Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 74, Issue 1–2, pp 78–91 | Cite as

Boys Act and Girls Appear: A Content Analysis of Gender Stereotypes Associated with Characters in Children’s Popular Culture

  • Sarah K. MurnenEmail author
  • Claire Greenfield
  • Abigail Younger
  • Hope Boyd
Original Article

Abstract

We conducted a content analysis of children’s products in U.S. popular culture that depict male and female characters to determine the extent to which gender stereotypes were portrayed. We examined popular Halloween costumes (90 female costumes and 90 male costumes) from popular retail websites, 79 popular dolls and 71 popular action figures from national store websites, and Valentines found at two national stores (portraying 54 female and 59 male characters). The coding system was adapted from several different studies. Female characters were far more likely than male characters to be depicted with traditional feminine stereotyped cues (e.g., decorative clothing) and sexually submissive, hyper-feminine cues (e.g., revealing clothing). Male characters were far more likely to be portrayed with traditional masculine characteristics like functional clothing and the body-in-motion, and they were often depicted with hyper-masculine accessories such as having a weapon. Implications for children’s gender-role development and the perpetuation of patriarchy are discussed.

Keywords

Stereotyped attitudes Popular culture Socialization Human sex differences 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Sarah K. Murnen, Department of Psychology, Kenyon College; Claire Greenfield, Department of Psychology, Kenyon College; Abigail Younger,, Department of Psychology, Kenyon College; Hope Boyd, Department of Psychology, Kenyon College. We would like to thank Sabina Hawks for her suggestions about the Valentines.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The validity study was reviewed and approved by the Kenyon College Institutional Review Board.

