Sex Roles

, Volume 34, Issue 3–4, pp 287–294 | Cite as

Ken and Barbie at life size

  • Kevin I. Norton
  • Timothy S. Olds
  • Scott Olive
  • Stephen Dank
Brief Report


There has been considerable discussion in both the scientific literature and general media concerning the appropriateness of the body shape and proportions of the Ken and Barbie dolls, the most popular dolls in modern history. The greatest concern has been of the possible influence that these, and other “cultural ideals” for body shape, may have on young children. However, these concerns have been based entirely on the subjective interpretation of how one perceives the body dimensions of the dolls relative to an adult size. We therefore used our skills in anthropometry and the rules of allometry to scale the dolls to an adult height to determine the dimensions that these dolls would assume at this adjusted size. These were compared to actual proportions of several representative adult groups of predominantly Anglo-Australian males and females. The critics have been justified in their opinions since both Barbie and Ken are thin relative to the reference samples. Barbie's mean girth z-score relative to a reference cross-section of the young adult population was −4.2. This indicates that the probability for such a body shape is less than 1 in 100,000. Ken is more realistic at about 1 in 50.


Social Psychology Adult Population Scientific Literature Reference Sample Body Shape 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brownell, K. D. (1991). Dieting and the search for the perfect body: Where physiology and culture collide.Behaviour Therapy, 22 1–12.Google Scholar
  2. Charest-Lilly, P., Sherrill, C., & Rosentswieg, J. (1987). Body composition of women with anorexia nervosa: A pilot study.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4 126–136.Google Scholar
  3. Cox, D. R. (1977). Barbie and her playmates.Journal of Popular Culture, 11 303–307.Google Scholar
  4. Creekmore, A. M., & Pedersen, E. (1979). Body proportions of fashion illustrations, 1840–1940, compared with the Greek ideal of female beauty.Home Economics Research Journal, 7 379–388.Google Scholar
  5. DASET (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories). (1992).Pilot survey of the fitness of Australians. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
  6. Dodds, J. (1994, May 4). The anti-hero of the beauty world.Sydney News. Google Scholar
  7. Fleming, A. T. (1991, March). Living dolls.Allure, pp. 128–133.Google Scholar
  8. Furnham, A., Hester, C., & Weir, C. (1990). Sex differences in the preference for specific female body shapes.Sex Roles, 22 743–754.Google Scholar
  9. Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Schwartz, D., & Thompson, M. (1980). Cultural expectations of thinness in women.Psychological Reports, 47 483–491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartland, M. (1981).The anthropometric prediction of body density and relative body fat in South Australian males. Unpublished honors thesis, The Flinders University of South Australia, Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Kefgen, M., & Touchie-Specht, P. (1986).Individuality in clothing selection and personal appearance (4th ed.) New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, L. (1987). Form and female authorship in music videos.Communication, 9 355–377.Google Scholar
  13. Barbie at 24: A curse-or blessing? (1983, September 11).Newsweek, 102, 10–11.Google Scholar
  14. Norton, K. (1984).South Australian females: Body fat, somatotype, body density and anthropometric fractionation of body mass. Unpublished master's thesis, The Flinders University of South Australia, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. Norton, K. I., Whittingham, N. O., Carter, J. E. L., Kerr, D. A., & Gore, C. J. (1994). Measurement techniques in anthropometry. In K. I. Norton & T. S. Olds (Eds.),Anthropometry and anthropometric profiling. Sydney: Nolds Sports Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Pedersen, E. L., & Markee, N. L. (1991). Fashion dolls: Representations of ideals of beauty.Perceptual and motor skills, 73 93–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rintala, M., & Mustajoki, P. (1992). Could mannequins menstruate?British Medical Journal, 305 1575–1576.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. (1988). Body image, attitudes to weight, and misperceptions of figure preferences of the opposite sex: A comparison of men and women in two generations.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97 342–345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Silverstein, B., Perdue, L., Peterson, B., & Kelly, E. (1986). The role of the mass media in promoting a thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women.Sex Roles, 14 519–532.Google Scholar
  20. Sutton-Smith, B. (1986).Toys as culture. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
  21. Tisdall, S. (1994, January 4). Group “liberates” Barbies.Sydney Morning Herald, p. 5.Google Scholar
  22. Wilkinson, D. Y. (1987). The doll exhibit: A psycho-cultural analysis of black female role stereotypes.Journal of Popular Culture, 21 19–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin I. Norton
    • 1
  • Timothy S. Olds
    • 2
  • Scott Olive
    • 2
  • Stephen Dank
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Research and Education in Sport Science, School of Physical Education, Exercise and Sport StudiesUniversity of South AustraliaUnderdaleSouth Australia
  2. 2.University of New South WalesUK

Personalised recommendations