Klein, Hugh and Shiffman, Kenneth S. (2006). “Race-Related Content of Animated Cartoons”. The Howard Journal of Communications, 17, 163-182. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from EBSCOhost database. 

            Hugh Klein received his PhD in sociology from Washington University. Kenneth Shiffman received an MA in journalism from the University of Missouri.

            “Race-Related Content of Animated Cartoons” is a study that analyzes racial messages found in cartoons. The study’s research seeks to answer the following questions:  “(a) How prevalent are race-related content and overt acts of racism in animated cartoons? (b) Has this prevalence changed over time? (c) What ‘types’ of characteristics tend to be associated with being Caucasian, African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian?” (163)   

            The introduction to Klein and Shiffman’s article reviews findings on the presence and portrayal of various ethnic groups in the mass media. Generally speaking, ethnic groups are underrepresented and stereotyped in the mass media; and when shown, they often occupy “minor roles rather than major roles [in television programs], particularly when compared to their Caucasian counterparts” (164). Klein and Shiffman cite a study which found that newspaper coverage of the Olympics repeatedly portrayed African American athletes as “primitives.” The authors also note a television programming review of the 1999-2001 seasons; the review’s analysis found that the Latino population in the United States is six times greater than its representation on television. (And when visible, Latinos have a tendency to be affiliated with the criminal justice system.)

             Klein and Shiffman describe social learning theory. Social learning theory states that individuals acquire beliefs and attitudes on how to act based on observations they experience both first hand and indirectly (166). Through passive viewing, mass media “instruct” audiences on racial issues—informing viewers on the expectations of various ethnic groups (i.e. “How do Latinos act?” “How do Asians act?”). Utilizing the framework of social learning theory (and bearing in mind the aforementioned studies on media’s treatment of ethnic groups) it’s quite clear that—in terms of viewers’ conceptions of how different minority groups act—television is quite pernicious.

            Klein and Shiffman next describe cultivation theory. Cultivation theory states that television viewers will develop beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about the real world based on what they see in television and film and read about in newspapers (166). Utilizing cultivation theory, the authors make the observation that media messages support white hegemony. This is done through media’s stereotyping of ethnic groups—which, over time, leads viewers to believe that being Caucasian is socially preferable to being African American or Latino (or a member of any other ethnic group). (Naturally, heavy viewers of television will be more susceptible to the racial stereotyping presented in the media.)   

            The aforementioned theories—social learning theory and cultivation theory—are obviously quite useful to media scholars. What makes them particularly important in Klein and Shiffman’s study is that they help describe how children’s consumption of cartoons shapes their (just developing) views on race.

            In their study, Klein and Shiffman use a large sample (1,221 cartoons—containing 4,201 major characters). Their study’s focus on the portrayal of several ethnic groups is a contribution seldom seen in mass media criticism (most studies focus on one or two ethnic groups). Additionally, Klein and Shiffman’s work (through scientific random sampling) spans several decades—offering readers an opportunity to see how race-related messages in cartoons have changed over time (167). 

            Klein and Shiffman’s study found that 1 cartoon in 6 (16.1%)—from the years spanning the early-1930s to the mid-1990s—contained at least one character that is a member of a racial minority group (172). This is an incredibly small ratio—especially when compared to the presence of Caucasian characters from the same years (69.9%). (It’s important to note that in Klein and Shiffman’s study, some characters could not be identified with an ethnic group. For example: inanimate objects [such as a talking car or tree] couldn’t be a representative of an ethnic group unless they demonstrated overt stereotypes of a particular group.) Not surprisingly, the percentage of non-White characters in cartoons was incredibly low throughout the 1930s to the late 1960s—appearing in only 4.4% of the cartoons sampled. Due in large part to the Civil Rights Movement, the presence of minority group characters in cartoons went up steadily in the decades following the 1960s—peaking at 31.7% in the late 1980s. However, this percentage is somewhat misleading: the rise in minority group visibility in cartoons is largely attributable to their presence as minor (not major) characters (172). 

            In terms of presence, Asian and Latino characters represented a small percentage of total characters sampled (1.7% and 2.4% respectively); these numbers did not vary much over the reviewed decades. The appearance of Native Americans actually dropped as the decades progressed. However, African American characters appeared with greater frequency—from their all-time low presence in the early 1960s (0.1%)—to comprising nearly 3% of all characters shown throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s.

            Overall, approximately 1 cartoon in 15 (6.6%) contained at least one act of overt racism (173). The percentage of overt acts of racism has dropped dramatically since the 1940s. (According to Klein and Shiffman’s chart, cartoons with racist acts peaked in the 1940s; approximately 17% of the cartoons sampled during this period contained at least one such act. By the 1990s, racist acts were found in less than 4% of the cartoons sampled.)

            Klein and Shiffman found that African American characters were twice as likely to be female as were non-African American characters (173). Latinos were more likely to offer advice or wisdom to other characters. Caucasian characters were more likely to have a job; Latinos were less likely than other ethnic groups to have employment. However, Caucasians had a lower probability of excelling at their jobs, whereas African Americans were more likely than other ethnic groups to succeed at their work. African American characters were twice as likely to help out others; they also committed half as many antisocial acts as other races. However, African Americans were “three times more likely than other racial groups to sing, more than twice as likely as others to dance” (175). (As the authors admit, this tendency is a throwback to the “age-old stereotypes of Black minstrels…[entertaining] dominant White Culture [176].)     

            In terms of feelings, all ethnic groups were portrayed relatively similar (i.e. demonstrations of happiness, sadness, fatigue, shyness, etc.).

            Unlike most studies, Klein and Shiffman’s work does not find strong stereotyping in cartoons. This can be attributable to two things: 1.) That cartoons have not been heavily analyzed like news reporting and other types of programming (which have demonstrated racist tendencies); and 2.) That the decline in racism in cartoons can largely be attributable to the Civil Rights Movement—which Klein and Shiffman’s statistics support.

            However, there is (with the exception of Asians) a long history of underrepresentation of ethnic groups in cartoons. Racial minority groups are underrepresented by a ratio of 5:1 in cartoons.