Recasting Gender Roles: A Study of Indian Television Commercials (2011–2020)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents a quantitative content analysis of gender roles in TV advertising in India. Though there is some interesting material, I have my doubts about the manuscript being ready for publication. I will briefly outline my thoughts below: 

1. Introduction: In the introduction the author sketches the problem mostly by (unreferenced) statements. The impact of TVCs might be overestimated and should be clearly referenced (p. 1, l. 21-23). Next, there is a change mentioned in the Indian advertising industry (p. 1, l. 37), without explain what the change is and what is was caused by. Then the aim is formulated: How the Indian TVC industry has depicted differences in gender representations over de years. This last sentence assumes 1 TVC industry (which is not the case) and that differences are necessarily depicted (which is not necessarily the case). 

The relevance of the study is laid out in an attempt to de-westernize the academic body of work on gender representation. Though such an attempt is laudable and urgent, the study as present does not contribute to such a perspective. First of all, there are quite a few easy hits when one googles the topic gender representation in India, later in the manuscript, the authors mention a recent report of 2021 on this topic. Hence, there is a much larger body of work than suggested. Second, the entire theoretical framework is based on western studies without problematizing/questions/exploring what is western about them and why the concept might work differently in an Indian context. For example, in the section Historical background, the women’s movement of the US is taken as a context for the study in representation. Yet, the women’s movement in the US was not similar to that in other countries, and I suspect India made for a completely different case. In order for the article to work, this point should be explored deeply in the manuscript.

2. In the theoretical framework, social learning theory and so on are discussed. Though this might explain something on why it is interesting to look into gender representations, these notions do not serve as theoretical basis for a research design. Here I think a more precise notion of gender representations (there is for example a mixture of terms ‘gender roles’, ‘gender stereotypes’) and the Indian context might be useful. For example, on page 4, lines 154-156, there is a mention of ‘women working more than ever before’. It would be interesting to know something more precise about such a development. How many women are in the workforce? How did this develop over, let’s say, the last three or four decennia? In that way, the argumentation becomes more meaningful (and therefore stronger).
3. The research design is in the right direction but could be stronger. A lot of decisions are not explained: why 120 TVCs? Why YouTube channels? Why not have the sample evenly spread of the decennium under investigation? Why was information on the channel and so on (subsection ‘Video Characteristics’) deemed important?
4. The results section seems sound, yet some information on how long commercials generally last (how much ‘screen time’ was analysed) and whether there were differences over time would be useful as a context.
5. The discussion shows the main fallacy of the manuscript in its current state. As indicated under the first point of my review, the results indeed reiterate the theoretical framework. It is unclear why another outcome was expected (and what this outcome might have been).

Additionally, this section contains a lot of theory that would find a better place in the theoretical framework.

6. The concluding section (p. 11, lines 480-513) needs more thorough grounding. Since no comparative analysis was performed, I am not convinced that India, as an Asian country, presents gender stereotypes more than Western counterparts. The results mostly seem to reinforce what we already knew. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are grammatically incorrect and therefore a little difficult to read. A good proof read would help this. 

Author Response

Thank you for offering me the opportunity to revise and resubmit my research draft, Recasting Gender Roles: A Study of Indian Television Commercials (2011-2020). I have considered the thoughtful feedback and revised the manuscript to clarify and elaborate my ideas. We hope you will be pleased with what I believe is a much-improved manuscript. In my response, I respond to your comments and indicate, when applicable, how I have revised the manuscript. I include reviewers’ complete comments, and my responses to them are presented in Italic font below, to help differentiate them from your comments.

Additionally, I have retained the yellow and green highlights in this section to reflect responses to other reviewers’ comments, while the turquoise highlights changes made in direct response to your feedback.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

Comment 1: 

1. Introduction: In the introduction the author sketches the problem mostly by (unreferenced) statements. The impact of TVCs might be overestimated and should be clearly referenced (p. 1, l. 21-23). Next, there is a change mentioned in the Indian advertising industry (p. 1, l. 37), without explain what the change is and what is was caused by. Then the aim is formulated: How the Indian TVC industry has depicted differences in gender representations over de years. This last sentence assumes 1 TVC industry (which is not the case) and that differences are necessarily depicted (which is not necessarily the case). 

The relevance of the study is laid out in an attempt to de-westernize the academic body of work on gender representation. Though such an attempt is laudable and urgent, the study as present does not contribute to such a perspective. First of all, there are quite a few easy hits when one googles the topic gender representation in India, later in the manuscript, the authors mention a recent report of 2021 on this topic. Hence, there is a much larger body of work than suggested. Second, the entire theoretical framework is based on western studies without problematizing/questions/exploring what is western about them and why the concept might work differently in an Indian context. For example, in the section Historical background, the women’s movement of the US is taken as a context for the study in representation. Yet, the women’s movement in the US was not similar to that in other countries, and I suspect India made for a completely different case. In order for the article to work, this point should be explored deeply in the manuscript.

Response 1: Thank you for this observation. The intention of the statement on P-1, l 21-23 was to lay the groundwork for the discussion with a widely accepted notion of TVCs being influential. However, to ensure scholarly rigor, I have added references in these lines.

In response to the "change in Indian advertisement", I have added a brief explanatory paragraph elaborating on the specific shifts within the Indian advertising industry with appropriate scholarly reference, on P.1, I. 39-44.

However, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding. My manuscript does not include the sentence, “how the Indian TVC industry has depicted differences in gender representations over the years.” My study focuses on how Indian television commercials  between the timeframe of 2011-2020 portray men and women differently in terms of character roles, voiceovers, settings, and product categories. I will review the text again to ensure that the aim is clearly and accurately stated to prevent such confusion.

Furthermore, I would like to respectfully clarify a few points. First, while the study acknowledges the importance of de-westernizing media research, it does not claim that there is a lack of scholarship on gender representation in Indian advertising. In fact, sufficient Indian works are cited throughout the manuscript wherever relevant. The 2021 report referenced (published by UNICEF and the Geena Davis Institute) is a valuable industry source, but not a peer-reviewed academic study, and was included to underscore the contemporary relevance of the topic. Besides, there is a  dearth of Indian studies published in highly reputed, peer-reviewed journals—particularly those that align with the specific timeline and focus chosen for this study.

Second, while the theoretical framework includes widely cited foundational concepts, it does not rely solely on studies from the U.S. or Europe. The manuscript incorporates literature from a range of global contexts, including Japan, Turkey, Pakistan, the Philippines, Iran and many more. That said, a well-recognized challenge in the field of communication is the predominance of theories developed in Western settings. As scholars from Asia, our task is often to critically engage with and adapt these existing frameworks to our own contexts. In this sense, this study is unique in its effort to take established theoretical perspectives—most of which originate in Western academia—and apply them meaningfully to the Indian context. This approach allows for both theoretical continuity and cultural specificity.

Finally, the reference to the U.S. women’s movement was not intended as a direct analogy to the Indian experience, but rather as part of a broader background on how advertising historically began to reflect changing gender discourses. I appreciate this observation and added note in the limitations section on p.13, l- 563-569, to acknowledge this lacking.

Comment 2: In the theoretical framework, social learning theory and so on are discussed. Though this might explain something on why it is interesting to look into gender representations, these notions do not serve as theoretical basis for a research design. Here I think a more precise notion of gender representations (there is for example a mixture of terms ‘gender roles’, ‘gender stereotypes’) and the Indian context might be useful. For example, on page 4, lines 154-156, there is a mention of ‘women working more than ever before’. It would be interesting to know something more precise about such a development. How many women are in the workforce? How did this develop over, let’s say, the last three or four decennia? In that way, the argumentation becomes more meaningful (and therefore stronger). 

Response 2:  Thank you for your feedback. I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that Social learning theory does not serve as a valid theoretical basis for the research design. This theory has long been applied in studies of media representation and audience perception, including in the context of gender portrayals in advertising. My application of SLT was reviewed and accepted by both my advisor and prior reviewers, and I believe it offers a solid foundation for understanding how repeated media exposure shapes perceptions of gender roles. Also, I stated this clearly in my manuscript (page 12, lines 547-551 and page 2, lines 80-84), where I note that while the study does not aim to measure the effects of advertisements on the spread of gender stereotypes, it proposes a theoretical framework that suggests such an influence could exist. Further empirical research would be necessary to establish definitive causal relationships.

Regarding the use of terms such as "gender roles" and "gender stereotypes," I want to clarify that these are distinct concepts and were applied where the context and grammar required. TVCs portray gender roles in specific ways, and over time, this portrayal can lead to the formation of gender stereotypes. I used both terms intentionally based on their relevance to the argument at hand.

Regarding women's participation in workforce in India, I have now included relevant statistics and citations to support the statement about women’s workforce participation. This information has been added on p. 5, l. 212–217 to strengthen the overall argument.

Comment 3: The research design is in the right direction but could be stronger. A lot of decisions are not explained: why 120 TVCs? Why YouTube channels? Why not have the sample evenly spread of the decennium under investigation? Why was information on the channel and so on (subsection ‘Video Characteristics’) deemed important?

Response 3: Thank you for the comment. The decisions regarding sample size and selection criteria are explained in detail within the manuscript. Specifically, the sample size of 120 TVCs resulted from strict inclusion and exclusion criteria—for example, not including more than one advertisement from the same brand (p. 8, l. 358). Due to the age of the ads, they were sourced from YouTube, as stated on p. 2, l. 73–75. Given the challenges of locating older content, a perfectly balanced distribution across the decade was not feasible.

Regarding the 'Video Characteristics' section, the inclusion of metadata (e.g., channel type, uploader identity, view count, etc.) was necessary to ensure the transparency and accuracy of the ad release timeline and to validate the authenticity of the source—especially important when relying on YouTube uploads for archival material. These details are outlined on pages 9–10 and were integral to maintaining methodological rigor in this study.

Comment 4: The results section seems sound, yet some information on how long commercials generally last (how much ‘screen time’ was analysed) and whether there were differences over time would be useful as a context.

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. While commercial durations naturally vary, this study did not analyze screen time or duration trends, as the unit of analysis focused on the presence and characteristics of gender portrayals—not temporal features. The study prioritized consistency in coding key variables such as character roles, voiceovers, settings, and product categories, irrespective of ad length. Including screen time was beyond the scope of the research design and objectives.

Comment 5: The discussion shows the main fallacy of the manuscript in its current state. As indicated under the first point of my review, the results indeed reiterate the theoretical framework. It is unclear why another outcome was expected (and what this outcome might have been).

Additionally, this section contains a lot of theory that would find a better place in the theoretical framework.

Response 5: I appreciate the observation. This study used  SLT to interpret patterns of gender representation in Indian TVCs. The theoretical framework section has already provided a detailed overview of this theory. However, in the discussion section, I revisited key aspects of the theories to meaningfully connect them to the study’s findings—something that is often expected in communication and media studies. Without such integration, another valid critique could be the lack of theoretical engagement in interpreting results.

The observed alignment between the results and the theoretical expectations is not a fallacy but a strength, as it demonstrates empirical support for established theoretical frameworks in a specific cultural context (India). The study did not aim for a contradictory or unexpected outcome but sought to test and quantify persistent trends in gender portrayal over a decade. The discussion, therefore, is not only theoretically informed but also necessary to explain why these patterns matter and how they relate to broader ideological constructs—precisely the function of discussion sections in empirical social science research.

Comment 6- The concluding section (p. 11, lines 480-513) needs more thorough grounding. Since no comparative analysis was performed, I am not convinced that India, as an Asian country, presents gender stereotypes more than Western counterparts. The results mostly seem to reinforce what we already knew. 

Response 6-  Thank you for your comment. However, I would like to clarify that the manuscript does not claim that India exhibits more gender stereotyping than Western countries based on comparative analysis. Rather, it references existing literature  that has already established this broader regional trend as a backdrop to contextualize the findings. The statement about traditional Asian countries portraying more stereotypes is rooted in prior literature and used to frame—not substitute—the empirical contribution of this study.

More importantly, while some of the findings may reinforce existing knowledge (as expected in empirical replication studies), this study offers distinctive contributions. Notably, the finding that 0% of female characters were shown in workplace settings is striking and underscores the severity of gender imbalance in Indian TVCs—especially in the context of modernization and ongoing gender discourse. Furthermore, this study includes under-explored product categories like “development” and “health”, which are rarely included in prior quantitative Indian and even many western studies. The presence of women in the health category—yet in caregiving or housewife roles instead of as professionals—adds a fresh layer of nuance to the gender stereotype literature.

As such, while the results align with theoretical expectations, they also provide granular and novel insights about specific patterns in underexamined product categories. This makes the study a valuable empirical addition to the field and a strong foundation for more expansive or comparative future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recasting Gender Roles: A Study of Indian Television Commercials (2011-2020)

The study titled “Recasting Gender Roles: A Study of Indian Television Commercials (2011-2020)” raises a crucial topic regarding gender representations in the media, considering the particularities of Indian society. It is a well-organized study that maintains a balance between the theoretical and empirical subsections. The authors also reasonably acknowledge several limitations dictated by the extended period of study they try to cover and the multi-lingual culture of Indian society.

However, some vulnerabilities or weaknesses need to be carefully addressed. The fascinating “Social Learning Theory” is explained quite superficially in the theoretical subsection. The content should be enhanced to show how the theory is associated with the purposes of the present study and how such theory has evolved (e.g., its core arguments compared to its evolution, whether it has been criticized/modified and why, whether it has undergone shifts due to the emergence of the new media era, etc.). 

From line 131 of the manuscript, it is suggested that another title be added to define that it mainly includes elaboration on research hypotheses.  

Moreover, it is advisable to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the content analysis in the subsection focusing on the study’s method.

A graph depicting the number of advertisements comprising the research sample is unnecessary in the results subsection as long as the allocation per year is already mentioned in the text. Another graph depicting the core variables of the content analysis (e.g., the gender ratio of primary characters, voice-over percentages, settings percentages, etc.) would be more operational and helpful in highlighting the research results. 

Considering that the variables under investigation are (pretty) limited, this feature should be explained in the research limitations section. More variables in alignment with the research purposes and questions/hypotheses would reasonably add value to the study’s dynamics (but at this stage, it may not be feasible).   

On line 29, the verb "plays" needs to be written as "play". 

Overall, it is a well-organized study that raises well-articulated and thought-provoking hypotheses and leads to well-thought-out results. It is worth publishing (given that the authors acknowledge the study’s limitations) after some vulnerabilities/weaknesses, as mentioned above, are resolved.   

Thank you very much.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. I am inputting my responses in Italic so that it can be easily differentiated from the reviewer's comment. In the revised manuscript, the changes made in response to your comments are highlighted in yellow. Please note that the green highlights indicate revisions or remarks intended for another reviewer.

Comment 1: However, some vulnerabilities or weaknesses need to be carefully addressed. The fascinating “Social Learning Theory” is explained quite superficially in the theoretical subsection. The content should be enhanced to show how the theory is associated with the purposes of the present study and how such theory has evolved (e.g., its core arguments compared to its evolution, whether it has been criticized/modified and why, whether it has undergone shifts due to the emergence of the new media era, etc.)

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting the need for a more robust treatment of Social Learning Theory (SLT) in the theoretical framework. I appreciate this opportunity to strengthen the theoretical grounding of the study. In response, I have expanded the section to more clearly connect SLT with the study’s objectives—particularly in how gender portrayals in advertisements contribute to observational learning and the reinforcement of social norms. I have also addressed the evolution of SLT over time, acknowledging both its foundational principles and how the theory has been adapted or critiqued in the context of new media environments. These revisions aim to situate SLT more effectively within contemporary media scholarship and demonstrate its relevance to the research questions posed in the study (pages 3-4). 

Comment 2: From line 131 of the manuscript, it is suggested that another title be added to define that it mainly includes elaboration on research hypotheses.  

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. The section previously referred to at line 131 now appears at line 176 in the revised manuscript. I have added a subheading titled "Research Hypotheses" to clearly indicate that this section focuses on the formulation and elaboration of the study's hypotheses.

Comment 3: Moreover, it is advisable to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the content analysis in the subsection focusing on the study’s method.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, I have added a brief discussion of the strengths and limitations of content analysis within the Methods section (Line 243-251). This clarification helps contextualize the methodological approach and acknowledges both its analytical value and inherent constraints.

Comment 4: A graph depicting the number of advertisements comprising the research sample is unnecessary in the results subsection as long as the allocation per year is already mentioned in the text. Another graph depicting the core variables of the content analysis (e.g., the gender ratio of primary characters, voice-over percentages, settings percentages, etc.) would be more operational and helpful in highlighting the research results. 

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. However, I have chosen to retain the graph that illustrates the annual distribution of advertisements because it offers a quick visual summary of the temporal scope and sample spread of the study. This helps readers understand the sampling consistency across the 10-year period. In response to your feedback, I have also added a new graph that highlights the core gender-related variables, such as voice-over percentages, character roles, and settings, to better operationalize and support the results visually (Line 418-425). 

Comment 5: Considering that the variables under investigation are (pretty) limited, this feature should be explained in the research limitations section. More variables in alignment with the research purposes and questions/hypotheses would reasonably add value to the study’s dynamics (but at this stage, it may not be feasible).  

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable observation. I acknowledge that the number of variables analyzed in this study is limited. As suggested, I have addressed this in the "Research Limitations" section, explaining that although the selected variables were chosen for their direct alignment with the research questions and feasibility within the scope of the study, including additional variables in future research could indeed provide a more comprehensive understanding of gender representation in television advertisements (Line 551-558).

Comment 6: On line 29, the verb "plays" needs to be written as "play". 

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The verb has been corrected from “plays” to “play” on line 29 in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I salute the authors, my comments as a reviewer are always made from a constructive perspective. I attach a document with some comments that I hope will be useful to improve the article. In them I refer especially to the need to include certain authors in the bibliography and to explain the context of broadcasting in the country.
Formally, the article complies with the precepts of scientific writing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The Prasad study you cite is a valuable precedent. It would be interesting to specify what the present article, which was written years later, actually contributes.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. While Prasad’s seminal study provided a foundational analysis of women’s portrayal on television, this study expands that scope by examining the representation of both genders. It also updates the inquiry by incorporating content from the digital era, reflecting shifts in media production and consumption over time. Additionally, this study introduces a quantitative dimension to the analysis, offering a broader empirical perspective that complements the earlier qualitative focus.

Comment 2: In the previous commentary, I quote some authors, a suggestion for an update of the bibliography, which would be necessary, specially when the sample covers advertisements until 2020.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the bibliography. I acknowledge the importance of including more recent literature, and I will work to incorporate updated sources where appropriate. At the same time, some of the earlier works cited (e.g., from the 1980s and 1990s) are foundational to the field and continue to be referenced in recent scholarships. These texts offer enduring theoretical and conceptual frameworks that are still applicable to contemporary analyses, including the present study. Their inclusion is intended to provide depth and continuity with established research traditions, alongside more recent sources. However, I have revised several parts of the manuscript to include more up-to-date references alongside the original ones. In particular, where previously an older source was cited alone, I have now supplemented those citations with more recent studies to provide a balanced and contemporary perspective.

Comment 3: In this theoretical framework it would be necessary to at least refer to the structure of Indian broadcasting, how many television stations there are, in what context the broadcasting takes place, what audiences the medium has. A context, even a symbolic one, in order to understand the space in which the advertisements analyzed are broadcasted.

Response 3:  Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of contextual information about Indian broadcasting. To address this, I have included details about the structure of Indian television broadcasting, noting that India has approximately 197 million television households, many of which utilize direct-to-home satellite and cable services. The country hosts nearly 900 private satellite TV stations, with around half dedicated to news coverage. Additionally, the public broadcaster Doordarshan operates multiple services, including its flagship channel DD1, which reaches hundreds of millions of viewers . Furthermore, I have discussed the context in which broadcasting takes place, highlighting the diverse and multilingual nature of Indian media. This diversity ensures that television content caters to a wide array of audiences across different regions and languages. By providing this context, the revised framework offers a more comprehensive understanding of the space in which the advertisements analyzed in the study were broadcasted.

I trust that these additions effectively address your concerns and enhance the theoretical grounding of the study.

Comment 4: The author analyzes a long period. the sample is said to be representative. Perhaps it would be advisable to justify why it is representative. He says it is because of the preeminence of the brands. but could a further argument be put forwards?

Response 4:  Thank you for raising the important point regarding the representativeness of the sample. In response, I would like to clarify and expand on the justification already provided in the manuscript.

The study selects a sample size of 120 advertisements spanning a ten-year period (2011–2020), which is sufficiently robust to detect longitudinal patterns while also remaining manageable for detailed qualitative and quantitative coding. The sample was carefully curated using clear exclusion criteria to ensure relevance and quality. While the preeminence of the brands contributed to their selection, further consideration was given to the consistency and visibility of these brands in the Indian advertising landscape over the decade.

Importantly, the brands included in the sample represent a cross-section of major consumer categories (e.g., Household, banking, development), and target a broad demographic spectrum, thereby increasing the diversity and representational strength of the sample. Moreover, the coding scheme was rigorously developed and beta-tested by the lead author to ensure that it aligned with the study’s hypotheses and captured the necessary variables reliably, as detailed in the “Coding & Analysis” section of the Method chapter.

These additional layers of methodological rigor strengthen the argument for the sample’s representativeness beyond just brand prominence.

Comment 5: Who are the author of this graph? 

Response 5:  Thank you for your comment regarding the authorship of the graph. The graph in question was originally created by the author using data collected as part of this study. I acknowledge that it is not standard practice to include one's own name as the author/source below a figure in an academic article. In light of this, I did not include the attribution from beneath the graph to align with academic conventions.

Comment 6: It is advisable to be cautious about the contribution of the scientific studies in general. It is interesting yes, but it cannot be said that a study that shows that there is a greater representation of women than men is a novelty. It can be. complement (and this is always interesting I insist), but not an unpublished study.

Response 6:  Thank you for your valuable feedback. I completely agree that it is important to avoid overstating a study's novelty. I would like to clarify that the intention was not to present a greater representation of women over men as the key contribution of this research. In fact, the findings indicate that male representation remains significantly greater than female representation in the sample of Indian television advertisements studied.

The novelty of the study lies in its quantitative approach to analyzing gender representation over a decade-long period (2011–2020), as well as its inclusive scope, examining both male and female portrayals. This offers a broader and more balanced perspective than many existing studies, which tend to focus exclusively on women's representation and are often qualitative in nature. To prevent any potential misunderstanding, I have revised the manuscript text to better reflect the scope and specific contribution of the research.

***All the revisions are highlighted in yellow.****

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has improved on some points, yet the primary concern: a theoretical framework that does not lead up to the research design resulting a study that repeats things already known (men outnumber women, women do household chores, etc). has not been addressed sufficiently. Other parts of the theoretical framework lack a critical discussion are a clear argumentation on why these are part of the study. Social Learning Theory for example is useful to make the study relevant, but not to design the study. Moreover, there is a lot of discussion and critiques on the social learning theory which is neglected. This is also the more curious as the atuhor(s) state that the model has been revised over the years, yet the focus is still on the 1963 model (p. 3). The entire premise of TV content mirroring society, and producers consciously reproducing society (p. 4) is fiercely debated, and usually disagreed with. In that sense, the contributions to the theoretical sections are nice, but do not solve the problem of not having a theoretical framework to base the codebook on.

As said before, there is a bit of theory in the discussion section that would be useful here. Yet, Hofstede's 'masculinity' dimension is a bit off topic in the study of gender representation in tv commercials. 

Minor details, such as more detail in the research design answering questions such as: why 120 videos, are also omitted. The size of the sample is relevant, especially in the light of the India's broadcasting landscape. 

In general, I think the author(s) should have someone proofread for typos and grammar errors. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for offering me the opportunity to revise and resubmit my draft manuscript, Recasting Gender Roles: A Study of Indian Television Commercials (2011–2020).I have considered the thoughtful feedback and revised the manuscript to clarify and elaborate my ideas. We hope you will be pleased with what I believe is a much-improved manuscript.

In my response, I respond to your comments and indicate, when applicable, how I have revised the manuscript. I include reviewers’ complete comments, which I present in regular font and no highlight, and my response is provided in yellow highlight. in the manuscript, the final revisions are added in grey highlight.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

Comment 1: The revised manuscript has improved on some points, yet the primary concern: a theoretical framework that does not lead up to the research design resulting a study that repeats things already known (men outnumber women, women do household chores, etc). has not been addressed sufficiently. Other parts of the theoretical framework lack a critical discussion are a clear argumentation on why these are part of the study. Social Learning Theory for example is useful to make the study relevant, but not to design the study. Moreover, there is a lot of discussion and critiques on the social learning theory which is neglected. This is also the more curious as the atuhor(s) state that the model has been revised over the years, yet the focus is still on the 1963 model (p. 3). The entire premise of TV content mirroring society, and producers consciously reproducing society (p. 4) is fiercely debated, and usually disagreed with. In that sense, the contributions to the theoretical sections are nice, but do not solve the problem of not having a theoretical framework to base the codebook on.

Response 1:  Thank you for this insightful comment. I have fully revised the theoretical framework section to address this concern. Specifically, I have removed Social Learning Theory from the manuscript, as suggested, and restructured the theoretical lens to rely exclusively on Cultivation Theory and Framing Theory, both of which are now clearly linked to the research design and codebook structure. Please refer to page 3-4.

Cultivation Theory informs the rationale for a decade-long sample frame, providing the basis for assessing how cumulative gender portrayals have the potential to shape public perceptions over time. Additionally, I incorporated Gerbner’s extended concepts of mainstreaming and resonance to explain the potential durability and cross-group influence of gender stereotypes in Indian TVCs.

Framing Theory, now clearly delineated in the revised manuscript, explains how gendered portrayals are constructed using specific narrative and visual tools—such as role type, character setting, and voiceovers—which directly informed the construction of our codebook variables. We expanded this section with citations (e.g., Goffman, 1974; Entman, 1993; Lindner, 2004) and clarified that while this study did not measure audience perception, Framing Theory is used as a structural lens to explore how gendered meanings are communicated through commercial visuals.

Comment 2: As said before, there is a bit of theory in the discussion section that would be useful here. Yet, Hofstede's 'masculinity' dimension is a bit off topic in the study of gender representation in tv commercials. 

Response 2: The Discussion section has also been updated to include a brief yet focused reflection on how these theories contextualize the study’s findings. Please refer to page 13, grey highlighted text. We believe these revisions establish a clear theoretical foundation that not only justifies the study’s design but also strengthens its contribution to ongoing conversations about gender representation in media.

However, I respectfully disagree with the view that Hofstede’s masculinity dimension is off-topic. In fact, this dimension has been widely used in numerous peer-reviewed studies to explain patterns of gender representation in advertising across cultural contexts. Hofstede’s framework provides a cultural backdrop for understanding why certain gender portrayals—such as men in dominant roles or women in caregiving positions—are normalized in societies with high masculinity scores.

India’s score of 56 on the masculinity index places it in a moderately masculine society, where traditional gender roles are still prominent. As several seminal studies exploring the relationship between gender and media have shown (e.g., Paek et al., 2010; Prieler & Centeno, 2013; Milner & Collins, 2000; Furnham & Mak, 1999), societies with higher masculinity scores often favor male voiceovers, male leads in high-status roles, and stereotypical gender divisions in advertising. Thus, Hofstede’s dimension offers an important macro-cultural explanation for the persistent patterns observed in Indian TVCs, complementing the micro-level analysis provided by Cultivation and Framing theories. 

Comment 3: Minor details, such as more detail in the research design answering questions such as: why 120 videos, are also omitted. The size of the sample is relevant, especially in the light of the India's broadcasting landscape. 

Response 3:  Thank you for this helpful observation. In the revised manuscript, we have added a detailed justification for the sample size in the Method section. Please refer to page 6, grey highlighted texts. This study had some filtering criteria, such as not including more than one TVC from one brand, verifying release dates, excluding non-Hindi/Non-English TVCs, choosing TVCs for certain categories of products. With these criteria in mind, that was the best possible number of TVCs collected.

We also contextualized this decision within India’s expansive media environment, where hundreds of TV channels and a high advertising volume make representational diversity both a challenge and a strength, which we mentioned in the last revissed version (page 3). We believe these additions now clarify the rationale behind the sample size and its relevance to India's broadcasting context.

Comment 4: In general, I think the author(s) should have someone proofread for typos and grammar errors. 

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully proofread the revised manuscript to correct all typographical and grammatical errors. The language has been thoroughly edited for clarity, consistency, and academic tone. We hope the revised version meets the journal’s standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version was read with great pleasure. As said before, the topic is interesting and engaging. I truly admire the author(s) energy in revising the previous version and I think the paper is suitable for publication now. Both theoretical framework as method section work much better now, supplying enough detail in the method section to support the results in a convincing way.