Australian research has provided some reassuring evidence that the Barbie and Ken dolls of today have moved towards a more accurate reflection of the body proportions of contemporary young adults.

However in the Barbie world of ‘You can be anything’, it seems toys still can’t be too real. Not even the new doll labelled Curvy approaches reference ranges for waist:height ratio.

While the original dolls cannot be held entirely responsible for “…stigmatised views of body shape as children grow and develop”, the more realistic versions might be comforting for parents, health professionals and others concerned about promoting a healthy body weight to children.

“Despite the improvements reported here, there is a need for continued scrutiny and dialogue around the impact of toy design on body image, and this may extend beyond the scope of this study, for example make-up and clothing design,” the investigators said.

The study compared anthropometric measurements on four current Barbie dolls – Curvy, Petite, Tall and Standard models from the 2016 Fashionista range – a new Malibu Ken, and an original Barbie and Ken from 1959 with representative population data of young adult females and males.

The dolls’ measurements were scaled to a standardised adult height of 170.18 cm. Interestingly, after scaling, the Petite Barbie was found to simply be a smaller version of Standard and Tall Barbies.

The study, published in PLOS One [link here] found the Barbie Fashionista dolls fall closer to the comparison population of South Australian university students (SAS) compared to the original doll for most measures.

“Among them, the Curvy Barbie most closely reflects the SAS population distribution,” it said.

Waist:height ratios (WHR) increased from original Barbie in all four body shape models while chest:waist ratio (CWR), and chest:hip ratio (CHR) decreased.

“Similarly, the new Ken doll exhibited z-scores that were closer to the population mean for all body sites except the ankle…,” the study said.

When compared to a reference population of 20-29 year old males and females from the large NHANES datasets in the US between 1961–2018, WHR for all dolls have shifted closer but remain well below the population norms.

“The positive changes in Barbie and Ken, including for many of the individual body sites, should serve a degree of reassurance for health professionals and parents making purchases of these dolls. Although they are “just dolls”, Mattel promotes them as ‘aspirational role models’ and their body shapes and proportions (especially their proportions) are meaningful to people who play with them,” the investigators said.

They also noted that sales of the dolls had been declining during the mid‑2010s, but recovered from 2018 onward, “…a period that coincided with the introduction of dolls featuring more diverse body shapes and identities.”

“More recently Mattel has chosen to utilise themes important in current society, regarding diversity in appearance and in reflecting a range of medical issues, including most recently a Type 1 Diabetes Barbie (complete with insulin pump and continuous blood glucose monitoring), the range in body shapes, more reflective of the population, is important in promoting healthy views among children.”

The investigators, including Associate Professor Sara Grafenauer, Academic Program Lead of Nutrition & Dietetics at UNSW, said other recent launches within the Barbie range now allow the characters a greater range of motion with additional joint movement.

“Interestingly, the physicality of the dolls is thought to be a positive aspect that may be protective against appearance-centric issues discussed in a range of studies.”

“It may be what the doll can do, rather than how they look that matters. Through research involving adult women and the way they remember Barbie, and the aspects that are recalled from childhood in the context of ‘play’, also adds to the body of research in this area.”

“Rather than impacting body image or dissatisfaction, the women recalled positive experiences of designing and making clothes, building houses, and planning out elaborate scenarios where Barbie played a key role in aspirational careers as suggested by Klamer [link here], rather than just playing a mother with a baby-like doll which prior to Barbie in 1959, was the only option.”