University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Psychology Psychology 2017 Too Pretty for Homework: The Academic Correlates of Sexualized Gender Stereotypes Among Adolescent Girls Andrew A. Nelson University of Kentucky, andrew.edu Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.178 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Nelson, Andrew A., "Too Pretty for Homework: The Academic Correlates of Sexualized Gender Stereotypes Among Adolescent Girls" (2017). Theses and Dissertations--Psychology.edu/psychology_etds/115 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at UKnowledge.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Psychology by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources.
I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies.
I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s thesis including all changes required by the advisory committee.
The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above. Nelson, Student Dr. Brown, Major Professor Dr. Fillmore, Director of Graduate Studies TOO PRETTY FOR HOMEWORK: THE ACADEMIC CORRELATES OF SEXUALIZED GENDER STEREOTYPES AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS _____________________________________ THESIS _____________________________________ A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Experimental Psychology in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Andrew Arthur Nelson Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr.
Brown, Professor of Psychology Lexington, Kentucky 2017 Copyright © Andrew Arthur Nelson 2017 ABSTRACT OF THESIS TOO PRETTY FOR HOMEWORK: THE ACADEMIC CORRELATES OF SEXUALIZED GENDER STEREOTYPES AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS Girls grow up in a culture of ubiquitous female sexualization, and this culture propagates stereotypes that could interfere with their academic outcomes. The current study examined the academic correlates of these sexualized gender stereotypes (SGS) among early adolescent girls. Girls (N = 99) aged 11 to 14 (Mage = 12.57 years) completed a survey assessing their academic performance, attitudes, and beliefs. The survey also assessed the degree to which girls believed that boys and girls should act in accordance with these sexualized gender stereotypes.
Results indicated that higher endorsement of sexualized gender stereotypes was associated with lower academic performance, more negative academic attitudes, and less adaptive approaches to learning. Implications for girls’ academic trajectories are discussed. KEYWORDS: gender stereotypes, sexualization, academic outcomes, adolescents, developmental psychology Andrew Arthur Nelson April 19th, 2017 TOO PRETTY FOR HOMEWORK: THE ACADEMIC CORRELATES OF SEXUALIZED GENDER STEREOTYPES AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS By Andrew Arthur Nelson Dr. Brown Director of Thesis Dr.
Fillmore Director of Graduate Studies April 19th, 2017 Date To good friends— here, there, and everywhere. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following thesis, while an individual work, benefited from the insights and direction of several people. First, my Thesis Chair, Dr. Brown, exemplifies the high quality scholarship to which I aspire.
I also wish to thank my complete Thesis Committee: Dr. Jazmin Brown-Iannuzzi, and Dr. Each individual provided insights that guided and challenged my thinking, substantially improving the finished product. My academic twin, Ms.
Ilyssa Salomon, offered care and thoughtfulness during project design; I’m tremendously grateful for her support. Finally, I am appreciative of all research assistants—past and present—that aided data collection and data entry. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………….iii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….v List of Figures.iv Chapter One: Introduction Overview…………………………………………………………………………1 The Culture of Female Sexualization…………………………………………….2 Sexualized Gender Stereotypes and Their Academic Correlates……………….3 Other Academic Costs: Values, Beliefs, Motivations, and Performance……….6 The Current Study…………………………………….8 Chapter Two: Method Participants….11 Measures…………………………………………………………………………12 Domain-Specific Measures: Performance……………………………….12 Domain-Specific Measures: Attitudes……………………………….…13 Domain-General Measures: Academic Beliefs………………………….13 Domain-General Measures: Approaches to Learning……………………13 Sexualized Gender Stereotypes………………………………………….14 Chapter Three: Results Overview…………………………………………………………………………15 Domain-Specific Performance…………………………………………….……16 Domain-Specific Attitudes………………………………………………….……16 Domain-General Academic Beliefs…………………………………………….17 Domain-General Approaches to Learning……………………………………….18 Chapter Four: Discussion…………………………………………………………….…26 Appendix Supplemental Analyses………………………………………………………….31 Domain-Specific Performance……………………………………….…31 Domain-Specific Attitudes………………………………………….……31 Domain-General Academic Beliefs………………….…………………32 Domain-General Approaches to Learning……………………………….41 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1, Correlations Between Sexualized Gender Stereotype Endorsement and Domain-Specific Academic Outcomes…………………………….2, Correlations Between Sexualized Gender Stereotype Endorsement and Domain-General Academic Outcomes…………………………….……21 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1, Mean differences in math and language arts performance as a function of girls' sexualized gender stereotype (SGS) endorsement…………………….2, Mean differences in domain-specific attitudes as a function of girls' sexualized gender stereotype (SGS) endorsement……………………………….3, Mean differences in domain-general beliefs as a function of girls' sexualized gender stereotype (SGS) endorsement……………………………………….4, Mean differences in approaches to learning as a function of girls' sexualized gender stereotype (SGS) endorsement……………………………………….…25 vi CHAPTER 1 Introduction “Allergic to Algebra” “I’m too pretty to do homework so my brother has to do it for me” -- Text from adolescent girls’ T-shirt sold at JCPenney and Abercrombie and Fitch, respectively As conveyed by the captions above, girls remain targeted by stereotypes that deride their academic identity and abilities. Although gender gaps are narrowing within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), the assumption that girls innately lack high-level math ability continues to persist (AAUW, 2010).
