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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. American Civil Liberties Union. (2013). Title IX-Gender equity in education. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/title-ix-gender-equity-education.

  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 http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bannon, L. (1998). Mattel, Inc. plans to double sales abroad. Dow Jones Online News from Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.knowledgespace.com.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat09.htm.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gould, M. (2008, October 3). Girls choosing camera lenses over microscopes. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/03/science.choosingadegree.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 http://www.ilo.org/employment/areas/gender-and-employment/lang–en/index.htm.

  34. Kuther, T. L., & McDonald, E. (2004). Early adolescents’ experiences with, and views of, Barbie. Adolescence, 39, 39–51.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mattel. (2009). Barbie I can be careers with Richard Dickson [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71d9-tCdCCc.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Turkel, A. R. (1998). All about Barbie: Distortions of a transitional object. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 26, 165–177.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aurora M. Sherman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sherman, A.M., Zurbriggen, E.L. “Boys Can Be Anything”: Effect of Barbie Play on Girls’ Career Cognitions. Sex Roles 70, 195–208 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0347-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Objectification theory
  • Barbie
  • Middle childhood
  • Socialization