A second dimension of the argument is identified in this study, in that Kolbe and Muehling refer to research by Bandura, Eisenstock and Barkley et al. (1977). These established studies indicated that the gender-appropriateness of the observed behaviour is the most critical dimension in predicting how children respond to the role-portrayals presented to them. The basic findings of these researchers indicates that children imitate the play-behaviour that is appropriate to their gender, regardless of the gender of the model. Best et al. (1977) demonstrated that girls have a greater tendency to engage in cross-gender behaviour than boys do. It is arguable, none the less, that there is an element of social risk involved for both boys and girls who wish to adopt opposite-gender behaviour, particularly as they grow older and allegiance to their own gender becomes socially more important. One of the main questions addressed in this study is whether or not the gender of the person appearing in an advertisement has an affect on the way in which children evaluate the product. Kolbe and Muehling basically question whether children’s evaluations of an advertised product are differentially affected by the non-traditional (counter-stereotyped) role portrayal in an advertisement (such as a girl playing with a ‘boy’s’ toy) versus a more traditional role portrayal. Their study also includes the potential effects of role portrayals on children’s evaluations of the actual advertisement. Huston et al. (1984) studied children in grades 1-6 in order to determine whether they could make judgements about specific production features (action, music and camera techniques), in the context of whether a particular style was more appropriate for one sex over another. In a sense, this exercise was similar to one of my own field work studies, in which I played videos of advertisements to small groups of children in my target primary sch...