This assumption is often coupled with the message that girls should not enjoy or even value math; instead, they are (as indicated by the T-shirts) “allergic” to it. Indeed, both boys and girls still endorse this “math-gender stereotype” (e., Steffens, Jelenec, & Noack, 2010). As such, growing concerns about women’s underrepresentation in STEM have spurred a comprehensive body of work on the math-gender stereotype and its consequences (e., Cvencek, Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011). Meanwhile, a broader—and equally pervasive—academic stereotype remains largely unexplored in the literature.
Girls and women live in a culture of ubiquitous sexualization, where both the sexual objectification of women and the inappropriate sexualization of girls is commonplace (APA, 2007). This culture is built upon a constellation of “sexualized gender stereotypes” (Ward, 2002), which constrain the ways in which boys and girl should behave and interact with each other. Specifically, girls are taught that their value comes from their sexual appeal alone (Jewell & Brown, 2013; 1 Ward, 2002). More acutely, girls are confronted with the stereotype that they should (a) enhance their social status by prioritizing physical attractiveness (which necessitates being highly sexualized), and that (b) they should do so while downplaying other competing traits, like intelligence (Brown & Stone, 2016; Stone, Brown, & Jewell, 2015).
In essence, this culture of sexualization encourages girls to be “too pretty for homework.” Simultaneously, boys are taught to objectify and singularly value girls for their sexual appeal, rather than their personality or intelligence, and to focus on the sexual pursuit of girls, rather than friendship (Brown & Stone, 2016; Ward, 2002). This reinforcement from boys further supplements the cultural messages to girls about the relative importance and value of sexualized attractiveness over intelligence. Like the math-gender stereotype, these sexualized gender stereotypes may have ramifications for girls’ academic performance and self-concept. Investigations into these effects, however, remain sparse within the extant literature (for exceptions, see McKenney & Bigler, 2014 and Pacilli, Tamasetto, & Cadinu, 2016).
In response to this dearth of research, the current study examined whether girls’ endorsement of sexualized gender stereotypes (SGS) might be related to more deleterious academic outcomes. The Culture of Female Sexualization The American Psychological Association’s Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (2007) suggests that sexualization occurs when: (a) a person’s value is derived solely from his or her sexual appeal; (b) a person’s physical attractiveness is equated with being sexy; (c) a person is sexually objectified, meaning that they are made into an object for others’ sexual pleasure; or (d) when sexuality is inappropriately imposed onto someone (APA, 2007). Although instances of sexualization often involve several of these 2 conditions, each one of these conditions alone is sufficient to constitute sexualization (APA, 2007). For example, occasions of sexualization frequently include objectification (e., pornography), however objectification is not required for sexualization to occur.
While both boys and girls can be sexualized, the sexualization of girls is far more pervasive than the sexualization of boys (APA, 2010). Female sexualization is also a critical foundation of contemporary sexism (e., Ward, 2016), so it is the focus of the current study. This culture of female sexualization is predominantly circulated through media (Ward, 2016), while influences from family (e., Starr & Ferguson, 2012) and peers (e., Tiggemann & Slater, 2015) further reinforce these messages. Media depictions of sexualization are pervasive, as they simultaneously expose young girls to images of sexualized women while also depicting girls in a sexualized manner.
For instance, half of all young adult female characters in prime time television are sexually objectified (Smith, Choueiti, Prescott, & Pieper, 2012), and nearly three-quarters of music videos released by female artists contain at least one component of sexualization (Frisby & Aubrey, 2012). Similar rates of sexualization can be found online (Lambiase, 2003), in magazines (Graff, Murnen, & Krause, 2013), and even in video games (Burgess, Stermer, & Burgess, 2007). Considering that the average adolescent spends about 53 hours each week engaged with entertainment media (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010), the developmental consequences of sexualization are especially worthy of study. Sexualized Gender Stereotypes and Their Academic Correlates As noted earlier, media depictions rely on sexualized gender stereotypes (SGS) to communicate this culture of sexualization.
These stereotypes are well-situated within 3 Kim et al.’s (2007) notion of a “heterosexual script.” Using Simon and Gagnon’s (1986) scripting theory, Kim and colleagues (2007) analyzed sexualized content in primetime television and subsequently identified a heterosexual dating script being transmitted to viewers. Most generally, this heterosexual script dictates what is considered normal and appropriate in heterosexual relationships. More specifically, the script frequently portrays male characters in the aggressive pursuit of sex, whereas female characters are often portrayed as eager for sexual attention and objectification. These subscripts are at the core of sexualized gender stereotypes.
Just as the heterosexual script regulates norms for men and women’s sexual behavior (Kim et al., 2007), sexualized gender stereotypes are prescriptive and proscriptive messages about how boys and girls should behave and interact with one another (Jewell & Brown, 2013; Ward, 2002). Boys and men are taught to prioritize their sexual agency and pursuit of girls/women. Girl and women, on the other hand, are taught to prioritize their sexual attractiveness for boys/men. Because of their gendered content, each of these stereotypes reinforces the other.
For example, the more girls believe that boys should be sex-focused, the more likely they are to accommodate this stereotype by prioritizing their own sexual appeal. Thus, while each sexualized gender stereotype offers specific guidelines for the behaviors of boys and girls, they function collectively to maintain a culture of sexualization of girls. For girls, the implications of this particular sexualized gender stereotype are far- reaching (Stone et al. Girls learn that their self-worth is solely contingent upon their sexualized attractiveness to boys (Stone et al.
By prioritizing a sexualized appearance, girls also learn to deprioritize other traits that seem incompatible with 4 sexiness.