ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION, 13(4), 292–303

Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

The Use of Offensive Language

by Men and Women in Prime Time
Television Entertainment

Barry S. Sapolsky
College of Communication
Florida State University

Barbara K. Kaye
School of Journalism and Electronic Media
University of Tennessee

A content analysis examined prime-time television entertainment programs aired on

7 broadcast networks during the 2001 season. Profanity use within inter-sex and
intra-sex interactions was explored. Swearing occurred most often in man-to-man in-
teractions, followed by women-to-men. Men and women tended to use mild curse
words more when talking to the opposite sex. Unmarried women more often directed
expletives at both men and women; unmarried men cursed more at other men.
Offensive language was most often met by a neutral response; men and women
were equally likely to respond positively and negatively to cursing. Men in feature
roles, as compared to minor roles, used more profanity when speaking to men and
women.

The portrayal of women on television, in particular prime-time television, has been

a concern of researchers for decades. Content analyses of prime-time television
have examined gender differences in various contexts, including aggression, sex,
occupations, and humor. During much of this time span, women have been nega-
tively portrayed or have been under-represented. Concerns over sex-role stereo-
typing derive in part from the modern feminist movement. However, in recent
years it is claimed that women are reaching parity with men in terms of their num-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Barry S. Sapolsky, College of Com-
munication, 334 Diffenbaugh Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306–1531.
E-mail:bsapolsk@mailer.fsu.edu
 OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN PRIME TIME TELEVISION 293

bers and roles on television (Douglas, 1995; Farhi, 1995; Glascock, 2001). Broad-
casters must appeal to female viewers to offset the loss of male viewers to cable
sports channels and other male-oriented cable programming (e.g., American Chop-
per) as well as to the Internet. As a consequence, gender roles may be changing.
One issue that has received little attention in studies of gender differences in
prime-time television is the use of offensive language.
Although television has become more risqué, researchers have largely over-
looked the content and context of offensive language heard over the airwaves. This
study examines the use of offensive language by men and women and theoretical
perspectives that may explain observed sex differences. Thereafter, we examine the
limited mass-media research on expletive use by men and women.
Profanity and other forms of offensive language1 have become increasingly
prevalent in oral communication (Foote & Woodward, 1973; Mercury, 1995).
Much of the blame for the growth in cursing has been directed at the mass media.
Music, films, and television have pushed the boundaries of expletive use; words
once considered taboo are now commonplace (Aucoin, 1999; Sampson, 1999).
Parents, activist groups, legislators, and other concerned parties continue to
blast the television industry for turning a blind eye toward the amount of foul lan-
guage on the screen. Unlike films and music purchases wherein the audience
chooses to be exposed to the material, viewers have little opportunity to avoid ob-
jectionable language on television even during seemingly innocuous programs. De-
spite age and content-based ratings that were implemented in 1997, viewers com-
plain that the ratings do not adequately warn of the presence of dirty language and,
thus, they do not have enough control over exposure to such words.
Particular concern is focused not only on exposure to indecent language but on
the negative effects of such language, especially on children and young adults. Par-
ents, in particular, are concerned that their children will repeat socially unaccept-
able words and phrases. Social learning theory postulates that children learn social
skills and gender roles by observing the behaviors of others (Bandura, 1977). Be-
haviors are not limited to physical behavior but extend to language usage, which
has been shown to maintain gender-role stereotypes and to define role-appropriate
behavior (Coyne, Sherman, & O’Brien, 1978; De Klerk, 1991).

OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE AND GENDER

Frequency and Context

It is difficult to observe the use of expletives in a natural context (De Klerk,
1991). Studies have largely been limited to word ratings, self-reported use, and

1The terms expletives, crudity, cursing, vulgarities, offensive, dirty, foul or coarse language, swearing, and

cussing are used interchangeably to avoid repetition.

