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McCracken, Grant (1989), “Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cul- tural Foundations of the Endorsement Process,” Journal of Con- sumer Research, 16 (3), 310–21.

——— (1998),Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloom- ington: Indiana University Press.

McCroskey, James C., Virginia P. Richmond, and John A. Daly (1975), “The Development of a Measure of Perceived Homophily in Interpersonal Communication,” Human Communication Research, 1 (4), 323–32.

McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James Cook (2001), “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,” Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1), 415–44.

Morley, David and Kevin Robins (1995), Spaces of Identity:

Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries.

New York: Routledge.

Naisbitt, John (1988), Megatrends: Ten New Directions Changing Our Lives. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

Newcomb, Horace (1994), Television: The Critical View. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Ohanian, Roobina (1990), “The Impact of Celebrity Spokesper- sons’ Perceived Image on Consumers’ Intention to Purchase,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (1), 46–54.

O’Malley, Michael (2004), “Regulating Television,” (accessed March 2, 2012), [available at http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/ 20thcentury/regulatingtelevision/index.php].

Parekh, Bhikhu (2000), Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.

Postman, Neil (1985), Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin Books.

Richins, Marsha L. (1991), “Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (1), 71–83.

Russell, Cristel A., Andrew T. Norman, and Susan E. Heckler (2004), “The Consumption of Television Programming: Devel- opment and Validation of the Connectedness Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 150–61.

———, D a l e W . R u s s e l l , a n d J o e l Grube (2013), “Substance Use, Advertising and the Media,” in The Oxford Handbook of Sub- stance Use Disorders, Kenneth Sher, ed. New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Schau, Hope Jensen and Mary C. Gilly (2003), “We Are What We Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Webspace,” Journal of Con- sumer Research, 30 (3), 385–404.

Schor, Juliet B. (1998), The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need. New York: Basic Books.

Schwandt, Thomas A. (1997), Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shrum, L.J., James E. Burroughs, and Aric Rindfleisch (2005), “Television’s Cultivation of Material Values,” Journal of Con- sumer Research, 32 (3), 473–79.

Singleton, Royce A., Bruce C. Straits, and Margaret Miller Straits (1993), Approaches to Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 194–203.

Spradley, James P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Story, Mary and Patricia Faulkner (1990), “The Prime Time Diet:

A Content Analysis of Eating Behavior and Food Messages in 130 Cultural Diversity in Television Narratives Television Program Content and Commercials,” American Journal of Public Health, 80 (6), 738–40.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Thomas, Kevin D. (2013), “Endlessly Creating Myself: Examin- ing Marketplace Inclusion Through the Lived Experience of Black and White Male Millennials,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 95–105.

Wells, William D. (1993), “Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (4), 489–504.

Williams, Raymond ([1974] 2003), Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London: Routledge.

Wimmer, Andreas and Kevin Lewis (2010), “Beyond and Below Racial Homophily: ERG Models of a Friendship Network Doc- umented on Facebook,” American Journal of Sociology, 116 (2), 583–642.

Zaltman, Gerald (1997), “Rethinking Market Research: Putting People Back In,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (Novem- ber), 424–37. Copyright ofJournal ofPublic Policy&Marketing isthe property ofAmerican Marketing Association anditscontent maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toa listserv without thecopyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.