Content uploaded by Sarah K Murnen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah K Murnen
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
“Putting on”Sexiness: A Content Analysis of the Presence
of Sexualizing Characteristics in Girls’Clothing
Samantha M. Goodin &Alyssa Van Denburg &
Sarah K. Murnen &Linda Smolak
Published online: 3 May 2011
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract Objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts
1997) proposes that women from Western cultures are
widely portrayed and treated as objects of the male gaze,
leading to the development of self-objectification, in which
girls and women internalize these societal messages and
view their own bodies as objects to be evaluated according
to narrow standards of (often sexualized) attractiveness.
Prompted by findings from the American Psychological
Association Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls
(APA 2007), the present study considers girls’clothing as
a possible socializing influence that may contribute to
the development of self-objectification in preteen girls.
Accordingly, in this content analysis, we examined the
frequency and nature of “sexualizing”clothing available for
girl children (generally sizes 6–14) on the websites of 15
popular stores in the US. Sexualizing clothing was defined
as clothing that revealed or emphasized a sexualized body
part, had characteristics associated with sexiness, and/or
had sexually suggestive writing. Clothing was also coded
for childlike characteristics, such as child-like fabric (e.g.,
polka dot pattern) or a modest, non-revealing cut. Across all
stores and all articles of clothing, 69% of the clothing items
were coded as having only childlike characteristics, 4% as
having only sexualizing characteristics, 25.4% as having
both sexualizing and childlike characteristics, and 1% as
having neither sexualizing nor childlike characteristics.
“Tween”stores like Abercrombie Kids had the highest
proportion of sexualizing clothing. The findings are
discussed within the framework of the development of
self-objectification.
Keywords Self-objectification .Clothing .Gender roles .
Femininity .Sex object .Sexy .Content analysis
Introduction
In December of 2007, under pressure from outraged parents
and activists, Walmart pulled a pair of pink girls’underwear
off the shelves of its junior section, because the underwear
had the words “Who needs credit cards…”printed across
the front and “When you’ve got Santa”printed across the
back (“Walmart yanks,”2007). In 2002, Abercrombie Kids
refused to stop selling thong underwear in children’s sizes
with “wink wink”and “eye candy”printed across the front.
The company’s statement in response to protest and
criticism asserted that “the underwear for young girls was
created with the intent to be lighthearted and cute”
(“Abercrombie’s sexy undies,”2002). Currently, Abercrom-
bie Kids is still selling “cute butt sweatpants”and “skinny”
jeans that are “fitted with a little stretch for a sexy look to
give you the perfect butt”(A&f girls 2010).
Such examples illustrate the increasingly “sexy”nature
of the clothing that is marketed to and worn by young girls
in the US. The American Psychological Association (APA)
Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (APA 2007) places
these examples in the context of a wider trend in US culture
in which girls are increasingly confronted with sexualized
material. Research has demonstrated the pervasiveness of
the sexual objectification of women and its negative effects
(e.g., Moradi and Huang 2008), but additional research is
needed to understand the pressures of objectification on
S. M. Goodin :A. Van Denburg :S. K. Murnen :L. Smolak
Kenyon College,
Gambier, OH, USA
S. K. Murnen (*)
Psychology Department, Kenyon College,
Gambier, OH 43022, USA
e-mail: Murnen@kenyon.edu
Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12
DOI 10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8
girls that might affect their development. Objectification
theory (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997)proposesthat
repeated exposure to objectifying experiences leads to
self-objectification, in which girls or women internalize
societal messages that sexually objectify them and others—
leading them to view their own bodies as objects to be
evaluated according to narrow standards of attractiveness.
Although research into the self-objectification of girls is
still in its early stages, evidence of self-objectification has
been found in girls as young as 11 (Lindberg et al. 2006). In
response to the APA Task Force Report (2007), the
present study considers girls’clothing as a potential
socializing influence that contributes to the cultural
objectification of pre-teen girls. This content analysis
examines the pervasiveness and nature of the sexualization
of girls’clothing sold on the websites of 15 popular stores
in the US, analyzing the clothing according to type of
store, type of clothing item, and any sexualizing and/or
childlike characteristics.
Sexual Objectification of Women
According to the APA Task Force Report (2007), girls in
the US are exposed to both implicit and explicit messages
from parents, role models, peers, and the media that
promote a limited image of women focused on sexual
attractiveness. The body ideal promoted for women in
Western cultures is unrealistically thin and increasingly
“sexy.”About one-half of advertisements in a variety of
magazines were found to depict women as sex objects
(Stankiewicz and Rosselli 2008), and the sexualization of
women in advertisements increased significantly between
1983 and 2003 (Reichert and Carpenter 2004). Peter and
Valkenburg (2007) concluded that there is increased sexual
content in the media, particularly with the advent of the
internet. Pornographic pages on the internet increased by
1,800% between 1998 and 2004 (Paul 2005), and even in
mainstream advertisements and media, women are shown
as adopting a “pornified”sexuality. For example, beauty
practices that used to be portrayed only in pornography are
now appearing in popular culture, such as thong underwear
and stiletto heels.
It is believed that this thin, sexy image is also being
transmitted to girls. Numerous studies cited by the APA
Task Force Report (2007) examined the sexual objectifica-
tion of women in video games, television shows, mag-
azines, music, and movies that are readily available to
children and teenagers. For example, in magazines aimed at
adolescent girls, there is a dominant focus on the
importance of females attracting males by their physical
appearance (e.g., Ward 2003). In addition, peer conversa-
tions, modeling, and teasing have been found to shape
views about appearance, reinforce the thin ideal, and
contribute to body dissatisfaction in girls aged nine and
older (Clark and Tiggeman 2007; Dohnt and Tiggemann
2005). Parents’modeling and comments about their child-
ren’s appearance or weight can also have similar effects,
according to a study by McCabe et al. (2007)with
preschool children, in which some of the children expressed
concerns about losing weight.
Development and Effects of Self-Objectification
Cultivation theory (Gerbner et al. 1994) asserts that
exposure to repeated themes and images over time leads a
person to assimilate these themes into their view of the
world. Accordingly, exposure to sexually-objectifying
media has been linked with self-objectification, body
surveillance, body shame, and anxiety over appearance
(e.g., Grabe et al. 2008; Monro and Huon 2005), as well as
with an acceptance of the normative belief that women are
sexual objects (Peter and Valkenburg 2007; Ward 2002;
Ward and Friedman 2006). In their study with seventh-
grade girls, Grabe and Hyde (2009) found that exposure to
music television videos (MTV), with their highly sexual-
ized portrayals of women, was directly associated with self-
objectification. In girls aged 6–12, various studies have
found that exposure to media, particularly television,
predicts appearance-related concerns, dieting awareness,
and body dissatisfaction (e.g., Dohnt and Tiggemann 2006;
Harrison and Hefner 2006). Further, it has been argued that
pre-teens are particularly vulnerable to this barrage of
society’s messages because they are in the process of
developing identities (Strasburger and Wilson 2002). At a
time when self-esteem can be fragile, girls might be drawn
toward certain sexualized roles that seem to promise
popularity, attractiveness, maturity, power, and social
acceptance (APA Task Force 2007).
As girls begin to think and act according to the
images they have seen and the messages they have
received on a daily basis that promote the sexualization
of women and girls, they begin to participate in their
own objectification: they begin to monitor their own
bodies according to narrow societal standards of femi-
nine physical attractiveness (Fredrickson and Roberts
1997; McKinley and Hyde 1996). Scores on measures of
self-objectification indicate that some fifth-grade girls in
the US, regardless of race, have already begun to self-
objectify (Lindberg, et al. 2006; Harrison and Fredrickson
2003). Fifth-grade girls were the youngest tested in these
studies, but additional studies have found that girls as
young as age six are critical of their bodies, expressing
body dissatisfaction and interest in dieting (Dohnt and
Tiggemann 2006; Flannery-Schroeder and Chrisler 1996;
Smolak and Levine 1994,2001; Tanofsky-Kraff et al.
2004;TrubyandPaxton2002).
2 Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12
Several studies have found evidence for the negative
effects of self-objectification on girls, although most
research in this area has focused on adolescent girls or
women. In girls aged ten and older, self-objectification
has been associated with increased body shame and
dieting behaviors (Lindberg et al. 2006), as well as with
anxiety, disordered eating, and depression (Harrison and
Fredrickson 2003). Self-objectification—with its height-
ened consciousness of one’s own body—mayalsocon-
strain girls’physical movements and impair motor
performance; in a study by Fredrickson and Harrison
(2005) with girls aged 10–17,girlswhoscoredhigherona
measure of self-objectification threw a softball less
effectively and with a more restricted range of motion.
In girls aged 13, self-objectification was found to be
directly related to body dissatisfaction, dieting, anxiety,
depressive symptoms, and decreased confidence in math
ability (Grabe and Hyde 2009). Many studies have found
similar results with women and older adolescent girls, as
well as evidence for heightened risk of eating disorders,
sexual dysfunction, depression, and low self-esteem
among women who self-objectify (see Moradi and Huang
2008,orTiggemann2001, for a comprehensive review).
Additional studies with young women have found that self-
objectification may also disrupt cognitive functioning, as
chronic attention to physical appearance reduces cognitive
resources for other tasks (Fredrickson et al. 1998; Gapinski et
al. 2003;Hebletal.2004). Considering the harmful effects
of self-objectification, it is important to examine its
development in girls and to address possible societal
influences that might promote the objectification of girls.
Clothing as a Socializing Influence for Self-Objectification
We propose that clothing can function as an additional way
to socialize girls into a sexually objectified role. Previous
research on clothing suggests that it can function to help an
individual express identity related to gender, age, and social
class (Kaiser et al. 2001). In a recent study of adult women,
it was found that clothing choice helped women negotiate
feelings of self-confidence (Tiggemann and Lacey 2009).
Starting in the 1950s specific clothing items were devel-
oped for girls who were not yet teens (Cook and Kaiser
2004). This “subteen”group of the 1950s was renamed
“tween”by the 1990s in the fashion industry, and clothing
was marketed specifically to this group (as were new media
sources such as Nickelodeon,Teen People, and Cosmo
Girl). As George (2007) argued, marketers cater to tween
girls’vulnerabilities and desire to emulate older girls, and
so the clothing sold to younger girls has become more
mature—and more sexualizing. The sexualization of wom-
en in the culture has trickled down to some of the clothing
for pre-teens, leading girls to confront the issue of sexual
identity at a young age. According to Cook and Kaiser
(2004), “Whether any particular tween girl embraces it,
retreats from it or wavers somewhere in between, overt
sexuality is a mode of self-presentation against (or within)
which every female has to position herself”(p. 222).
While it is unclear to what extent clothing for girls is
sexualizing, there is evidence that it is gender stereotyped.
For example, a content analysis of children’s Halloween
costumes (Nelson 2000) found few gender-neutral cos-
tumes (9% of all costumes), and costumes for girls covered
a relatively small range of roles. While many boys’
costumes emphasized heroes’supernatural powers or skills,
many girls’costumes exemplified the traditional model of
feminine passive beauty: 16% of girls’costumes examined
were Princesses, 12% were Beauty Queens, and 4% were
Brides. In addition, fewer villain costumes were available to
girls, and instead of being threatening or gruesome, many
of these costumes emphasized the cute or erotic nature of
the would-be villain. Nearly all clothing has culturally-
coded gender markers, and clothing is one of the most
significant indications of gender identity, even for very
young children (Barnes and Eicher 1992; Pomerleau et al.
1990). As such, it is important to consider what kind of
gender identities are being offered to girls in the selection
of clothing that is available to them.
Merskin (2004) discussed the fashion and advertising
industries’use of the infantilized, sexualized female model,
in which the line between girls and women has become
blurred. Adolescent-looking women are shown in provoc-
ative clothing or poses, while mature women are dressed or
made up to look like young girls. Simulated innocence,
vulnerability, and an element of the forbidden are mixed
with sexual availability and willingness to create a woman-
girl hybrid that is intended to elicit a man’s gaze,
fascination, and desire in order to sell a product. Consid-
ering the prevalence of this sexually objectified woman-girl
in fashion and advertising as well as in pornography, it is of
concern that mainstream girls’clothing may be following
this trend as well. While there is anecdotal evidence to
indicate that girls’clothing can indeed be sexualizing, with
this content analysis, we carefully examined the prevalence
and nature of this phenomenon.
Present Study
Content analysis is a procedure that gained popularity
starting in the early 1900’s, and has been used in a variety
of different fields including psychology (Rudy et al. 2010).
In this procedure, “specific message characteristics are
systematically and objectively identified, with the purpose
of making inferences about the contexts, causes, and effects
of these messages,”(Rudy et al. 2010, pp. 705–706). It has
been a particularly useful tool to examine gender role-
Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12 3
related portrayals, and in that realm there has been much
analysis of the media but relatively little of other cultural
phenomena (Rudy et al. 2010).
The present study adds to the body of content analysis
literature by examining the degree and nature of
sexualization in girls’clothing. It was expected that
there would be sexualization evident in some clothing
items available to girls, but that sexualization would not
be widespread or as obvious as in some of the examples
provided by Abercrombie. Instead, based on findings in
our pilot study, it was anticipated that much of the
clothing with sexualizing characteristics would also have
childlike characteristics. This might allow marketers,
parents, or girls to make the argument that the clothing
was not really sexualizing but “lighthearted and cute,”as
Abercrombie Kids tried to do with its pink polka-dotted
“eye candy”underwear (“Abercrombie’s sexy undies,”
2002). Further, it was expected that sexualized clothing
would be more prevalent in particular stores and among
particular clothing items. For example, “tween”stores
should be most likely to market sexualized clothing since
they represent places where girls can “try on”the identity
of a young woman. With respect to particular clothing
items, Jeffreys (2005) argues that female clothing items
function to show both women’s difference from men and
their deference to them, as sexual objects to men’sdesires.
For example, a professional man might be expected to
wear a suit that disguises his underlying body shape while
aprofessionalwomanmightbeexpectedtowearamore
form-fitting suit with a skirt that shows her legs and is
accompanied by high-heeled shoes. Given this signaling
function of clothing, we predicted that clothing items such
as bras and dresses would be more likely to be sexualizing
since they are associated distinctly with women.
Hypotheses
The major purpose of the study was to examine the
prevalence of sexualized clothing among the stores. While
most of the clothing items were expected to be child-like, it
was expected that there would be some clothing items that
mixed childlike and sexualizing characteristics and a much
smaller proportion with only sexualizing characteristics.
Two specific hypotheses were tested. 1) The proportion of
sexualizing clothing versus childlike clothing was expected
to vary by store type, such that “tween”stores would have
the highest proportion of sexualizing clothing and child-
ren’s stores the lowest. 2) The proportion of sexualizing
clothing would also vary by clothing item, with clothing
items that serve to differentiate between women and men
(e.g., bras and dresses) more likely to have sexualizing
characteristics than items not distinctive to women (e.g.,
jeans and tops).
Method
Stores Coded
In the present study, girls’clothing on the websites of 15
popular national stores in the US was examined for
evidence of “sexualization.”The stores were selected so
as to represent a wide variety of types of stores. The stores
were grouped into categories by a research team of
undergraduate students and a faculty member (the third
author) based on experiences and impressions of the stores
that were validated by certain store characteristics. First,
department stores that sell clothing as well as other goods
were split into three different groupings based on the social
class that they target. The category of high-end department
stores included Saks,Neiman Marcus, and Nordstrom,
which have higher-priced clothing items. The category of
general department stores included Kohl’sand J.C. Penney,
which are geared towards middle-class consumers. The
category of bargain/discount department stores included
Kmart, Target, and Walmart. Stores that sell only clothing
and other fashion items were grouped into one of three
categories: children’s stores that have no adult equivalent
store, including Children’s Place and Gymboree;“tween”
stores that are limited to pre-teen and teen clothing,
including Aeropostale P.S., Abercrombie Kids, and Justice;
and stores that sell children’s clothing along with clothing
for teens and young adults in the same store, including Old
Navy and Gap Kids, which were labeled specialty stores.
The younger children’s stores had girls’clothing items
from sizes 4 to 16, as did the bargain department stores. Old
Navy girls’clothing started at size five, Justice started at
six, and the remaining stores started at size seven, except
for Abercrombie Kids which started at size eight. Generally
the largest clothing size was 14 or 16, except at Justice
where it was 20. It was not possible to completely control
for the size of the clothing in the analysis given variability
across the stores. However, these clothing sizes are all
intended for children. Adolescent girls will typically wear
“junior”sizes.
Coding Strategy
Over a period of 10 days in June, 2010, color pictures were
printed of every clothing item on each store’s website. The
very small number of items on the sites that could not be
classified as bras, dresses, shirts, shorts, skirts, swimsuits,
tops, pants, or underwear was excluded. All other items
were counted and then examined for both sexualizing and
childlike characteristics.
While previous content analyses have coded media
images of women as sexual objects and have occasionally
included clothing as one part of their overall coding system,
4 Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12
they typically did not analyze the clothing in depth. For
instance, one study simply asked coders to rate clothing
worn by female video game characters in terms of its
“revealing nature”and “sexiness,”with minimal definition
given (Miller and Summers 2007). Another study asked
raters to code for the presence (yes or no) of “sexually
revealing clothing,”defined as: “any garment that was worn
in order to enhance, exaggerate, call attention to, or
accentuate the curves or angles of any part of the body…
and which, by design, would arouse interest of physical
intimacy from others”(Downs and Smith 2010). We found
no similar studies that examined children’s clothing and
only one study that focused on creating a specific coding
system for sexualizing clothing. White (1995) developed a
content analysis technique to measure the sexiness of
women’s business clothing, providing scores for entire
outfits worn by TV show characters. Her system focused
primarily on how “revealing”each item was, either in terms
of “absence”of clothing (via neckline or length) or
“tightness”of clothing. She also coded red or black
clothing as sexualizing, which we do as well. While our
coding system incorporates the other studies’common
focus on revealing clothing as sexualizing, it also details
additional ways that a clothing item can be sexualizing. The
present coding system was informed by previous research,
but developed further through observation and discussion
over a period of several months by the research team. Each
group member examined many clothing items and brought
them up for discussion to develop a common coding system
that was piloted and then refined further. The first and third
authors operationalized the final coding system based on
this work.
An item of clothing was coded as sexualizing if it (a)
revealed a sexualized body part, (b) emphasized a sexual-
ized body part, (c) had characteristics associated with
sexiness, and/or (d) had writing on it with sexualizing
content. Sexualized body parts included the chest, waist,
buttocks, and legs. For example, bikini swim suits were
coded as revealing, since they exposed the waist and
frequently part of the chest, and they were also coded as
emphasizing if they clearly outlined each breast with
triangular pieces of fabric. Back pants pockets that were
highly decorated (e.g. with writing, sequins, butterflies,
etc.) were coded as emphasizing, since they drew the eye’s
attention to the buttocks. Clothing items that were made of
slinky lingerie-like material (especially if red, magenta, or
black) or that featured leopard or zebra print were coded as
having characteristics associated with sexiness. Similarly, a
top that said “juicy”across the chest or a pair of underwear
with “who needs credit cards?”printed on the front would
be coded as having sexualizing writing.
Clothing could also be coded as childlike in print/color/
pattern and/or in cut. For example, a top with a butterfly
print design in pastel colors would be considered to have a
childlike print. Likewise, a dress with frills on the bottom
hem or a large decorative bow in front would be classified
as having a childlike cut, as would a spaghetti-strap tank
top that was attached to a white shirt layered underneath. It
was also possible for one clothing item to have both
sexualizing and childlike characteristics, such as a mini-
skirt that had zebra print in tie-dye colors, or a low-cut
dress with spaghetti straps that also had ballerina-like frills
on the skirt.
After determining if a clothing item had sexualizing and/
or childlike characteristics, clothing items were categorized
into one of four categories. Clothing items that had at least
one childlike characteristic and no sexualizing character-
istics were coded as “childlike”(CH). Clothing items that
had only sexualizing characteristics were coded as “defi-
nitely sexualizing”(DS), while those that had both
sexualizing and childlike characteristics were coded as
“ambiguously sexualizing”(AS). Some clothing items had
no childlike characteristic but were also not sexualizing,
and these were coded as “adultlike”(AD). An example of
such an item would be a grey shirt-waist dress.
Validity of the Coding System
In order to test the validity of the coding system, a small
study was conducted in which college students (N=31
women and seven men) in statistics and research methods
classes rated the degree of sexiness of nine different
clothing items, using a scale where 1 = not at all sexy and
7=very sexy. They rated three bathing suits, three dresses,
and three shirts, presented in a random order to them in
small groups over a computer screen. For each type of
clothing, a childlike (CH) item was presented, an ambigu-
ously sexualizing (AS) item, and a definitely sexualizing
(DS) item. The participants were told that these were
clothing items available for girls up to size 14 (age 14). A
one-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by Tukey’s
HSD test (p<.05) compared the ratings of the three types of
shirts, and there was a significant difference with the CH
shirt judged the least sexy (M=2.29, SD= 1.18) compared
to either the AS shirt (M=3.55, SD = 1.18) or the DS shirt
(M=3.97, SD=1.10), F(2,74)= 29.89, p< .001, which were
not judged different from one another. A similar pattern
emerged for the dresses, with the CH dress judged less sexy
(M=2.84, SD=1.20) then either the AS dress (M= 4.03,
SD=1.20) or the DS dress (M= 4.26, SD = 1.31), F(2,74) =
22.24, p<.001, which were not judged different from one
another. Finally, for the bathing suits the pattern was the
same with M=2.76, SD=1.46 for the CH bathing suit, M=
5.42, SD=1.38 for the AS bathing suit, and M= 5.79, SD =
1.38 for the DS bathing suit. This was a significant
difference, F(2,74)=117.75, p<.001, and the Tukey’s test
Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12 5
showed that the AS and the DS bathing suits were both
judged sexier than the CH bathing suit.
Reliability of the Coding System
Initially, one trained coder (the first author) completed the
coding for every item in every store. Then, inter-rater
reliability for the coding system was checked on two levels:
the decision about whether the item contained a sexualizing
characteristic, and then into which of the four categories an
item should be placed. A second trained coder (the third
author) looked at the pictures of all the clothing items to
note whether each had any sexualizing characteristics, and
agreement with the first coder was very high at 98%. (A
research group was consulted to resolve the few disagree-
ments.) Similarly, the second trained coder classified items
from six of the 15 stores to determine categorization, and
there was agreement of 95% on the final coding of each
clothing item. All disagreements involved differentiating
between DS and AS categories, and in such cases the more
conservative choice was chosen (AS instead of DS).
Results
Prevalence and Nature of Sexualizing Clothing
A total of 5,666 clothing items were examined. Across all
stores, 226 clothing items were coded as DS (4%). Of these
226 clothing items, 172 (75.8%) revealed sexualized body
parts, 105 (46.3%) emphasized sexualized body parts, 17
(7.5%) had characteristics associated with sexiness, and 1
(.4%) had sexy writing (note that these are not mutually
exclusive categories). Similarly, of the 1,440 AS clothing
items coded, 785 (54.5%) revealed sexualized body parts,
1018 (70.7%) emphasized sexualized body parts, 104
(7.2%) had characteristics associated with sexiness, and
27 (1.9%) had sexualized writing. The total number of AD
items found was quite small at 83. Thus, while there was
evidence of sexualization in girls’clothing it represented a
minority of the clothing items available for girls.
Of all the clothing items coded as having sexualizing
characteristics, the overwhelming majority (86.4%) had
childlike characteristics as well and were thus classified as
ambiguously sexualizing. These results were consistent
across almost all stores, clothing types, and store types.
The only exceptions were Abercrombie Kids and the pants
clothing category, both of which had more DS items than
AS items. In particular, at Children’s Place, Gymboree,
Kmart, and Justice, more than 95% of the items with
sexualizing characteristics also had childlike characteristics.
Of the clothing types examined, underwear, swimsuits, and
dresses had childlike characteristics present in at least 90%
of the items with sexualizing characteristics. Finally, at
children’s stores, bargain department stores, and higher-end
department stores, more than 97% of all clothing with
sexualizing characteristics also had childlike characteristics.
Hypothesis 1: Frequency of Sexualizing Clothing by Store
Type
A chi-square analysis was conducted to see if the frequency
of the four clothing categories varied by store type. The
number and percent of items classified in each clothing
categorization by store type are shown in Table 1. The chi-
square was statistically significant, X
2
(15)=519.48, p<.001,
indicating an association between the variables that resulted
in the following patterns: 1) high-end department stores had
relatively more AD clothing compared to other store types;
2) tween stores had relatively more DS clothing and fewer
CH clothing items than other types of stores; and 3) both
bargain and children’s stores had relatively fewer DS items
than other stores. Across all of the store types, tween stores
had the most DS items at 10.4%, while children’s stores had
the least with no items coded as DS. Although AD clothing
items were rarely found in most stores, they comprised
7.7% of the items at high-end department stores.
Next we examined the association between the actual
store and the categorization of the clothing items, and this
chi-square was also statistically significant, X
2
(42)=
1630.74, p<.01. These data are presented in Table 2.
Abercrombie Kids had relatively more DS clothing items
than other stores (44% at Abercrombie Kids versus 4%
overall). Further, if the DS and AS clothing items are added
Table 1 Percent and count of clothing items by categorization by type
of store
Type store Clothing categorization
CH DS AS AD Total
Bargain Dept Count 1209 24 446 1 1680
Stores Row% 72.0 .1 26.5 0
Children’s Count 464 0 104 0 568
Stores Row% 81.7 0 18.3 0
General dept Count 529 19 191 1 740
Stores Row% 71.5 2.6 25.8 .1
Higher-end Count 482 52 175 59 768
Dept stores Row% 62.8 .7 22.8 7.7
Specialty Count 778 20 236 1 1035
Stores Row% 74.7 2.1 23.1 .1
“Tween”Count 455 111 288 21 875
Stores Row% 57.0 10.4 30.7 1.9
Total Count 3917 226 0 83 5666
Row% 69.1 4.0 25.4 1.5
Categorization labels: CH childlike, DS definitely sexualizing, AS
ambiguously sexualizing, AD adultlike
6 Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12
together, they represent 72% of Abercrombie Kids’cloth-
ing. Several stores had more than one-third of their items
coded as either DS or AS, including Neiman Marcus
(38%), Nordstrom (37.7%), Justice (36.4%) and Kmart
(34%). On the other hand, at Children’s Place only 10.2%
of the items had sexualizing characteristics. Saks has
relatively more AD clothing items than other stores, with
10.4% of clothing items categorized as AD.
Hypothesis 2: Frequency of Sexualizing Clothing
by Clothing Item
A chi-square test of association examined the association
between type of clothing and clothing categorization, and
there was a significant association, X
2
(24)=113.5, p<.01.
These data are shown in Table 3. The highest percent of DS
items was found for bras (9.1%) and pants (9.1%), and
there were no underwear categorized as DS. For AS items,
the highest percent occurred among swimsuits (64.1%) and
dresses (51.5%); the lowest percent was found for pants
(8.2%) and underwear (14.2%). Adding together the
frequency of AS and DS items, more than one-half of
dresses (56.2%) and swimsuits (67.1%) had sexualizing
characteristics and almost one half of bras (44.7%) had
such characteristics. The clothing items least likely to have
sexualizing characteristics included tops (18.1%), pants
(17.3%), and underwear (14.2%). Thus, as hypothesized,
clothing items distinctively associated with females were
more likely to have sexualizing characteristics.
Discussion
Prevalence and Nature of Sexualizing Clothing
In this study we found evidence for a substantial, if not
overwhelming, presence of sexualization in girls’clothing.
A considerable percent (29.4%) of all the clothing items
examined had sexualizing characteristics. Most of the
sexualization in the clothing we examined was not as
blatant as it was in the underwear with “Who needs credit
cards…”written on the front, but we did find “cute butt
Table 2 Percent and count of clothing items by categorization by
store
Store name Clothing categorization
CH DS AS AD Total
Abercrombie kids Count 42 99 63 21 225
Row% 18.7 44.0 28.0 9.3
Aeropostale P.S. Count 167 3 47 0 217
Row% 77.0 1.4 21.7 0
Children’s place Count 245 0 79 0 324
Row% 75.6 0 24.4 0
Gap kids Count 224 6 82 1 313
Row% 71.6 1.9 26.2 .3
Gymboree Count 219 0 25 0 244
Row% 89.8 0 10.2 0
J. C. Penny Count 139 11 50 0 200
Row% 69.5 5.5 25.0 0
Justice Count 413 12 225 0 650
Row% 63.5 1.8 34.6 0
Kmart Count 455 5 230 1 691
Row% 65.8 .7 33.3 .1
Kohl’s Count 390 8 141 1 540
Row% 72.2 1.5 26.1 .2
Neiman Marcus Count 45 6 24 4 79
Row% 57.0 7.6 30.4 5.1
Nordstrom Count 149 19 77 10 255
Row% 58.4 7.5 30.2 3.9
Old navy Count 387 11 107 0 505
Row% 76.6 2.2 21.2 0
Saks Count 288 27 74 45 434
Row% 66.4 6.2 17.1 10.4
Target Count 555 14 133 0 702
Row% 79.1 2.0 18.9 0
Walmart Count 199 5 83 0 287
Row% 69.3 1.7 28.9 0
Total Count 3917 226 1440 83 5666
Row% 69.1 4.0 25.4 1.5
Categorization labels: CH childlike, DS definitely sexualizing, AS
ambiguously sexualizing, AD adultlike
Table 3 Percent and count of clothing items by clothing categoriza-
tion and type of clothing
Clothing type Clothing categorization
CH DS AS AD Total
Bras Count 115 19 74 0 208
Row% 55.3 9.1 35.6 0
Dresses Count 294 35 384 33 746
Row% 39.4 4.7 51.5 4.4
Pants Count 548 61 55 3 667
Row% 82.2 9.1 8.2 .4
Shorts Count 608 36 152 0 796
Row% 76.4 4.5 19.1 0
Skirts Count 169 20 43 3 235
Row% 71.9 8.5 18.3 1.3
Swimsuits Count 167 15 325 0 507
Row% 32.9 3.0 64.1 0
Tops Count 1894 41 387 44 2366
Row% 80.1 1.7 16.4 1.8
Underwear Count 121 0 20 0 141
Row% 85.8 0 14.2 0
Total Count 3916 227 1440 83 5666
Row% 69.1 4.0 25.4 1.5
Categorization labels: CH childlike, DS definitely sexualizing, AS
ambiguously sexualizing, AD adultlike
Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12 7
sweatpants,”thong-like underwear, push-up bras designed
to create the look of breasts, leopard-print miniskirts, tiny
string bikinis, ultra-short shorts, and other similar items.
Sexualization most often occurred through clothing that
emphasized a sexualized body part, such as shirts and
dresses that were cut in such a way to create the look of
breasts or pants pockets that called attention to the buttocks.
The next most frequent form of sexualization was through
revealing sexualized body parts, as do low cut shirts and
bikini bathing suits.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 concerned the variability in
sexualized clothing by type of store and type of clothing.
It was found that the type of store was associated with the
degree of sexualization such that tween stores were more
likely to have sexualizing clothing, especially compared to
children’s stores. Abercrombie Kids, in particular, had the
highest percent of sexualized clothing items, which is
consistent with the media attention they have received.
However, the tween stores were also more likely to start
their clothing at larger sizes compared to children’s stores,
so it is not likely that very young girls are exposed to the
most sexualized clothing which can be found in a tween
store. For the second hypothesis, it was found that the type
of clothing affected the amount of sexualization that
occurred: swimsuits were the most likely to have sexualiz-
ing characteristics, followedbydresses.Sincethese
clothing items help differentiate between women and men,
it is perhaps not surprising that these items had more
sexualizing characteristics than jeans or tops, which are
commonly worn by both girls and boys. Jeffreys (2005) has
indicated that clothing is often used to show women and
men as different, and to portray women as sexual objects.
Also as predicted, the vast majority (86.4%) of clothing
with sexualizing characteristics also had childlike character-
istics. The considerable presence of clothing that mixed
both sexualizing and childlike characteristics was found
across almost all of the stores studied and may be relatively
unique to girls’clothing. However in the existing literature,
we were unable to find specific articulation, discussion, or
study of this facet of girls’clothing. The current study
presents the “ambiguously sexualizing”category as a new
way to classify and evaluate girls’clothing in regards to
sexualization.
We suggest that the co-occurrence of sexualizing and
childlike characteristics makes the sexualization present in
girls’clothing more covert and complicated. Conflicted
parents might be persuaded to buy the leopard-print
miniskirt if it was in a bright pink color or if it was tie-
dyed. Advertisers have tried to use this ambiguity to argue,
as Abercrombie did, that any “misrepresentation”of their
pink “wink wink”underwear was merely “in the eye of the
beholder”(A&F girls 2010). Similarly, Ooh! La, La!
Couture, a high-end girls’clothing store, has been criticized
for selling clothing that “has been likened to adult lingerie,”
particularly a leopard-print dress with a ballerina miniskirt
trimmed with pink and black lace (“Disney child,”2010).
The store argues that these critics have “grossly misin-
formed the public”and advertises their collection as “fun
and funky, yet sweet and girly”(Ooh! La, La! Courture
2010).
However, our validity study challenges such marketers’
claims: raters made no significant distinction between the
ambiguously sexualizing items and the definitely sexualiz-
ing items in rating them for sexiness. Further studies are
needed to investigate how parents and others perceive
ambiguously sexualizing clothes. Nevertheless, even if
“ambiguously sexualizing”clothes are not rated differently
from clothes with only sexualizing characteristics, their
presence is still of great importance for understanding
cultural conceptions and portrayals of girls’sexuality.
Sexuality has trickled down from women’s clothing to
mix with tutus and pastels, and the boundary between girls
and women has become blurred and sexualized. Our results
suggest that the trappings of sexiness are still visible
beneath the bows or tie-dye colors, and we propose that
dressing girls in this way could contribute to socializing
them into the narrow role of the sexually-objectified
woman.
Clothing and the Development of Self-Objectification
Since clothing is ubiquitous—on peers, on role models, on
TV, in the stores, and on the girls themselves—it has the
potential to function as an important socializing influence.
Clothing has a unique role in our society as an indicator of
identity and social status (Kaiser et al. 2001). In advertising
and the media, clothing has become closely tied to
attractiveness, popularity, and maturity. “Clothes make the
girl, or so girls are led to believe, especially as they move
into their preteen years. Clothing stores play to any nascent
insecurity a girl may have about herself…luring girls with
promises of being unique, being noticed, and fitting in”
(Lamb and Brown 2006,pp.26–37). Advertisers and
clothing manufacturers have begun to target “tweens”
(pre-adolescents) as potential consumers with increasing
buying power (Lamb and Brown 2006). A number of
studies have shown that buying certain clothing, particu-
larly with popular brand names, is especially important to
tweens who want to “fit in”(e.g., Simpson et al. 1998).
While many girls have yet to develop a stable identity,
clothing may provide an opportunity to “try on”new roles
that have been held up as “cool”or desirable for girls and
women (APA Task Force 2007).
Various studies have indicated that sexualizing clothing
can influence how a woman is viewed by others, as well as
how she thinks of herself and even acts. Women in
8 Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12
provocative clothing have been rated by observers as more
flirtatious, seductive, promiscuous, and sexually experi-
enced—and as less strong, determined, intelligent, and self-
respecting (Gurung and Chrouser 2007; Koukounas and
Letch 2001). Furthermore, seeing oneself in the mirror
dressed according to a certain role may affect one’s actions
and thoughts about herself. This was vividly demonstrated
in a study by Fredrickson et al. (1998), in which college
students were asked to try on either a sweater or a swimsuit
in front of a full-length mirror and then take a math test
while wearing the swimsuit/sweater. The young women
wearing swimsuits performed significantly worse on the
math test than did the women wearing sweaters. In
addition, among these young women, body shame and
restrained eating were associated with higher scores on a
measure of self-objectification as a consistent trait. Other
studies found similar results with African-American, Lati-
na, and Asian-American young women and with tests in
logical reasoning and spatial skills (Hebl et al. 2004;
Gapinski et al. 2003).
Girls as young as six or ten are unlikely to understand
the full implications and possible disadvantages of “sexi-
ness,”and so cannot make fully-informed decisions about
wearing clothing that hints at sexuality. They may see the
rewards of wearing certain clothing—popularity, accep-
tance, feeling more mature—but they may be unable to
understand the disadvantages of the role that these clothes
represent. Girls may receive the message that sexiness is
empowering, but rarely do girls learn about the potentially
disempowering aspects of the sex object role (Murnen and
Smolak 2011). Before girls are able to understand exactly
what is happening, they may already be acting out or trying
to live up to the role of the self-objectifying woman who
agonizes over her body and her appearance in order to
attract men (Smolak and Murnen 2011). They may have
learned to evaluate and criticize their own bodies according
to narrow standards of sexualized attractiveness, leaving
them vulnerable to the host of negative effects that are
associated with self-objectification (e.g., Lindberg et al.
2006; Harrison and Fredrickson 2003, Fredrickson and
Harrison 2005).
Limitations and Future Directions
As a content analysis, this study is meant to inform and
provide context for further investigation about the process
and effects of self-objectification in young girls. Our results
can be used to suggest clothing as a possible influence on
girls that may lead to self-objectification, as well as to
highlight directions for further research in this area. While
our study focused solely on clothing available in store
websites, future studies might be able to focus directly on
the consumers—the girls themselves and their parents. In
particular, investigating girls’attitudes towards sexualizing
clothing would provide a more accurate picture about how
(if) clothing fits into the process of socializing girls towards
self-objectification. Is sexualizing clothing perceived as
“cool”and “pretty,”or is it just the norm? Do girls notice
that anything is different about it? How do they feel when
wearing it? What/who influences what clothes they wear?
And even if such clothing items are available in many
stores, do most girls actually like and wear them? Similarly,
it would be interesting to explore parents’reactions to
clothing with sexualizing characteristics. Do parents think
the clothes are inappropriate at all, and if so, why do they
buy them? Do they run into conflicts with their children
over clothing? What limits do they set on what their child
can and cannot wear?
Although we suggest that the availability and consump-
tion of sexualizing clothing may contribute to the develop-
ment of self-objectification in girls, further research is
needed to test this hypothesis. Additional studies might
explore any socializing influences (TV, magazines, peers,
etc.) that precede or coincide with girls’preferences for
sexualizing clothing, as well as any evidence of self-
objectification (or its negative effects) that accompany or
follow. For example, do girls who prefer sexualizing
clothing also exhibit low self-esteem and experience body
shame? Do they have more limited views of their own
capabilities and future career goals? Do they spend more
time on appearance and less on other pursuits?
In addition, further research with diverse populations and
cultures is needed to examine the applicability of objecti-
fication theory as well as to examine the influence of
clothing on the development and maintenance of self-
objectification in women and girls. According to a meta-
analysis by Moradi and Huang (2008), most research into
objectification theory (and a substantial portion of the
research cited in this paper) has been done with white
college women of unspecified sexual orientation in the US,
Australia, or Britain. However, the process of self-
objectification as here conceptualized could be altered or
even eliminated by many factors that vary according to
culture or group, including: ideals of beauty and body
shape, communication and propagation of these ideals,
degree to which these ideals are internalized, and the power
of other cultural dialogues that conflict with or support
these ideals (e.g., government policy, religion, feminism,
etc.). Wide variations exist on clothing and its meaning,
both between and within cultures; for instance, the hijab
worn by some Muslim women has been differently
conceptualized as a sign of sexual objectification and as a
sign of freedom from sexual objectification (Afshar 2008).
Type of clothing and culture also appear to be associated
with adherence to ideals about women’sappearance:
Dunkel et al. (2010) found that younger Muslim-
Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12 9
American women who wore non-Western clothing and a
head veil were less likely to report pressure to attain the
Western thin ideal standard of beauty, as compared to
Muslim-American and non-Muslim women who wore
Western-style clothing. Beyond religion and ethnic status,
the influence of additional cultural variables, such as social-
economic status, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, and
age, must also be considered. Studies into the development
of self-objectification in diverse populations represent a
critical and promising field of inquiry.
Future studies might also improve upon shortcomings
of the current study. First, since this content analysis
only included summer clothing sold in June, it would be
interesting to see if results would be similar for winter
clothing, with fewer shorts and tank-tops being sold. In
addition, because store websites typically offered each
clothing item in their whole range of sizes available
(generally 4–14 or 7–16), it was not possible to compare
smaller and larger sizes of clothing. However, we did
make sure that clothing items came in smaller sizes (size
eight or less) as well before coding them as sexualizing,
particularly with items such as padded bras and bikini
swimming suits.
Examining the reliability and validity of the coding
system is also important. We established high reliability in
our coding, but not until after much study and training.
Although we label the clothing “sexualizing,”we do not
know that the clothing actually is perceived as such by most
observers. The perception of sexualization is very likely
context- and observer-specific. Even though we coded
bikinis as sexualizing, is the girl who wears them seen as
more “sexy”than the girl who wears a tankini? We could
not control for the size of clothing in our analysis, but it is
likely that clothing is perceived as more sexualizing on a
12-year-old compared to an eight-year old. We also debated
whether bras should be coded since they are not typically
seen by others besides the person wearing them. However,
girls’bras can create the look of breasts that aren’t there,
and there might be self-objectifying consequences of
wearing a bra even though it cannot be seen by others.
Other researchers interested in this topic might further study
and refine the coding system.
Conclusion
We propose that sexualizing girls’clothing is an important
socializing agent in which the social role of the objectified
female is perhaps innocuously presented, “put onto”girls,
associated with popularity and “coolness,”and then
eventually endorsed by the girls themselves. Clothing can
function as both a contributor to and a sign of the process
by which some girls begin to think and evaluate themselves
according to a narrow, sexualized model of feminine
attractiveness. Further research is needed to explore these
hypotheses. We hope that our data on the prevalence of
sexualization in girls’clothing as well as our coding system
will be useful for future studies that investigate the
development of self-objectification in young girls.
Acknowledgments Samantha M. Goodin is Kenyon College class
of ’10, Alyssa Van Denburg is Kenyon College class of ’12, Sarah K.
Murnen is a Professor of Psychology, and Linda Smolak is a Professor
Emerita.
The authors would like to thank Genevieve Davison, Elaine
Dicicco, James Dunckley, Nora Erickson, Kate Goldbaum, Jonela
Kolasi, Kate Von Culin and James Weeks for their assistance in data
collection.
References
A&f girls. (2010, June). Retrieved from http://www.abercrombiekids.
com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/division_10101_10851_12103_-1.
Abercrombie’s sexy undies “slip”. (2002, May 28). CNN Money.
Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/22/news/companies/
abercrombie/.
Afshar, H. (2008). Can I see your hair? Choice, agency, and attitudes:
The dilemma of faith and feminism for Muslim women who
cover. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31,411–427. doi:10.1080/
01419870701710930.
American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualiza-
tion of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the
Sexualization of Girls. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/
wpo/sexualization.html.
Barnes, R., & Eicher, J. B. (Eds.). (1992). Dress and gender: Making
and meaning in cultural contexts. New York: Berg.
Clark, L., & Tiggeman, M. (2007). Sociocultural influences and body
image in 9- to 12-year-old girls: The role of appearance schemas.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36,76–86.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3601_8.
Cook, D. T., & Kaiser, S. B. (2004). Betwixt and be tween: Age
ambiguity and the sexualization of the female consuming subject.
Journal of Consumer Culture, 4, 203–227. doi:10:1177/1469540
504043862.
Disney child star’s clothing line deemed too racy by some. (2010,
February 8). Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.
com/entertainment/2010/02/04/critics-slam-disney-child-stars-
clothing-line-racy/.
Dohnt, H. K., & Tiggemann, M. (2005). Peer influences on body
dissatisfaction and dieting awareness in young girls. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 103–116.
doi:10.1348/026151004X20658.
Dohnt, H., & Tiggemann, M. (2006). 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.
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.
Dunkel, T. M., Davidson, D., & Quarashi, S. (2010). Body satisfaction
and pressure to be thin in younger and older Muslim and non-
Muslim women: The role of Western and non-Western dress
preferences. Body Image, 7,56–65. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.
10.003.
10 Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12
Flannery-Schroeder, E. C., & Chrisler, J. C. (1996). Body esteem, eating
attitudes, and gender-role orientation in three age groups of children.
Current Psychology, 15,235–248. doi:10.1007/BF02686880.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (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.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Harrison, K. (2005). Throwing like a girl: Self-
objectification predicts adolescent girls’motor performance.
Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 29,79–101.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., 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:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.
Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., & LaFrance, M. (2003). Body
objectification and “fat talk”: Effects on emotion, motivation, and
cognitive performance. Sex Roles, 48, 377–388. doi:10.1023/
S:1023516209973.
George, L. (2007, January 1). Eight-year-olds in fishnets, padded
“bralettes”and thong panties: Welcome to the junior miss version
of raunch culture. Maclean’s,119 ,37–40.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994).
Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J.
Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory
and research (pp. 17–41). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
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.
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, 460–476. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460.
Gurung, R. A., & 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.
Harrison, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Women’s sports media,
self-objectification, and mental health in Black and White
adolescent females. The Journal of Communication, 53, 216–
232. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02587.x.
Harrison, K., & Hefner, V. (2006). Media exposure, current and future
body ideals, and disordered eating among preadolescent girls: A
longitudinal panel study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35,
155–163. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-9008-3.
Hebl, M. R., King, E. G., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us
all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322–1331.
doi:10.11777/0146167204264502.
Jeffreys, S. (2005). Beauty and misogyny: Harmful cultural practices
in the West. New York: Routledge.
Kaiser, S., Chandler, J., & Hammidi, T. (2001). Minding appearances
in female academic culture. In A. Guy, E. Green, & M. Bannin
(Eds.), Through the wardrobe (pp. 117–136). Oxford: Berg.
Koukounas, E., & Letch, N. M. (2001). Psychological correlates of
perception of sexual intent in women. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 141, 443–456. doi:10.1080/00224540109600564.
Lamb, S., & Brown, L. M. (2006). Packaging girlhood: Rescuing our
daughters from marketer’s schemes. New York: St Martin’s.
Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., & McKinley, N. M. (2006). A measure
of objectified body consciousness for preadolescent and adoles-
cent youth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 65–76.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00263.x.
McCabe, M. P., Ricciardelli, L. A., Stanford, J., Holt, K., Keegan, S.,
& Miller, L. (2007). Where is all the pressure coming from?
Messages from mothers and teachers about preschool children’s
appearance, diet and exercise. European Eating Disorders
Review, 15, 221–230.
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body
consciousness scale: Self-objectification, body shame, and
disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–
636. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x.
Merskin, D. (2004). Reviving Lolita? A media literacy examination of
sexual portrayals of girls in fashion advertising. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 48,119–128. doi:10.1177/0002764204267257.
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.
Monro, F., & Huon, G. (2005). Media-portrayed idealized images,
body shame, and appearance anxiety. The International Journal
of Eating Disorders, 38,85–90. doi:10.1002/eat.20153.
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.
Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2011).I’d rather be a famous fashion model
than a famous scientist: The rewards and costs of internalizing
sexualization. In E. Zurbriggen and T.A. Roberts (Eds.). The
sexualization of girls and girlhood. Oxford University Press.
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.
Ooh! La, La! Couture. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.oohlala
couture.com/about.shtml.
Paul, P. (2005). Pornified: How pornography is transforming our lives,
our relationships, and our families. New York: Times Books.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2007). Adolescents’exposure to a
sexualized media environment and their notions of women as sex
objects. Sex Roles, 56,381–395. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9176-y.
Pomerleau, A., Bolduc, D., Malcuit, C., & Cossette, C. (1990). Pink
or blue: Gender stereotypes in the first two years of life. Sex
Roles, 22, 359–367. doi:10.1007/BF00288339.
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.
Rudy, R. M., Popova, L., & Linz, D. G. (2010). The context of current
content analysis of gender roles: An introduction to a special
issue. Sex Roles, 62, 705–720. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9807-1.
Simpson, L., Douglas, S., & Schimmel, J. (1998). Tween
consumers: Catalog clothing purchase behavior. Adolescence,
33,637–645.
Smolak, L., & Levine, M. P. (1994). Critical issues in the
developmental psychopathology of eating disorders. In L.
Alexander-Mott & D. B. Lumsden (Eds.), Understanding eating
disorders: Anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and obesity
(pp. 37–60). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Smolak, L., & Levine, M. P. (2001). Body image in children. In J.
K. Thompson & L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image, eating
disorders, and obesity in youth: Assessment, prevention and
treatment (pp. 41–66). Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
Smolak, L., & Murnen, S. K. (2011). The sexualization of girls and
women as antecedents of objectification. In R. M. Calogero, S.
Tantleff-Dunn, & J. K. Thompson (Eds.), Self-objectification in
women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 53–75).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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.
Strasburger, V. C., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). Children, adolescents, and
the media. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12 11
Tanofsky-Kraff, M., Yanovski, S. Z., Wilfley, D. E., Marmarosh, C.,
Morgan, C. M., & Yanovski, J. A. (2004). Eating-disordered
behaviors, body fat, and psychopathology in overweight and
normal-weight children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 72,53–61. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.1.53.
Tiggemann, M. (2001). 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). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tiggemann, M., & Lacey, C. (2009). Shopping for clothes: Body
satisfaction, appearance investment, and functions of clothing
among female shoppers. Body Image, 6, 285–291. doi:10.1016/j.
bodyim.2009.07.002.
Truby, H., & Paxton, S. J. (2002). Development of the children’s body
image scale. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41,
185–203. doi:10.1348/014466507X251261.
Walmart yanks pink “credit card”panties off racks. (2007, December
12). FoxNews.com, Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/
story/0,2933,316580,00.html.
Ward, L. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’
attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correla-
tional and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth &
Adolescence, 31,1–15. doi:10.1023/A:1014068031532.
Ward, L. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in
the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of
empirical research. Developmental Review, 23,347–388.
doi:10.1016/S0273-2297(03)00013-3.
Ward, L. M., & Friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a guide:
Associations between television viewing and adolescents’sexual
attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16,
133–156. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00125.
White, S. E. (1995). A content analytic technique for measuring the
sexiness of women’s business attire in media presentations.
Communication Research Reports, 12, 178–185.
12 Sex Roles (2011) 65:1–12