294 SAPOLSKY AND KAYE

production measures in which participants are asked to generate lists of offend-

ing words. A substantial body of work has found that men use offensive language
more than women (Bailey & Timm, 1976; Bate & Bowker, 1997; De Klerk,
1991; Foote & Woodward, 1973; Jay, 1992; Lakoff, 1973; Rieber, Wiedemann, &
D’Amato, 1979; Selnow, 1985; Staley, 1978). However, the “profanity gap” is
narrowing: Women are using coarse language more (Bate & Bowker, 1997; De
Klerk, 1991; Hughes, 1998; Risch, 1987). Research suggests that women use spe-
cific types of offensive language less than their male counterparts, including ex-
cretory and sexual words (Staley, 1978) and anatomical and obscene terms (Bate
& Bowker, 1997). Women not only utter profanity less, they also hold more neg-
ative attitudes toward the use of such language (Jay, 1992; Rieber et al., 1979;
Selnow, 1985). Moreover, the perception remains that swearing is acceptable for
men but inappropriate behavior for women (Burgoon, Dillard, & Doran, 1983;
Burgoon & Stewart, 1975; De Klerk, 1991; Mulac, Incontro, & James, 1985;
Mulac and Lundell, 1980).
Both men and women utter more curse words in the company of members of the
same sex than around those of the opposite sex (Jay, 1992). Single women and
older women tend to use more expletives than married or younger women (Bailey
& Timm, 1976; Oliver & Rubin, 1975; Staley, 1978).
Men’s more frequent use of expletives can be traced to traditional patterns of so-
cial power and self-expression. Men have had greater freedom to break taboos and
use more vigorous or high-intensity language to express their feelings, in part due
to the superior position afforded to them by Western society (De Klerk, 1991;
Lakoff, 1973; Staley, 1978). In contrast, women have been socialized to suppress
the use of offensive language (De Klerk, 1991).

Socialization and Gender Roles

Clearly, the gender of the speaker can influence the use of profanity in conversa-
tion (Mercury, 1995). The socialization process is one explanation for observed sex
differences in swearing. In the past, women were socialized into subordinate roles
and a less inflammatory manner of communicating (Rieber et al., 1979; Wood,
1994). Children heard more profanity in the home from their fathers (Selnow,
1985). The differences in male and female sex roles and expected behaviors suggest
that women would show more restraint in the use of expletives (Foote & Wood-
ward, 1973).
Men and women use gender-appropriate curse words especially when using
them to insult others. Words that imply that men are sexually inadequate, socially
inept, or otherwise undesirable include motherfucker, bastard, prick, pussy, and
son-of-a-bitch, whereas women are insulted by words such as bitch and cockteaser.
Additionally, words that refer to sexual promiscuity are directed almost exclusively
toward women, whereas words associated with homosexuality are directed almost
 OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN PRIME TIME TELEVISION 295

exclusively toward men, and only by other men (Preston & Staley, 1987). These
differences in dirty-word usage suggest “men and women insult each other with a
different set of semantics and cognitions about the world” (Jay, 1992, p. 181).
From a cultural perspective, it is recognized that women and men comprise dif-
ferent subcultures. Each subculture maintains its own sets of expectations regard-
ing speech. Specifically, women’ interpersonal communication is expected to be
more subdued and more self-censored in terms of profanity use (Bate & Bowker,
1997). In sum, women and men develop different strategies for communication in
general and expressions of offensive language in particular (Foote & Woodward,
1973; Wood, 1994). Are these differences reflected in media portrayals?

