Sexualized gender stereotypes (SGS) are commonly endorsed by adolescent girls. These stereotypes include the notion that girls can enhance their social status by prioritizing their sexualized attractiveness, which necessitates downplaying other traits such as intelligence. According to the stereotype emulation hypothesis, a girl will be more likely to “emulate” SGS if she also identifies as a typical girl. Based on this hypothesis, the current study examined the relationship between girls’ SGS endorsement and their academic motivations, beliefs, and motivations—and whether this relationship was moderated by gender typicality. Girls (N = 99), aged 11 years to 14 years (Meanage = 12.4 years, SD = .57 years), completed a survey assessing their academic outcomes, SGS endorsement, and gender typicality. As hypothesized, results indicated that higher endorsement of SGS was generally associated with maladaptive academic outcomes, and this association was the strongest for highly gender-typical girls. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.
American Psychological Association. (2007). Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
CvencekD.MeltzoffA. N.GreenwaldA. G. (2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82, 766-779.
3.
DanielsE. A.ZurbriggenE. L. (2016). The price of sexy: Viewers’ perceptions of a sexualized versus nonsexualized Facebook profile photograph. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 2-14.
4.
EcclesJ. S.VidaM. N.BarberB. (2004). The relation of early adolescents’ college plans and both academic ability and task-value beliefs to subsequent college enrollment. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 63-77.
5.
EganS. K.PerryD. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 451-463.
6.
Else-QuestN. M.HydeJ. S. (2009). The missing discourse of development: Commentary on Lerum and Dworkin. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 264-267.
7.
GraberJ.SontagL. (2006). Puberty and girls’ sexuality: Why hormones are not the complete answer. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2006(112), 23-38.
8.
GraffK.MurnenS. K.SmolakL. (2012). Too sexualized to be taken seriously? Perceptions of a girl in childlike vs. sexualizing clothing. Sex Roles, 66, 764-775.
9.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
HullemanC. S.GodesO.HendricksB. L.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 880-895.
11.
JewellJ.BrownC. S.PerryB. (2015). All my friends are doing it: Potentially offensive sexual behavior perpetration within adolescent social networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 5592-5604.
12.
JewellJ. A.BrownC. S. (2013). Sexting, catcalls, and butt slaps: How gender stereotypes and perceived group norms predict sexualized behavior. Sex Roles, 69, 594-604.
13.
The Keystone School. (2013). Middle school placement exams. Bloomsburg, PA: Author.
14.
KimJ. L.Lynn SorsoliC.CollinsK.ZylbergoldB. A.SchoolerD.TolmanD. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145-157.
15.
LibenL. S.BiglerR. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(2), vii-147.
16.
MaehrM. L.ZushoA. (2009). Achievement goal theory: Past, present, and future. In WentzelK. R.Wigfield’sA. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 77-104). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
17.
MartinC. L.RubleD. N.SzkrybaloJ. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin,128, 903-933.
18.
McKenneyS. J.BiglerR. S. (2014). High heels, low grades: Internalized sexualization and academic orientation among adolescent girls. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 30-36.
19.
MidgleyC.MaehrM. L.HrudaL. Z.AndermanE.AndermanL.FreemanK. E.UrdanT. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
20.
RenoldE.AllanA. (2006). Bright and beautiful: High achieving girls, ambivalent femininities, and the feminization of success in the primary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27, 457-473.
21.
StarrC. R.FergusonG. M. (2012). Sexy dolls, sexy grade-schoolers? Media & maternal influences on young girls’ self-sexualization. Sex Roles, 67, 463-476.
22.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence, motivation, and self-concept. In ElliotA.DweckC. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436-455). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
StoneE. A.BrownC. S.JewellJ. A. (2015). The sexualized girl: A within-gender stereotype among elementary school children. Child Development, 86, 1604-1622.
24.
TobinD. D.MenonM.MenonM.SpattaB. C.HodgesE. V.PerryD. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601-622.
25.
WardL. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’ attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 31, 1-15.
26.
WentzelK. R.WigfieldA. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences on students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 155-175.
27.
WigfieldA.CambriaJ. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30, 1-35.
