Sex Roles

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Hypersexualization and Sexualization in Advertisements for Halloween Costumes

  • Aurora M. ShermanEmail author
  • Haley Allemand
  • Shayla Prickett
Original Article


Concerns about sexualization of Halloween costumes appear frequently in the lay press, but systematic investigation of such costumes or the ads in which they appear is relatively rare. We coded a randomly selected sample of 1001 advertisements for child, teen, and adult Halloween costumes for 13 different markers of sexualization that we combined into overall scores for costume sexualization, model sexualization, and hypersexualization. We found that ratings of model characteristics and costume were significantly more sexualized when the model was adult and female. Significant interactions indicated that model characteristics and costumes of male models were low in sexualization regardless of age, whereas model characteristics and costumes featuring female models were rated more sexualized than those for male models, even for child models, and sexualization ratings increased with age. A measure of hypersexualization (combining costume and model characteristic ratings and adding text sexualization) showed that hypersexualization is highest in advertisements featuring female and adult models while being low for male models across all three age groups. However, hypersexualization ratings were not significantly different for teen and adult women, indicating some compression of sexualization into adolescence. Our results could be used by parents, educators, or counselors interested in media literacy.


Objectification theory Sexualization Gender differences Age differences Content analysis 



We thank Alicia Juniku for initial conversations on this topic, Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen for helpful comments on drafts, and the many undergraduate Research Assistants in Dr. Sherman’s lab for invaluable labor in coding. Some coding reported here appeared in Shayla Prickett’s honors thesis for Oregon State University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All relevant ethical standards for data collection, analysis, and reporting were followed in this study. This study does not include data from human participants, so no statement to that effect can be made.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1105_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 36 kb)