Television and Gender Roles

Renewed debate about profane language on television was sparked after U2’s Bono
exclaimed, “This is really, really, fucking brilliant” on the live Grammy awards
show in 2003. The issue was brought to the forefront again in late 2004 when the
movie Saving Private Ryan was preempted by many ABC affiliates because of fre-
quency of expletives. These instances, along with strict enforcement of decency
standards by the Federal Communication Commission, has helped push verbal in-
decency to the forefront of public concern.
Television is one of many socialization agents. Although television violence
studies are mixed on the effects of viewing violence, it is well documented that
television is very influential and shapes our views of the world and our behaviors,
including gender roles. Social learning theory explains that behaviors we view most
often and those that are easy to imitate tend to be the most influential (Bandura,
1977). Moreover, cussing, which is considered a form of verbal violence, is easier to
imitate than physical violence (Potter, 2003).
Although the nature of sexual and violent media content has been well docu-
mented (Greenberg, 1994; National Television Violence Study 2, 1997), only lim-
ited research has examined the amount and use of language that many viewers find
objectionable. A study of U.S. films released between 1939 and 1989 found a signif-
icant increase in the use of offensive language over time, and men uttered curse
words four times as often as women (Jay, 1992). Further research on theatrical
films found that, in 9 out of 10 instances, men were the originators of profanities
(Greenberg, 1994). Content analyses of prime-time television conducted by con-
servative watchdog groups (Johnson, 1996, 1997a, 1997b; Lichter, Lichter, &
Amundson, 1999; Parents Television Council, 2001) and by academics (Kaye &
Fishburne, 1997; Kaye & Sapolsky, 2001, 2004) have documented the increased
usage of coarse language and identified the most commonly occurring profanities.
However, these studies do not report on sex differences in the use of offensive lan-
guage. This study is an initial exploration of expletive use by male and female char-
acters in prime-time television programming.
296 SAPOLSKY AND KAYE

The research questions (RQ) for this study are:

RQ1: What types of offensive language occur most often within same-sex and
inter-sex speech?
RQ2: Does expletive use by male and female characters differ according to
their marital status?
RQ3: Are offensive words spoken more often by male and female characters in
a humorous or nonhumorous context?
RQ4: Does profanity spoken by male and female characters lead to different
reactions (positive, neutral, or negative)?
RQ5: Does the level of cursing by men and women differ according to central-
ity (primary or secondary character)?

METHOD

Sample
Programs broadcast during prime time (8 to 11 p.m. EST) on the ABC, CBS, FOX,
NBC, PAX, UPN, and WB networks in November and December, 2001, were vid-
eotaped for content analysis. A block of 3 hr of prime-time programming on a net-
work was randomly assigned to a day of the week between November 11 and De-
cember 15, 2001 (no videotaping was done between November 22–25). This
process was continued until blocks for all seven days of the week for each of the
seven networks were assigned. Thus, a total of 21 hr of programming for each net-
work were recorded on randomly selected evenings over a 5-week period.
Non-network programs airing on UPN and WB, a total of 13.5 hr, were excluded
from analysis. Due to videotape recorder malfunctions, several shows were re-
placed with later episodes. The final sample consisted of 152 programs totaling
133.5 hr.

Coding Categories
Offensive words were classified into one of five groups: the seven dirty words, sex-
ual words, excretory words, mild other words, and strong other words. The seven
dirty words (shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits) were put in
their own category because the Federal Communications Commission has singled
out these words as being too indecent to utter on broadcast television. Thus, com-
parisons are made between words that are legally barred from the airwaves and
other profanities that are considered offensive by the general public.
Sexual words are those that describe sexual body parts (e.g., testicles, boobs,
pecker), or sexual behavior (e.g., jack off). Excretory words are direct and literal ref-
erences to human waste products and processes (e.g., poop, asshole).
 OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN PRIME TIME TELEVISION 297

All remaining words are coded as either mild or strong. The book Cursing in
America (Jay, 1992) was consulted to determine the level of tabooness of certain
words for classification. Examples of mild other words include hell, damn, and slut.
Christ, Jesus, and God are also included as mild words but only if uttered in vain.
Such words were not classified as crudities if said in reverence; angrily muttering
“for Christ’s sake” would be considered mildly offensive. Strong other words in-
clude bastard, bitch, bullshit, and others that evoke strong emotions and offense.
For each instance of coarse language, the sex and marital status of the speaker and
receiver was coded. In some instances, the receivers of crude words could not be
identified or were made up of men and women (e.g., a character curses in the pres-
ence of his male and female coworkers). Offensive language spoken to mixed-sex or
unknown receivers was excluded from the analyses of speakers/receivers.
A profanity was deemed humorous if it seemed, on the face of it, to have been
intended to be funny. All other incidents were coded as nonhumorous. The cen-
trality of speakers of offensive language was classified as main character, supporting
character, or unknown character. Finally, the valence of reactions to crude utter-
ances were recorded as positive, negative, neutral (or no response), and mixed re-
action. The latter would occur if a comment was heard by two or more characters
who react differently to the crudity.
Graduate and undergraduate students worked independently classifying and re-
cording all incidents of profane language. To catch the offensive words and phrases,
coders were trained to listen carefully to the programs and to “talk” along with the
characters by repeating the dialogue. Intercoder agreement (Scott, 1955) was: for
the objectionable words, 0.88; for gender of speaker, .99; for gender of receiver, .93;
for humor, .84; for reaction, .82; for primary characters, .85; for secondary charac-
ters, .83.

