The Effect of Experimental Exposure to Images of Dolls on the Body Image of 5- to 8-Year-Old Girls

PPSY 572 Research MethodologyChristina Zavala, JeynNe Sanchez, & Alexis Moreno

The Effect of Experimental Exposure to Images of Dolls on the Body Image of 5- to 8-Year-Old Girls

“I looked at a Barbie doll when I was 6 and said, ‘This is what I want to look like.’ I think a lot of little 6-year-old girls or younger even now are looking at that doll and thinking, ‘I want to be her.’”

Worldwide annual sales $1.5 billion (Mattel, 2003)

3- to 10-year-old-girls in the U.S. own 8 Barbie dolls on average, 1% not owning any (Rogers, 1999)

Barbie scaled to 5-foot-6 height her measurements = 39-21-33 (The New York Times, 2002)

Less than 1 in 1000,000

Barbie doll examined as a possible cause for young girls’ body dissatisfaction.

Young girls were exposed to images of either: Barbie dolls Emme dolls (U.S. size 16)

No dolls (baseline control)

Completed assessments of body image.

Participants

162 females age 5 to age 8Race and Socioeconomic StatusSix primary schools U.K. National Curriculum

Stimulus Materials and Measures

Picture booksEvaluative measuresImage stimuliBody esteemBody shape dissatisfaction

ProcedureAdministeredIntroduction of studyProcessConfidentialityApproval

● Three-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

● 3 (exposure condition) x 3 (year group) x 3 (measure)

● Body dissatisfaction was significantly higher after girls had seen the Barbie doll images, compared with other images F(1,153) = 7.53, p < .01, n = .05

● No difference with Emme

● Three-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

● 3 (exposure condition) x 3 (year group) x 3 (measure)

● Body dissatisfaction was significantly higher after girls had seen the Barbie doll images, compared with other images F(1,153) = 7.53, p < .01, n = .05

● No difference with Emme

● Used MANOVA with trend analysis o Year 1 M = -.23o Year 2 M = -.63o Year 3 M = -.79o Age related differences

in girls responses F(1,153) = 6.61, p<.01, n = .08

● Used MANOVA with trend analysis o Year 1 M = -.23o Year 2 M = -.63o Year 3 M = -.79o Age related differences

in girls responses F(1,153) = 6.61, p<.01, n = .08

● Used Mulisample Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)o Complex datao Relationships among variableso Draw a picture

1. Very young girls experience heightened body dissatisfaction after exposure to Barbie doll images but not after exposure to Emme doll (or neutral control) images.

2. Older girls reported a greater desire to be thin adults after exposure to Emme dolls.

Does Barbie Make Girls Want to Be Thin?

PPSY 572 Research MethodologyChristina Zavala, JeynNe Sanchez, & Alexis Moreno