References

  1. American Psychological Association (2010). Report of the APA Task Force on the sexualization of girls. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf.
  2. Anschutz, D. J., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). The effects of playing with thin dolls on body image and food intake in young girls. Sex Roles, 63, 621–630. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9871-6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubrey, J. S., & Harrison, K. (2004). The gender-role content of children’s favorite television programs and its links to their gender-related perceptions. Media Psychology, 6, 111–146. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auster, C. J., & Mansbach, C. S. (2012). The gender marketing of toys: An analysis of color and type of toy on the Disney store website. Sex Roles, 67, 375–388. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0177-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, K., & Raney, A. A. (2007). Equally super? gender-role stereotyping of superheroes in children’s animated programs. Mass Communication and Society, 10, 25–41. doi: 10.1080/15205430709337003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blakemore, J. E. O., & Centers, R. E. (2005). Characteristics of boys’ and girls’ toys. Sex Roles, 53, 619–633. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-7729-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 (pp. 92–119). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Calogero, R. M., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2011). Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherney, I. D., & Dempsey, J. (2010). Young children’s classification, stereotyping and play behavior for gender neutral and ambiguous toys. Educational Psychology, 30, 651–669. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2010.498416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherney, I. D., & London, K. (2006). Gender-linked differences in the toys, television shows, computer games, and outdoor activities of 5- to 13-year-old children. Sex Roles, 54, 717–726. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9037-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, R. L. (2011). Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles, 64, 290–298. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5.
  13. Coyne, S. M., Linder, J. R., Rasmussen, E. E., Nelson, D. A., & Collier, K. M. (2014). It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a gender stereotype!: Longitudinal associations between superhero viewing and gender stereotyped play. Sex Roles, 70, 416–430. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0374-8.
  14. Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., & Lewis, L. L. (1985). Level of categorization and content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3, 145–167. doi: 10.1521/soco.1985.3.2.145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dill, K. E., & Thill, K. P. (2007). Video game characters and the socialization of gender roles: Young people’s perceptions mirror sexist media depictions. Sex Roles, 57, 851–862. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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- to 8-year old girls. Developmental Psychology, 42, 283–292. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglas, S. J. (2010). Enlightened sexism: The seductive message that feminism’s work is done. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  18. Downs, E., & Smith, S. L. (2010). Keeping abreast of hypersexuality: A video game character content analysis. Sex Roles, 62, 721–733. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9637-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 216–238. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00146-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Freeman, N. K. (2007). N. K. Preschoolers’ perceptions of gender appropriate toys and their parents’ beliefs about genderized behaviors: Miscommunication, mixed messages, or hidden truths? Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 357–366. doi: 10.1007/s10643-006-0123-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43–67). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C., & Branstiter, H. (2005). Evaluations of sexy women in low- and high-status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 389–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00238.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goodin, S. M., Van Denburg, 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
  27. 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
  28. Graff, K., Murnen, S. K., & Krause, A. (2013). Low-cut shirts and high-heeled shoes: Increased sexualization across time in magazine depictions of girls. Sex Roles, 69, 571–582. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0321-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenwood, D. N., & Lippman, J. R. (2010). Gender and media: Content, uses, and impact. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 643–699). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gurung, R. A. R., & Chrouser, C. J. (2007). Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing and observer characteristics matter? Sex Roles, 57, 91–99. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9219-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, 256–278. doi: 10.1007/s12119-011-9093-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoffner, C. (1996). Children’s wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 40, 389–402. doi: 10.1080/08838159609364360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jeffrys, S. (2005). Beauty and misogyny: Harmful cultural practices in the West. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Mager, J., & Helgeson, J. G. (2011). Fifty years of advertising images: Some changing perspectives on role portrayals along with enduring consistencies. Sex Roles, 64, 238–252. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9782-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malamuth, N. M., & Thornhill, N. W. (1994). Hostile masculinity, sexual aggression, and gender-based domineeringness in conversations. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 185–293. doi: 10.1002/1098-2337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 67–70. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller, M. K., & Summers, A. (2007). Gender differences in video game characters’ roles, appearances, and attire as portrayed in video game magazines. Sex Roles, 57, 733–742. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9307-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. (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. Murnen, S. K. (1998). The hyper-femininity scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Scheer, & S. L. David (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 258–261). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2012). Social considerations related to adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: A response to Lamb and Peterson. Sex Roles, 66, 725–735. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0079-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2013). I’d rather be a famous fashion model than a famous scientist: The rewards and costs of internalizing sexualization. In E. Zurbriggen & T. A. Roberts (Eds.), The sexualization of girls and girlhood (pp. 235–253). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boys”, then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359–375. doi: 10.1023/A:1020488928736.
  43. Nelson, A. (2000). The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 137–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neuendorf, K. A. (2011). Content analysis: A methodological primer for gender research. Sex Roles, 64, 276–289. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9893-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reichert, T., & Carpenter, C. (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 823–837. doi: 10.1177/0887302X08327087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rudman, W. J., & Verdi, P. (1993). Exploitation: Comparing sexual and violent imagery of females and males in advertising. Women and Health, 20, 1–14. doi: 10.1300/J013v20n04_01.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice toward female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rudy, R. M., Popova, L., & Linz, D. G. (2011). Contributions to the content analysis of gender roles: An introduction to a special issue. Sex Roles, 64, 151–159. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9937-0.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sherman, A. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2014). “Boys can be anything”: Effect of Barbie play on girls’ career cognitions. Sex Roles, 70, 195–208. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0347-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smolak, L., & Murnen, S. K. (2011). The sexualization of women and girls as key antecedents to self-objectification. In R. Calogero & J. K. Thompson (Eds.), The objectification of women: Innovative directions in research and practice (pp. 53–75). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  52. Stankiewicz, J. M., & Rosselli, F. (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles, 58, 579–589. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9359-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Tiggemann, M. (2011). Mental health risks of self-objectification: A review of the empirical evidence for disordered eating, depressed mood, and sexual dysfunction. In R. M. Calogero, S. Tantleff-Dunn, & J. K. Thompson (Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 139–159). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Twenge, J. M. (2009). Status and gender: The paradox of progress in an age of narcissism. Sex Roles, 61, 338–340. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9617-5.
  56. Valenti, J. (2010). The purity myth: How America’s obsession with virginity is hurting young women. Berkeley: Seal Press.Google Scholar
  57. Vokey, M., Tefft, B., & Tysiaczny, C. (2013). An analysis of hyper-masculinity in magazine advertisements. Sex Roles, 68, 562–576. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0268-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2013). Biology or culture alone cannot account for human sex differences and similarities. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 241–247. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2013.815034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zaitchik, M. C., & Mosher, D. L. (1993). Criminal justice implications of the macho personality constellation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 227–239. doi: 10.1177/00093854893020003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah K. Murnen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claire Greenfield
    • 1
  • Abigail Younger
    • 1
  • Hope Boyd
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKenyon CollegeGambierUSA

Personalised recommendations