RESULTS

The sample of 152 prime-time programs aired on seven broadcast networks con-
tained 621 instances of offensive language within men and women interactions.
The most frequently encountered words were mild other (398, 64.1%). Nearly all
instances of this category of utterance involved hell, damn, or goddamn, and vari-
ants of God (Christ, Jesus, and Lord). The next most common types of coarse lan-
guage were excretory (83, 13.4%) and sexual (73, 11.8%). Butt and ass accounted
for nearly 9 in 10 excretory words. Almost half of the sexual words were screw and
suck. Although supposedly banned from use on broadcast television, the seven
dirty words were in evidence, albeit rarely (n = 20, 3.2%). Fuck and shit were spo-
ken or implied (“bleeped out”) on nine and six occasions, respectively. Lastly, inci-
dents of strong other words were almost exclusively limited to bitch, son-of-a-bitch,
and bastard.
298 SAPOLSKY AND KAYE

Table 1 reveals that swearing occurred most often in men-to-men interactions

(41.1%), followed by women-to-men interactions (27.5%). Thus, men are the
prime target of prime-time cussing. Vulgarities were voiced least often in situa-
tions involving interwomen communication (11.9%). The first research question
examines how men and women differ in their choices of coarse words. There
were only small variations in the patterns of foul-language usage. By and large
women and men uttered mild other words most often and intense words (the
seven dirty or strong other) least often in dialogue with same-sex and oppo-
site-sex characters.
The seven dirty words, as a proportion of all curse words used, were more preva-
lent in man-to-man exchanges (5.1%). Excretory and sexual words made up a
smaller portion (9.9% and 8.8%, respectively) of offensive language in
women-to-men interactions when compared to all other forms of interaction. Rel-
atively tame, mild other words comprised a larger share (71.3%) of the profanities
used in women-to-men interactions. In contrast, mild other words represented
58.8% of the coarse language present in men-to-men interactions. In general, as
seen in Table 1, men and women tended to use mild curse words more when talking
to the opposite sex.
The second research question considers the use of expletives in the context of
marital status. Table 2 shows that, overall, two out of three instances of crude lan-
guage were spoken by unmarried characters. Unmarried women were significantly
more likely to direct expletives at both men and women. Likewise, unmarried men
were significantly more likely to utter a profanity at another man. Although un-
married men hurled expletives at female characters more than did married men,
the difference did not reach significance.

TABLE 1
Use of Various Categories of Offensive Language in Same-Sex and
Inter-Sex Interactions

Interaction

Female-to- Female-to- Male-to-

Female Male Male-to-Male Female Total

Category of
Word n % n % n % n % n %

Seven Dirty 0a 0.0 6a 3.5 13a 5.1 1a 0.8 20a 3.2

Sexual 11b 14.9 15b 8.8 33bc 12.9 14c 11.6 73c 11.8
Excretory 10b 13.5 17b 9.9 39c 15.3 17c 14.0 83c 13.4
Mild Other 47c 63.5 122c 71.3 150d 58.8 79d 65.3 398d 64.1
Strong Other 6b 8.1 11ab 6.4 20ab 7.8 10bc 8.3 47b 7.6
Total 74 100 171 100 255 100 121 100 — —

Note. Frequencies with different superscripts (vertical comparisons) differ by p < .05 by the
chi-square test.
 OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN PRIME TIME TELEVISION 299

TABLE 2
Context of Offensive Language Use in Same-Sex and Inter-Sex Interactions

Interaction

Female-to- Female-to- Male-to-

Female Male Male-to-Male Female Total

Marital Status of Speaker n % n % n % n % n %

Married 7a 15.9 38a 27.5 45a 32.8 39a 41.9 129a 31.3
Unmarried 37b 84.1 100b 72.5 92b 67.2 54a 58.1 283b 68.7
Context
Humorous 30a 40.5 74a 43.3 112a 43.9 59a 48.8 275a 44.3
Nonhumorous 44a 59.5 97a 56.7 143a 56.1 62a 51.2 346b 55.7

Note. For marital status, incidents in which the martial status of the speaker is unknown are ex-
cluded from this analysis. Frequencies with different superscripts (vertical comparisons) differ by p <
.05 by the chi-square test.

RQ3 examines the amount of profanity within exchanges made in either a hu-
morous or nonhumorous context. Overall, as seen in Table 2, there were signifi-
cantly more instances of offensive language in nonhumorous situations. However,
although there is a tendency for swearing to occur more in a nonhumorous context
within each type of interaction, the differences did not reach significance.
The fourth research question considers the receivers’ reactions to crudities. For
all interactions taken as a whole, there were a nearly equal number of positive and
negative responses to offensive language, and both reactions occurred significantly
less than neutral responses. Woman-to-woman use of coarse language did not yield
any differences in reaction (refer to Table 3). For all other forms of interaction,

TABLE 3
Reaction to Vulgar Language and Speaker’s Role in Same-Sex and
Inter-Sex Interactions

Interaction

Female-to- Female-to- Male-to- Male-to-

Female Male Male Female Total

Reaction n % n % n % n % n %

Positive 20a 27.8 49a 28.8 58a 23.4 31a 26.1 158a 25.9
Negative 25a 34.7 37a 21.8 52a 21.0 32a 26.9 146a 24.0
Neutral/None 27a 37.5 84b 49.4 138b 55.6 56b 47.1 305b 50.1
Centrality of speaker
Main character 35a 47.3 95a 56.5 142b 57.7 76b 62.8 348b 57.1
Minor character 39a 52.7 73a 43.5 104a 42.3 45a 37.2 261a 42.9

Note. Frequencies with different superscripts (vertical comparisons) differ by p < .05 by the
chi-square test.
300 SAPOLSKY AND KAYE

cussing was significantly more often met with a neutral response, but there was no
difference in the occurrence of positive and negative reactions.
The final research question looks at the use of vulgarities according to the cen-
trality of the speaker. As can be seen in the lower portion of Table 3, men who were
portrayed as main characters used significantly more profanity when speaking to ei-
ther men or women than when they were portrayed as minor characters. By com-
parison, there was no significant difference in the use of profanity by women fea-
tured in main or supporting roles.

DISCUSSION

A content analysis of 152 prime-time programs aired on seven broadcast networks

yielded 621 instances of dirty words spoken in inter- and intra-sex interactions,
with nearly two out of three being tamer, mild words such as hell and damn. More
explicit words, including fuck, shit, bitch, son-of-a-bitch, and bastard made up about
1 in 10 instances of coarse language.
The focus of this study is the use of profanities by male and female characters.
Men were featured more often as the speakers and targets of offensive language.
The finding that men more frequently initiate curse words is consistent with re-
search on theatrical films that found that men were the predominant originators of
swear words (Greenberg, 1994; Jay, 1992). Male characters who serve as models for
linguistic behavior are clearly not reluctant to use crude remarks in conversations
with other men or with women. Women uttered profanities less often than men.
However, women were not above cursing. Fully 4 in 10 expletives were initiated by
women.
Televised content is expected to reflect social culture (McQuail, 1992). As
more women spout verbal vulgarities in their everyday lives and as this use becomes
more socially acceptable, it follows that dialogue for female television characters
will be scripted to reflect nonmediated discourse. Language used on television has
always been milder than that used in everyday conversation, but over the last few
decades it has become coarser as it more closely reflects real-life conversation. As
one television industry spokesman asked, “These are words everyone uses. Why are
they taboo on TV?” (Farhi, 2002).
Sexual and excretory words were less likely to be spoken in women-to-men
interactions than in any other type of interaction. This finding is consistent with
Staley (1978) who observed that women use these types of words less often than
men. In addition, a higher concentration of milder forms of profanity was ob-
served in inter-sex dialogue. Men and women tend to express stronger words to
same-sex characters. This is consistent with Jay’s (1992) observation that coarse
language is heard more in same-sex conversations. Accordingly, there was a
greater share of the seven dirty words spoken in inter-men interactions than in
all other forms of dialogue.
 OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN PRIME TIME TELEVISION 301

This study also examined the context in which offensive language is used. First,
vulgarities were used by unmarried characters significantly more often than by
married characters. Approximately three quarters of the cuss words spoken by
women were voiced by unmarried characters. This finding is in line with previous
research on women’ use of offensive language (Bailey & Timm, 1976; Oliver & Ru-
bin, 1975; Staley, 1978). Second, coarse language was observed only slightly more
often in nonhumorous situations, regardless of the sex of the initiator and receiver.
Mainstays of prime-time situation comedies are double entendres, sexual jokes and
put-downs, which often rely on blue language to achieve their comic effect. This
research shows that male and female characters now use crude words more often in
nonhumorous situations.
Characters’ responses to cursing is largely one of no response. About half the
time when a character uttered a vulgarity, the recipient of the offensive language
showed no outward reaction with the exception of woman-to-woman interactions.
Women are just as likely to have a positive, negative, or neutral reaction to exple-
tives. In all other forms of interaction, when there is a response, it is equally likely
to be either positive or negative. Men featured as main characters are more likely to
use foul language. This finding is in keeping with Potter and Ware (1987) who also
discovered that central characters were more verbally aggressive. Women portray-
ing main or minor characters similarly spew profanities. The viewing public may
pay notice and more fervently object to strong curse words if they are spoken by
leading male and female characters rather than by secondary characters who are of
less importance to the program or the plot at hand.
Many argue that television still contains too many offensive words and phrases.
Broadcast television in particular injects offensive language into dialogue to create
realism, to compete with less regulated cable, and to compete with cutting-edge
programming from sources such as HBO and Comedy Central (Aucoin, 1999).
The broadcast networks are also competing for advertisers who target a younger
audience that has grown up hearing profanity in the schoolyards and, in many
cases, in their own homes and expects trash talk on television (Rutenberg, 2001).
The competition between the broadcast and cable networks for advertisers and
viewers may be leading to industry tolerance of televised profanity. The frequency
of televised expletives, especially among subgroups such as women, may be an indi-
cation that television is loosening its standards regarding such language.
This research has several limitations. First, the research excludes cable-origi-
nated programs and premium channels (e.g., HBO) in which standards for the use of
expletives are more relaxed. It would be expected that the inclusion of cable pro-
gramming such as The Sopranos would significantly increase the occurrence of offen-
sive language, including the so-called seven dirty words. Also unclear is the degree to
which television viewers find many of the words in this study objectionable. Further
research is needed on what offensive words television viewers find most troubling. It
should include basic and pay cable networks to determine if producers are increas-
ingly spicing up dialogue with words considered offensive by most viewers.
302 SAPOLSKY AND KAYE

REFERENCES

Aucoin, D. (1999, September 25). Can they say that on TV?: Television is pulling its pants down and
swearing as loud as it can to get people’s attention. The Gazette, D13.
Bailey, L., & Timm, L. A. (1976). More on women’s and men’s expletives. Anthropological Linguistics, 18,
438–449.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bate, B., & Bowker, J. (1997). Communication and the sexes. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Burgoon, M., Dillard, J., & Doran, N. (1983). Friendly or unfriendly persuasion. Human Communication
Research, 10, 283–294.
Burgoon, M., & Stewart, D. (1975). Empirical investigations of language intensity: I. The effect of sex of
source, receiver and language intensity on attitude change. Human Communication Research, 1,
244–248.
Coyne, J. C., Sherman, R. C., & O’Brien, K. (1978). Expletives and woman’s place. Sex Roles, 4,
827–835.
De Klerk, V. (1991). Expletives: Men only? Communication Monographs, 58, 156–169.
Douglas, S. (1995). Sitcom women: We’ve come a long way. Maybe. Ms, 5, 76–80.
Fahri, P. (1995, November 11). A prime time for women on television. The Washington Post, pp. A1,
A16.
Farhi, P. (2002, April 21). Oh the profanity! The Washington Post, p. G1.
Foote, R., & Woodward, J. (1973). A preliminary investigation of obscene language. Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 83, 263–275.
Glascock, J. (2001). Gender roles in prime-time network television: Demographics and behaviors. Jour-
nal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 45, 656–669.
Greenberg, B.S. (1994). Content trends in media sex. In D. Zillmann, J. Bryant,& A. C. Huston (Eds.),
Media, children and the family (pp. 165–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hughes, G. (1998). Swearing: A social history of foul language, oaths and profanity in English. London: Pen-
guin.
Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Johnson, T. (1996, February 8). A vanishing haven: The decline of the family hour. Parents Television
Council. Retrieved October 17, 2002, from http://secure.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/ent/
famhtm.html
Johnson, T. (1997a, February 11). A ratings report card. Parents Television Council. Retrieved June 10,
1999, from http://secure.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/ent/famhtm.html
Johnson, T. (1997b, May 8). The “family hour”: No place for your kids. Parents Television Council. Re-
trieved October 17, 2002, from http://secure.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/ent/ famhtm.html
Kaye, B. K., & Fishburne, L. M. (1997). NYPD Blue and media hype: An analysis of sex and indecent
language. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 5, 84–103.
Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky, B. S. (2001). Offensive language in prime time television: Before and after con-
tent ratings. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 45, 303–319.
Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky, B. S. (2004). Four letter words: Four years after television age and content rat-
ings. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48, 554–569.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language and Society, 2, 45–80.
Lichter, S. R., Lichter, L. S., & Amundson, D. (1999). The Rude and the crude: Profanity in popular en-
tertainment. Center for Media and Public Affairs. Retrieved July 9, 2000, from http://www.cmpa.com/
archive/rudeandcrude.htm
McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance. London: Sage.
Mulac, A., Incontro, C., & James, M. (1985). Comparison of the gender-linked language effect and
sex-role stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1098–1109.
Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. (1980). Differences in perceptions created by syntactic–semantic productions
of male and female speakers. Communication Monographs, 47, 111–118.
 OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN PRIME TIME TELEVISION 303

Mercury, R. (1995). Swearing: A “bad” part of language; a good part of language learning. TESL Canada
Journal, 13, 28–36.
National Television Violence Study 2. (1997). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oliver, M. M., & Rubin, J. (1975). The use of expletives by some American women. Anthropological Lin-
guistics, 17, 191–197.
Parents Television Council. (2001, August 1). The sour family hour: 8 to 9 goes from bad to worse. Re-
trieved August 2, 2001, from http://www.parentstv.org/publications/reports/SR20010801.html
Potter, W. J. (2003). The 11 myths of media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Potter, W. J., & Ware, W. (1987). An analysis of the contexts of antisocial acts on prime time television.
Communication Research, 14, 664–686.
Preston, K., & Staley, K. (1987). What’s the worst thing …? Gender directed insults. Sex Roles, 17,
209–219.
Rieber, R. W., Wiedemann, C., & D’Amato, J. (1979). Obscenity: Its frequency and context of usage as
compared in males, nonfeminist females, and feminist females. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 83,
201–223.
Risch, B. (1987). Women’s derogatory terms for men: That’s right, “dirty” words. Language in Society, 16,
353–358.
Rutenberg, J. (2001, September 2). Hurt by cable, networks spout expletives. The New York Times.
[On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com
Sampson, O. (1999, December 13). Swearing off; America’s propensity for profanity can be beaten, says
author. San Diego Union-Tribune, p. E-1.
Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321–325.
Selnow, G. W. (1985). Sex differences in uses and perceptions of profanity. Sex Roles, 12, 303–312.
Staley, C. M. (1978). Male–female use of expletives: A heck of a difference in expectations. Anthropo-
logical Linguistics, 20, 367–380.
Wood, J. T. (1994) Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.