Sex Roles

, Volume 70, Issue 5–6, pp 195–208 | Cite as

“Boys Can Be Anything”: Effect of Barbie Play on Girls’ Career Cognitions

  • Aurora M. ShermanEmail author
  • Eileen L. Zurbriggen
Original Article


Play with Barbie dolls is an understudied source of gendered socialization that may convey a sexualized adult world to young girls. Early exposure to sexualized images may have unintended consequences in the form of perceived limitations on future selves. We investigated perceptions of careers girls felt they could do in the future as compared to the number of careers they felt boys could do as a function of condition (playing with a Barbie or Mrs. Potato Head doll) and type of career (male dominated or female dominated) in a sample of 37 U.S. girls aged 4–7 years old residing in the Pacific Northwest. After a randomly assigned 5-min exposure to condition, children were asked how many of ten different occupations they themselves could do in the future and how many of those occupations a boy could do. Data were analyzed with a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial ANOVA. Averaged across condition, girls reported that boys could do significantly more occupations than they could themselves, especially when considering male-dominated careers. In addition, girls’ ideas about careers for themselves compared to careers for boys interacted with condition, such that girls who played with Barbie indicated that they had fewer future career options than boys, whereas girls who played with Mrs. Potato Head reported a smaller difference between future possible careers for themselves as compared to boys. Results support predictions from gender socialization and objectification theories.


Objectification theory Barbie Middle childhood Socialization 


  1. American Civil Liberties Union. (2013). Title IX-Gender equity in education. Retrieved from
  2. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the sexualization of girls. Retrieved from
  3. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96, 967–989. doi: 10.1002/scd.20131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bannon, L. (1998). Mattel, Inc. plans to double sales abroad. Dow Jones Online News from Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
  5. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronstein, P. (2006). The family environment: Where gender role socialization begins. In J. Worell & C. D. Goodheart (Eds.), The handbook of girls’ and women’s psychological health: Gender and well-being across the lifespan (pp. 262–271). New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1017/S003329170621807.Google Scholar
  7. Brownell, K. D., & Napolitano, M. A. (1995). Distorting reality for children: Body size proportions of Barbie and Ken dolls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 295–298. doi: 10.1002/1098-108X(199511)18:3<295::AID-EAT2260180313>3.0.CO;2-R.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
  9. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of gender development and functioning. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 92–119). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Calogero, R. M., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2011). Future directions for research and practice. In R. M. Calogero, S. Tantlef-Dunn, & J. K. Thompson (Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 217–237). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/12304-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coy, M. (2009). Milkshakes, lady lumps and growing up to want boobies: How the sexualisation of popular culture limits girls’ horizons. Child Abuse Review, 18, 372–383. doi: 10.1002/car.1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darke, K., Clewell, B., & Sevo, R. (2002). Meeting the challenge: The impact of the National Science Foundation's program for women and girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 285–303.Google Scholar
  13. Davison, K. K., Markey, C. N., & Birch, L. L. (2000). Etiology of body dissatisfaction and weight concerns among 5-year-old girls. Appetite, 35, 43–151. doi: 10.1006/appe.2000.0349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dittmar, H., Halliwell, E., & Ive, S. (2006). Does Barbie make girls want to be thin? The effect of experimental exposure to images of dolls on the body image of 5–8 year old girls. Developmental Psychology, 42, 283–292. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dohnt, H., & Tiggemann, M. (2006a). The contribution of peer and media influences to the development of body satisfaction and self-esteem in young girls: A prospective study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 929–936. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.929.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dohnt, H., & Tiggemann, M. (2006b). Body image concerns in young girls: The role of peers and media prior to adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 141–151. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-9020-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Durkin, S. J., & Paxton, S. J. (2002). Predictors of vulnerability to reduced body image satisfaction and psychological well-being in response to exposure to idealized female media images in adolescent girls. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 995–1005. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00489-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. E., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. doi: 10.2307/1131221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodin, S. M., Van Denberg, A., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2011). “Putting on” sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles, 65, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gould, M. (2008, October 3). Girls choosing camera lenses over microscopes. The Guardian. Retrieved from
  23. Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Body objectification, MTV, and psychological outcomes among female adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2840–2858. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00552.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grabe, S., Hyde, J. S., & Lindberg, S. M. (2007). Body objectification and depression in adolescents: The role of gender, shame, and rumination. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 164–175. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9703-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 460–4786. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graff, K., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2012). Too sexualized to be taken seriously? Perceptions of a girl in childlike vs. sexualizing clothing. Sex Roles, 66, 764–775. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0145-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Harter, S. (2003). The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (pp. 610–642). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Harter, S. (2006). The self. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional , and personality development (6th ed., pp. 505–570). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The sexualization of men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality and Culture, 15, 255–278. doi: 10.1007/s12119-011-9093-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hebl, M., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322–1331. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264052.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 387–467). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. International Labour Organization. (2013). Gender and employment. Retrieved from–en/index.htm.
  34. Kuther, T. L., & McDonald, E. (2004). Early adolescents’ experiences with, and views of, Barbie. Adolescence, 39, 39–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267–296. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mattel. (2009). Barbie I can be careers with Richard Dickson [Video file]. Retrieved from
  37. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  38. Moradi, B., & Huang, Y.-P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morry, M. M., & Staska, S. L. (2001). Magazine exposure: Internalization, self-objectification, eating attitudes, and body satisfaction in male and female university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 269–279. doi: 10.1037/h0087148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pedersen, E. L., & Markee, N. L. (1991). Fashion dolls: Representations of ideals of beauty. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 93–94. doi: 10.2466/pms.1991.73.1.93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Powlishta, K. (2004). Gender as a social category: Inter-group processes and gender-role development. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 103–133). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  42. Quinn, D. M., Kallen, R. W., & Cathey, C. (2006). Body on my mind: The lingering effect of state self-objectification. Sex Roles, 55, 869–874. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9140-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rogers, A. (1999). Barbie culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Schor, J. G. (2004). Born to buy: The commercialized child and the new consumer culture. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  45. Starr, C. R., & Ferguson, G. M. (2012). Sexy dolls, sexy grade-schoolers? Media and maternal influences on young girls’ self-sexualization. Sex Roles, 67, 463–476. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0183-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. The World Bank. (2011). World development report 2012: Gender equality and development. Washington, D.C.: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson, R. A. (2006). The development of the person: Social understanding, relationships, conscience, self. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 24–98). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Trautner, H. M., Ruble, D. N., Cyphers, L., Kirsten, B., Behrendt, R., & Hartmann, P. (2005). Rigidity and flexibility of gender stereotypes in childhood: Developmental or differential? Infant and Child Development, 14, 365–381. doi: 10.1002/icd.399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turkel, A. R. (1998). All about Barbie: Distortions of a transitional object. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 26, 165–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilbourn, M. P., & Kee, D. W. (2010). Henry the nurse is a doctor too: Implicitly examining children’s gender stereotypes for male and female occupational roles. Sex Roles, 62, 670–683. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9773-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychological ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations