Abstract
We investigated the relationship of self-sexualization to self-objectification, weight concerns, self-efficacy, academic outcomes, and career aspirations among preadolescent girls. Participants were 89 six- to nine-year-old girls; parental reports were also obtained. Two thirds of girls showed signs of self-sexualization by choosing a sexualized doll over a nonsexualized doll as who they preferred to look like and/or who they currently look like. Girls who self-sexualized reported higher self-objectification and weight concerns than girls who did not self-sexualize. Self-sexualization was unrelated to social, emotional, and academic self-efficacy and to girls’ career confidence and interest. However, parents of girls who self-sexualized reported their daughters had lower academic performance and enjoyed school less compared to girls who did not self-sexualize. Additionally, parents of girls who self-sexualized had lower academic expectations for their daughters. It is possible that in preadolescence self-sexualization affects girls’ body cognitions and parental expectations without (yet) affecting self-efficacy or academic goals.
Keywords
Girls are exposed to sexualized portrayals of women and at times are sexualized themselves (Zurbriggen, 2018). Early sexualization is especially concerning because childhood is a period of intense cognitive and socio-emotional development where schemas about oneself and others crystallize. Since the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls published its report over a decade ago (APA, 2007), much additional research has been conducted (Zurbriggen & Roberts, 2013). Yet there are still relatively few studies with preadolescent girls, especially ones that investigate girls’ self-sexualization and parental influence. In this study, we investigated U.S. preadolescent girls’ self-sexualization, measuring stereotypes associated with self-sexualization as well as several potential outcomes (e.g., weight concerns, academic self-efficacy) using multiple reporters (girls and their parents).
Sexualization is defined as (a) valuing someone only for their sexual appeal/behavior, (b) equating attractiveness with sexiness, (c) engaging in sexual objectification, and/or (d) the inappropriate imposition of sexuality (APA, 2007). The task force discussed three spheres of sexualization: cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic. We focus on the interpersonal sphere (interactions between girls and others) and the intrapsychic sphere (the internalization of sexualizing messages resulting in self-sexualization). Our research is informed by objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), which posits that women are subjected to a cultural milieu in which they are objectified and reduced to their appearance. As a result, many women internalize this observer perspective (i.e., self-objectify) and begin to focus on how they look rather than what they can do.
Prevalence and Stereotypes of Sexualization
Three studies that examined self-sexualization in young girls found that it is fairly common. One study conducted in the U.S. found that most (68.2%) 6- to 9-year-old girls chose a sexualized doll over a nonsexualized doll as representing who they would like to look like (Starr & Ferguson, 2012). Similarly, the clothing that 6- to 9-year-old Australian girls chose as their ideal was sexier than the clothing that they chose as representing what they wear (Slater & Tiggemann, 2016). Another study found that Australian mothers frequently reported that their daughters engaged in appearance-focused behaviors, although self-sexualizing behaviors were relatively rare (Tiggemann & Slater, 2014).
Girls might start sexualizing themselves due to cultural and interpersonal socialization (APA, 2007) as well as through attempts to gain self-sexualization’s perceived benefits, such as popularity (e.g., Stone, Brown, & Jewell, 2015). Culturally, sexualization is common in U.S. media (Ward, 2016). Interpersonally, because society values girls’ appearance, adhering to beauty standards could lead to social benefits (Talamas, Mavor, & Perrett, 2016). Girls may feel that they can exert some control over positive outcomes by self-sexualizing.
For this explanation to be plausible, girls would have to be aware of societal perceptions of sexualized girls, and it appears that they are. Two studies found that girls perceive a sexualized girl as significantly more popular than a nonsexualized girl (Starr & Ferguson, 2012; Stone et al., 2015). Studies also find that girls endorse negative stereotypes of sexualized targets, such as believing that sexualized girls are less smart (e.g., Stone et al., 2015).
Based on prior research, we expected that most girls would want to look sexualized (thus showing signs of self-sexualization) and would believe a sexualized girl to be more popular than a nonsexualized girl. Other stereotypes of sexualized girls might also exist. Specifically, based on the stereotype that sexualized girls are less competent, we expected girls to believe that a sexualized girl is not a scientist. Because girls are less likely to view a sexualized girl as nice, we suspected that they would be less likely to want to be her friend.
Self-Objectification and Weight Concerns
Self-objectification and self-sexualization are conceptually related and both focus on appearance. Weight concerns may be associated with sexualization because Western culture uses a narrow definition of sexy that emphasizes thinness (APA, 2007; Ward, 2016). Despite these plausible connections, research supporting them is relatively rare. One study among U.S. adolescent girls found a correlation between self-sexualization and self-objectification (McKenney & Bigler, 2016a). A study with Australian preadolescent girls found that self-sexualization was associated with lower body-esteem (Slater & Tiggemann, 2016). Based on these prior findings, we hypothesized that girls’ self-sexualization would positively relate to self-objectification and weight concerns.
Emotional and Social Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s perceived ability to achieve a desired behavior (Bandura, Barbarnelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Muris, 2001). Three domains of self-efficacy are emotional, social, and academic. Emotional self-efficacy refers to emotional regulation, social self-efficacy addresses navigating social challenges, and academic self-efficacy refers to school achievement (Muris, 2001). Emotional self-efficacy particularly may negatively relate to affective disorders (Muris, 2001) and predict later depression (Bandura et al., 1996). Relatedly, studies have found that self-objectification is associated with both depression (Grabe & Jackson, 2009) and low self-esteem (Impett, Henson, Breines, Schooler, & Tolman, 2011). Based on this research, girls who self-sexualize may have lower emotional self-efficacy. Despite potential costs, girls may self-sexualize due to the belief that meeting appearance standards will afford social benefits. Two studies have found that girls associate sexualization with popularity (Starr & Ferguson, 2012; Stone et al., 2015). It is possible that girls may extend this stereotype to themselves. As a result, we hypothesized that girls who self-sexualize would feel higher social self-efficacy.
Academic Self-Efficacy, Career Cognitions, and Parental Assessment of School Performance, Enjoyment, and Future Goals
There are multiple reasons why self-sexualization could affect girls’ academic self-efficacy and performance and beliefs about careers. First, sexualization may reduce flow states due to self-monitoring (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Pacilli, Tomasetto, & Cadinu, 2016). Second, girls who self-sexualize may not have as much time or motivation for academic pursuits (McKenney & Bigler, 2016b). Finally, studies found that both girls (Stone et al., 2015) and adults (Holland & Haslam, 2016) stereotype sexualized girls as less competent and intelligent.
Relatedly, self-sexualization may affect career interest and confidence. One experimental study (Sherman & Zurbriggen, 2014) found that girls who played with a sexualized doll reported significantly fewer career possibilities in comparison to girls who played with a nonsexualized toy. It is thus reasonable to expect that girls who self-sexualize may also have lower academic self-efficacy, lower school performance and enjoyment, and fewer educational goals, in addition to lower confidence and interest in careers.
Current Study
We surveyed girls and one of their parents to investigate relationships between self-sexualization, self-objectification, weight concerns, self-efficacy, and academic/career beliefs. We had the following hypotheses:
H1: Sexualization prevalence and stereotypes
The majority of girls will self-sexualize (believe they currently look sexualized and/or prefer to look sexualized) and will hold stereotyped beliefs about sexualization (that sexualization is positively related to popularity but negatively related to being a scientist or a potential friend).
H2: Self-objectification and weight concerns
Self-sexualization will be positively related to self-objectification and weight concerns.
H3: Emotional and social self-efficacy
Self-sexualization will be negatively related to emotional self-efficacy and positively related to social self-efficacy.
H4: Academic outcomes
Self-sexualization will be negatively related to (a) academic self-efficacy and interest/competence in male-stereotyped career aspirations among girls, and (b) parent’s report of their daughter’s academic performance and enjoyment, and their beliefs about their daughter’s academic goals. Finally, we sought to replicate and extend career cognition findings from Sherman and Zurbriggen (2014) and predicted that girls would believe they could do significantly fewer careers when compared to men and that women could do significantly fewer careers than men.
Method
Procedure
A power analysis indicated that 85 participants were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a moderate-sized correlation with an α of .05. We surveyed 89 girls to account for potential missing data. Families were recruited from a list of parents in Northern California interested in study participation. Families were eligible to participate if they had a daughter of age 6–9 years. This age range was chosen because by six children typically achieve gender constancy but have not begun menarche at age nine. Six female undergraduate research assistants and one female graduate student interviewed children and directed parents to the online survey. Interviews were conducted at participants’ homes or at the university. The first 60 parents were entered into a raffle for a US$100 Visa gift card; later participants were offered US$20 in cash. All girls received a gender atypical coloring book.
Parental consent and child assent occurred with both individuals present. During the parental consent process, parents were encouraged to look over the child survey. Three parents requested that the self-objectification and weight concern questions not be asked; two additional parents requested that the weight concern questions not be asked. The child assent process was based on the process used in previous research (Sherman & Zurbriggen, 2014). During the child interview, answer cards were used to ease survey administration (e.g., yes, no, sometimes, not sure). Girls were told they could either answer verbally, point to their answer, or hold up their response choice card. Girls were encouraged to answer “not sure” if they felt uncomfortable answering a question.
Participants
Eighty-nine girls participated in the study, including eight pairs of sisters. 1 For 82 girls, we also have data from a parent: 72 mothers (87.8%), 8 fathers (9.8%), and 2 with unknown gender. Because of missing data, sample sizes for individual analyses vary. Most girls were in first (n = 31), second (n = 21), or third (n = 20) grade. Five girls were in kindergarten and 12 were in fourth grade. Their mean age was 7.35 (SD = 1.17), with ages ranging from 6 to 9 years.
Two thirds of parents identified as White (n = 52, 66.7%). The remainder identified as Latinx and White (n = 8, 10.3%), Asian and White (n = 5, 6.4%), other multiethnic/multiracial (n = 6, 7.7%), Latina (n = 3, 3.8%), Asian (n = 3, 3.8%), or Native American (n = 1, 1.3%). Most parents were relatively wealthy, with nearly half reporting a yearly household income of 100–200,000 (n = 35, 48.6%) and four (5.6%) reporting a household income above 200,000. Four parents (5.6%) reported income under 50,000, eight (11.1%) reported income from 50 to 75,000, and twenty-one (29.2%) reported income from 75 to 100,000. Additionally, most parents had received at least a bachelor’s degree (n = 62, 79.5%); only two parents (2.6%) never attended college. Finally, most parents reported working either full- or part-time outside the home (n = 66, 84.6%). Four parents did not answer any of the demographic questions, and six additional parents did not report their income level.
Measures and Materials
Sexualization stimuli and procedure
Girls were presented with two colored paper dolls (a sexualized girl and a nonsexualized girl) and asked to select their choice in response to sexualization questions. This forced choice task is based on methodology used in prior sexualization studies with young children (Starr & Ferguson, 2012; Stone et al., 2015).
Five pairs of sexualized/nonsexualized dolls were created using an online dollmaker (Dollz Mania, 2008) targeted toward young girls (see Appendix for the first two doll pairs; the other three were similar). In each doll pair, skin tone, eye color, and hair color were identical. Additionally, color schemes were the same (e.g., both dolls had a purple shirt and black skirt). However, dolls in a pair differed in makeup, hair, facial expression, and attire. The sexualized doll was dressed in “sexy” clothing that was tight and revealing (e.g., a low-cut shirt with midriff showing) and had makeup, a complicated hairstyle, and pursed lips. The nonsexualized doll was dressed in stylish but nonrevealing clothing (e.g., a sweater and long flowing skirt), had similar length but less complicated hair, wore no makeup, and was smiling. We chose pursed lips for the sexualized doll and a closed-mouth smile for the nonsexualized doll due to prominent pursed lips being considered a marker of sexualization (Hatton & Trautner, 2011). A different pair of dolls was used for each question and the left/right presentation order of the sexy/nonsexy dolls was alternated to avoid response sets.
Child-reported measures
Self-sexualization
Self-sexualization was assessed using two questions: “Which doll do you think looks most like you?” and “If you could look like one of these two dolls, which would you like to look like?” Girls were asked to point to the doll that best fit their answer. Girls were coded as demonstrating self-sexualization if they chose the sexualized doll for at least one of these two questions.
Sexualization and stereotypes
In addition to the two self-sexualization questions, girls were asked which doll (sexualized or nonsexualized) they thought was popular, which was a scientist, and which they would prefer to be friends with. To measure popularity attribution, girls were asked: “Elliana is the most popular girl in school. She has many friends, and many people want to sit next to her at the lunch table. Which doll is Elliana?” To measure scientist attribution, girls were asked: “Thalia is a scientist. She conducts important experiments in a laboratory and is well respected among other scientists. Which doll is Thalia?” To measure friendship preference, girls were asked: “Which doll would you like to be your friend?”
Self-objectification
The 4-item surveillance subscale of the Measure of Objectified Body Consciousness for Pre-Adolescent and Adolescent Youth (Lindberg, Hyde, & McKinley, 2006) was used to measure self-objectification. An example item is “Do you often compare how you look to how other people look?” (α = .77). We used a modified response structure of yes (1), no (0), and not sure (missing data).
Weight concerns
Weight concerns were measured using 3 items from the 5-item Eating Behaviors and Body Image Test for preadolescent girls (Candy & Fee, 1998): “Do you ever wish you were thinner?,” “Do you ever feel overweight?,” and “Does your weight bother you?” (α = .74). Girls replied using a modified response structure: yes (1), no (0), and not sure (missing data).
Emotional, social, and academic self-efficacy
Self-efficacy was measured using three subscales with 8 items each from Muris (2001). Questions were simplified; for example, “How well can you succeed in staying friends with other children?” was changed to “Can you stay friends with other kids?.” Additionally, responses options were modified to “no” (0), “sometimes” (1), “yes” (2), and “not sure” (missing data). The emotional self-efficacy scale (α = .76) measured children’s ability to regulate emotions (e.g., “Can you make yourself happier when you feel sad?”). The social self-efficacy scale (α = .57) measured children’s confidence in social situations (e.g., “Can you make friends?”). Finally, the academic self-efficacy scale (α = .42) measured children’s confidence at academic tasks (e.g., “Can you finish all of your homework?”).
Career cognitions
Career efficacy, interest, and gender stereotypes were measured using a procedure from Sherman and Zurbriggen (2014), adapted for the current study. Girls were shown pictures of each career setting and given a description of the work persons do there. For example, the picture of the laboratory was captioned “A scientist discovers how things work and learns more about them.” Girls were then asked “Could a woman do this job?,” “Could a man do this job?,” “Could you do this job when you grow up?,” and “Would you like to do this job when you grow up?” Careers fell into the following categories: masculine-typed and mostly science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers (scientist, pilot, mechanical engineer, computer scientist, and president) and feminine-typed (mostly non-STEM) careers (childcare worker, nurse, fashion model, interior designer, hairdresser). Both order of career presentation and question order for each career were randomized during survey creation but asked in the same order. Girls were instructed to answer either yes or no to each question. To make sure girls understood the task, the career “server” was presented first but not included in analyses.
Demographic information
Girls reported their age and grade in school.
Parent reported measures
School performance
Parents reported their daughter’s performance in math, science, language arts, and social studies on a scale of 1 = below average, 2 = average, 3 = above average, and 4 = well above average (α = .77).
School enjoyment
Parents reported their daughter’s enjoyment in math, science, language arts, and social studies on a scale of 1 = dislikes, 2 = neutral, 3 = likes, and 4 = loves (α = .48).
School goals
Parents reported their beliefs and desires for their daughter’s future education using two questions from Mireles-Rios and Romo (2014) and one question written for the present study. Questions from Mireles-Rios and Romo were “How far do you want your daughter to go in school?” (1 = high school, 2 = 2-year college, 3 = 4-year college, and 4 = graduate school) and “How certain are you that your child will reach her educational goals?” (1 = doubtful to 4 = very sure). Additionally, parents were asked “How far do you think your daughter will go in school?” (1 = high school, 2 = 2-year college, 3 = 4-year college, and 4 = graduate school).
Demographic information
Parents reported their education, household income, employment status, and race/ethnicity.
Results
Hypothesis 1: Prevalence and Stereotypes of Sexualization
We considered a girl to show signs of self-sexualization if she chose the sexualized doll when asked (a) who she would like to look like or (b) who she currently looks like. By this criterion, roughly two thirds of girls (68.5%, n = 61) showed signs of self-sexualization, more than expected by chance, χ2(1, N = 89) = 12.24, p < .001. Approximately a quarter of the girls (23.6%, n = 21) indicated that they wanted to and did look like the sexualized doll, whereas 32 girls (36.0%) indicated that they did not look like the sexualized doll but wanted to look like her. Twenty-eight girls (31.5%) said that they did not look like the sexualized doll and did not want to look like her. A small group of girls (9.0%, n = 8) said that they currently look like the sexualized doll but wanted to look nonsexualized; these girls were included in the self-sexualization group. 2 Girls who self-sexualized did not significantly differ from girls who did not in terms of age, grade, family income, parental employment status, or race/ethnicity; all p’s > .12. Self-sexualization differed by parental education level; girls whose parents had a graduate degree were significantly less likely to self-sexualize, χ2(2, N = 78) = 10.56, p = .0051. Self-sexualization was more common among girls with a parent who had less than a bachelor’s degree (81.3% self-sexualized) or a bachelor’s degree (85.7%) when compared to girls with a parent who had a graduate degree (50.0% self-sexualized).
Frequencies of girls’ responses to individual questions are presented in Table 1. Girls were more likely than chance to choose the sexualized doll as the more popular (p = .008) and marginally more likely to state that they prefer to look like her (p = .072). Girls were more likely to choose the nonsexualized doll as the doll they currently look like (p = .001), the doll they prefer as a friend (p = .044), and the doll they believe is a scientist (p < .001).
Percentages and Counts of Girls Endorsing the Sexualized Doll, by Question.
Note. The χ2 statistics provide tests of the difference between actual frequencies and random responses.
+p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Hypothesis 2: Self-Objectification and Weight Concerns
Independent samples t-tests were used to analyze all following hypotheses (see Table 2). As expected, girls who self-sexualized had significantly higher self-objectification (p = .025) and weight concerns (p = .037) when compared to girls who did not self-sexualize. The overall mean for both variables was low; on average, girls answered affirmatively to 30% of the self-objectification questions and 11% of the weight concerns questions. Self-objectification and weight concerns were positively correlated, r = .31, N = 81, p = .0045.
Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Differences by Child’s Self-Sexualization for Child Variables.
Note. a When one sister of each sister pair was excluded, self-sexualization was significantly related to girls believing they would like to do feminine stereotyped careers (p = .023).
+p < .10. *p < .05.
Hypothesis 3: Emotional and Social Self-efficacy
Contrary to expectations, self-sexualization was unrelated to emotional and social self-efficacy (both p’s > .65; see Table 2). Additionally, none of the self-efficacy variables correlated with self-objectification or weight concerns (all p’s > .21). The self-efficacy variables positively correlated with each other: emotional and social (r = .573, N = 88, p < .001), emotional and academic (r = .335, N = 87, p = .0015), and social and academic (r = .442, N = 87, p = < .001).
Hypothesis 4a: Child Academic Self-Efficacy and Career Cognitions
Contrary to our hypothesis, there were no significant relationships between academic self-efficacy or career cognitions and self-sexualization (all p’s > .10). Additionally, we found no significant difference in whether girls believed men and women could perform masculine- or feminine-typed careers based on self-sexualization (all p’s > .75, see Table 2).
To further explore this question and to confirm the gendered main effects found by Sherman and Zurbriggen (2014), we conducted a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the mean number (0–1) of positive endorsements of possible occupations. There were two within-participant variables: occupation type (female-dominated or male-dominated) and actor in the career competence question (“Could you do this job when you grow up?” vs. “Could a man do this job?”). Self-sexualization (yes/no) was the between-participant variable. We predicted that girls who self-sexualize would endorse fewer occupations as possible for themselves compared to men.
Consistent with the t-test results, there was no main effect of self-sexualization, F(1,86) = .345, p = .559. There were also no interactions with self-sexualization, all p’s > .34. Girls who self-sexualized did not differ from those who did not. However, we replicated the other findings from Sherman and Zurbriggen (2014), showing that girls adhered to gendered stereotypes about careers. There was a significant main effect of actor, such that girls reported that men (M = .972, SE = .008) had significantly more possibilities for occupations than they themselves did (M = .820, SE = .029), F(1, 86) = 26.87, p < .0001. Girls thought that men could do 97.2% of the careers, while they themselves would only be able to do 82.0% of careers. Furthermore, there was a significant main effect of occupation type, F(1, 86) = 9.41, p = .0029. Girls reported a higher number of female-dominated occupations (M = .919, SE = .015) than male-dominated occupations (M = .873, SE = .019) as possibilities, suggesting that they see male-dominated careers as more difficult overall. We also found a significant interaction between occupation type and actor, with the effect of actor larger for male-dominated occupations, F(1, 86) = 26.71, p < .0001. In other words, there was a bigger gap for girls’ expectations when considering male-dominated careers (76.1% possible for self vs. 98.6% possible for men) as compared to when considering female-dominated careers (88.0% possible for self vs. 95.8% possible for men).
We repeated the multifactorial ANOVA with actor defined as the comparison between “Could a man do this job?” and “Could a woman do this job?” Results were substantially unchanged with one exception. There was no main effect of occupation type, F(1,86) = 1.54, p = .219, with male-dominated and female-dominated careers seen as equally possible, overall.
Hypothesis 4b: Parental Assessment of School Performance, Enjoyment, and Future Goals
Descriptive statistics and tests of inferential hypotheses for all parent variables are presented in Table 3. As hypothesized, parents of girls who self-sexualized reported their daughter had significantly lower academic performance (between “average” and “above average”) compared to parents of girls who did not self-sexualize (approximately “above average”), p = .046. Moreover, parents of girls who self-sexualized reported their daughter had significantly lower enjoyment of school subjects (“likes”) as compared with parents of girls who did not self-sexualize (between “likes” and “loves”), p = .030. Furthermore, parents of girls who self-sexualized reported marginally lower academic goals for their daughters (p = .059) and believed their daughters would not go as far in school (p = .039) when compared to the parents of girls who did not self-sexualize. (However, both sets of parents had aspirations and beliefs that on average fell between 4-year college and a graduate degree.) Additionally, self-sexualized girls’ parents expressed less certainty that their daughters would achieve those goals (p = .032).
Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Differences by Child’s Self-Sexualization for Parent Variables.
Note. When analyses were run excluding the eight girls who said they currently look sexualized but prefer not to look sexualized findings were similar, but academic performance (p = .054) and belief in how far their daughter would go in school (p = .088) became only marginally significant and academic goals became nonsignificant (p = .169). When analyses were run excluding one sister in sister pairs, findings were similar but academic enjoyment was only marginally significant (p = .061).
+p < .10. *p < .05.
Discussion
Among a sample of 6- to 9-year-old girls, more than two thirds showed signs of self-sexualization either by preferring to look sexualized or believing themselves to currently look sexualized. This is similar to the prevalence found in a sample of 6- to 9-year-old girls in a low-income school district in the rural Midwest (Starr & Ferguson, 2012). Also similar to prior studies (Starr & Ferguson, 2012; Stone et al., 2015), girls in our sample believed the sexualized doll to be more popular and less likely to be a scientist and preferred to be friends with the nonsexualized doll. These findings provide further evidence that self-sexualization exists among young girls and that girls hold stereotypes about sexualized girls.
Self-sexualization was positively related to self-objectification and weight concerns. To our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically investigate the link between these three constructs among girls as young as six. The results align with previous studies that found links between self-sexualization and self-objectification (McKenney & Bigler, 2016a) and self-sexualization and body dissatisfaction (Slater & Tiggemann, 2016). The amount of self-objectification and weight concern was relatively low compared to self-sexualization. Our findings suggest that self-sexualization could lead to negative outcomes and might be developmentally an antecedent to self-objectification.
Unexpectedly, we did not find that self-sexualization was related to self-efficacy or career confidence/interest. This is despite prior research linking academic performance to self-sexualization among 10- to 15-year-old girls (e.g., McKenney & Bigler, 2016b). However, we did find that parents of girls who self-sexualized rated their daughters as having lower school performance and enjoyment. Additionally, parents of girls who self-sexualized had lower academic goals for their daughters and were less confident that their daughters could achieve these goals. We also found that girls held gendered stereotypes about the ability of men and women to perform gender-stereotyped occupations.
Are Parents Stereotyping Daughters Who Self-Sexualize?
It is notable that academic outcomes of early sexualization were reflected among parents’ reports of their daughters’ academic cognitions and goals but not among girls’ own self-perceptions. Several possible explanations emerge. The first is that parents are accurately gauging their daughter’s performance and enjoyment of school and are setting goals for her academic futures accordingly. In this case, girls who self-sexualize are in fact not performing as well and are not as engaged in school as their peers who do not self-sexualize. This perspective is bolstered by research that found a negative relation between self-sexualization and school-reported grades among adolescent girls (McKenney & Bigler, 2016b) and a negative relationship between mastery-orientation and self-sexualization among early adolescent girls (Nelson & Brown, 2019).
A second possibility is that parents inaccurately stereotype daughters who self-sexualize as less academically competent and as a result incorrectly report them to have lower school performance and enjoyment, resulting in fewer academic goals for their daughters. This possibility is bolstered by studies that find that adults stereotype sexualized girls as less competent and intelligent (e.g., Holland & Haslam, 2016). This perspective is congruent with research that found a connection between actual grades and self-sexualization (McKenney & Bigler, 2016b). Girls who self-sexualize might internalize other people’s stereotypes about them by adolescence and thus begin to view themselves as less competent at academic pursuits.
A final possibility is that because parents with graduate degrees had daughters who were less likely to self-sexualize, parents’ own educational attainment might drive the finding. Because parent’s education level and children’s media consumption tend to be negatively related (Common Sense Media, 2017) and media consumption is positively related to self-sexualization among children (Starr & Ferguson, 2012), this may account for the lower rates of self-sexualization among children of highly educated parents. It is also possible that parents with graduate level degrees are more aware of sexualization and serve as a protective factor for their daughters, perhaps through direct instruction or by modeling less sexually objectified behaviors. Future studies should explore these possible explanations.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study has several limitations. First, it was correlational and cannot definitively answer questions such as whether sexualization is an antecedent to self-objectification or how these processes developmentally occur. Second, we did not measure actual school performance. Official school grades would provide a more accurate portrayal of girls’ performance. Combined with parental perception of child performance, they would allow us to determine whether parents are stereotyping their daughters or whether their perception of their daughter’s lower performance is accurate. Our self-efficacy scales and school enjoyment scale had relatively low αs, which makes detecting possible relationships with other variables more difficult.
Additionally, many of the questions posed to children (such as the career cognitions questions) used a binary response scale. Although this made the questions simple enough for the youngest girls to answer, the limited range might not have reflected the complexity of girls’ opinions. Furthermore, this study asked girls different questions than parents (i.e., girls were asked about academic self-efficacy and career cognitions; parents were asked about performance and enjoyment in school and academic goals). Future studies could ask congruent questions to girls and parents to better compare perceptions. We also created all nonsexualized dolls with closed mouth smiles. This conforms to previous sexualization coding schemes (e.g., Hatton & Trautner, 2011). However, in addition to being perceived as nonsexual, smiles also convey friendliness, thus introducing a possible alternative explanation for some of our findings. Future research could present images of people with seductive smiles versus warm/friendly smiles to help address this issue.
Our sample was predominately upper-middle class European American mothers and their daughters. Future research might explore self-sexualization among more diverse groups. It is important to study self-sexualization among different ethnicities and class backgrounds due to different cultural norms and opportunities. For example, Latina and Black women have reported a curvier ideal body type than White women (Schooler & Daniels, 2014), and low-income girls may be more likely to self-sexualize because of less accessibility to preventative factors such as athletic classes (Starr & Ferguson, 2012).
Conclusion
This study is among the first to explore self-sexualization in 6- to 9-year-old girls. We found compelling evidence that self-sexualization is linked to both self-objectification and weight concerns. In terms of academic outcomes and future goals, findings were more nuanced. Self-sexualization was not related to girls’ perception of their own academic self-efficacy and career possibilities. However, parents reported that girls who self-sexualized had significantly lower academic outcomes when compared to girls who did not self-sexualize. This may be due to actual aptitude or stereotyped aptitude. Overall, our study bolsters past research by finding that many girls self-sexualize and hold stereotypes about sexualized girls and that self-sexualization is related to negative outcomes, even as early as age six.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to the first author. The authors thank research assistants Meghan Aguilar, Denisse Ambriz, Nayeli Bravo, Natalie Fong, Sarah Free, Veronica Hamilton, Brianna Jeska, Justine Perrin, and Madeline Reuter for their help in collecting data and related tasks.