  1. Amadeo, K. (2018). Halloween spending: Statistics, fact, and trends. The Balance. Retrieved October, 18, 2019 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 10/18/2019 from
  3. Aubrey, J. S., & Frisby, C. M. (2011). Sexual objectification in music videos: A content analysis comparing gender and genre. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 475–501. Scholar
  4. Bernard, P., Loughnan, S., Marchal, C., Godart, & Klein, O. (2015). The exonerating effect of sexual objectification: Sexual objectification decreases rapist blame in a stranger rape context. Sex Roles, 72, 499–508. Scholar
  5. Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Robinson, T. N. (2001). The 30-second effect: An experiment revealing the impact of television commercials on food preferences of preschoolers. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101, 42–46. Scholar
  6. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713. Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  8. Doring, N., & Poschl, S. (2006). Images of men and women in mobile phone advertisements: A content analysis of advertisements for mobile communication systems in selected popular magazines. Sex Roles, 55, 173–185. Scholar
  9. Ellis, P. D. (2009). Thresholds for interpreting effect sizes. Retrieved 9/17/2019 from
  10. Farber, M. (2016). The frightening amount Americans spend on Halloween. Fortune. Retrieved 10/18/2019 from
  11. Federal Trade Commission. (2018). Consumer information: Online tracking. Retrieved 7/11/2018 from
  12. 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. Scholar
  13. 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. Scholar
  14. Fredrickson, B. L., Hendler, L. M., Nilsen, S., O’Barr, J., & Roberts, T.-A. (2011). Bringing back the body: A retrospective on the development of objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 689–697. Scholar
  15. Gavey, N. (2012). Beyond “empowerment”? Sexuality in a sexist world. Sex Roles, 66, 718–724. Scholar
  16. Gay, R. K., & Castano, E. (2010). My body or my mind: The impact of state and trait objectification on women's cognitive resources. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 695–703.Google Scholar
  17. George, J. (2015). Why sexualized Halloween costumes are downright scary [Canadian Women’s Foundation Blog]. Retrieved 06/28/2017 from
  18. Gillath, O., Bahns, A. J., Ge, G., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Shoes as a source of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 23–430. Scholar
  19. Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Body objectification, MTV, and psychological outcomes among female adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2840–2858. Scholar
  20. 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. Scholar
  21. Gurung, R. A. R., & Chrouser, C. J. (2007). Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing and observer characteristics matter? Sex Roles, 57, 91–99. Scholar
  22. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 353–363. Scholar
  23. Hall, J. P., West, J. H., & McIntyre, E. (2012). Female self-sexualization in personal profile photographs. Sexuality & Culture, 16, 1–16. Scholar
  24. Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The sexualization of men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality & Culture, 15, 256–278. Scholar
  25. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89 Retrieved from Scholar
  26. Hebl, M. R., 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. Scholar
  27. Holland, E., & Haslam, N. (2016). Cute little things: The objectification of prepubescent girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 108–119. Scholar
  28. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. Scholar
  29. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. Scholar
  30. Jongenelis, M., Pettigrew, S., Byrne, S. M., & Biagioni, N. (2016). An investigation of young girls’ responses to sexualized images. Body Image, 19, 150–158. Scholar
  31. Kranen, K. (2016). The real horror of Halloween? Hyper-sexualized costumes. M-A Chronicle. Retrieved on June 28, 2017 from
  32. Krippendorff, K. (1970). Estimating the reliability, systematic error and random error of interval data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 61–70. Scholar
  33. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Lamb, S., & Peterson, Z. D. (2011). Adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: Two feminists explore the concept. Sex Roles, 66, 703–712. Scholar
  35. Lennon, S. J., Zheng, Z., & Fatnassi, A. (2016). Women’s revealing Halloween costumes: Other-objectification and sexualization. Fashion and Textiles, 3, 21–40. Scholar
  36. Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E. A., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 455–461. Scholar
  37. Lozano, C. (2017). Sexualization of Halloween costumes is limiting to women. Retrieved on September 24, 2019 from
  38. McDade-Montez, E., Wallander, J., & Cameron, L. (2017). Sexualization in U.S. Latina and white girls’ preferred children’s television programs. Sex Roles, 77, 1–15. Scholar
  39. Miller, C. C. (2015). Boys and girls, constrained by toys and costumes. New York Times. Retrieved 6/19/2017 from
  40. 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. Scholar
  41. Murnen, S. K., Greenfield, C., Younger, A., & Boyd, H. (2015). Boys act and girls appear: A content analysis of gender stereotypes associated with characters in children’s popular culture. Sex Roles, 74, 78–91. Scholar
  42. Nelson, A. (2000). The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 137–144. Scholar
  43. Neuendorf, K. A. (2011). Content analysis –a methodological primer for gender research. Sex Roles, 64, 276–298. Scholar
  44. Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636. Scholar
  45. Pacilli, M. G., Tomasetto, C., & Cadinu, M. (2016). Exposure to sexualized advertisements disrupts children’s math performance by reducing working memory. Sex Roles, 74, 389–398. Scholar
  46. Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135–147. Scholar
  47. Santelli, J. S., Lindberg, L. D., Lawrence, F. B., & Singh, S. (2007). Explaining recent declines in adolescent pregnancy in the United States: The contribution of abstinence and improved contraceptive use. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 150–156. Scholar
  48. Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2010). Body image and disordered eating in adolescent girls and boys: A test of objectification theory. Sex Roles, 63, 42–49. Scholar
  49. Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). Little girls in a grown up world: Exposure to sexualized media, internalization of sexualization messages, and body image in 6–9 year-old girls. Body Image, 18, 19–22. Scholar
  50. Smith, A. S. (2017). Halloween spending to reach record $9.1 billion. Retrieved on July 12, 2018 from
  51. Stankiewicz, J. M., & Rosselli, F. (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles, 58, 579–589. Scholar
  52. StartupNation. (2019). How Halloween boosts its business with Google. Retrieved 10/19/2019 from
  53. Stone, E. A., Spears Brown, C., & Jewell, J. A. (2015). The sexualized girl: A within-gender stereotype among elementary school children. Child Development, 86, 1604–1622. Scholar
  54. Thomas, L. (2017). Halloween spending slated to hit $9.1 billion, NRF says. CNBC online. Retrieved 10/18/2019 from
  55. Vining, A. (2018). The sexualization of Halloween: Introduction to modern Halloween costumes (Part I). Retrieved 09/23/2019 from
  56. Ward, M. L. (2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research 1995-2015. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 560–577. Scholar
  57. Ward, M. L., & Harrison, K. (2005). The impact of media use on girls beliefs about gender roles, their bodies, and sexual relationships: A research synthesis. In E. Cole & J. H. Daniel (Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of media (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Scholar
  58. (2011). BuySeasonsInc celebrates major expansion. Retrieved 10/19/2019 from
  59. Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Lane, T. N., & Teeter, S. R. (2016). Mars, Venus, or earth? Sexism and the exaggeration of psychological gender differences. Sex Roles, 75, 287–300. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychological ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations