Holidays serve to bind a culture together, maintain heritage, and reinforce traditional values that often include stereotypic gender roles, as well [1Ogletree SM. How do I love thee? Let me count the valentines. Soc Behav Personal 1993; 21(2): 129-34. [doi: http://dx.doi.org/].
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1993.21.2.129] ]. With the growth of consumerism, holidays have also evolved into “industries” with mass marketed specialty merchandise [2Doss SK, Wang YJ. The acculturation and commercialisation of thematic holidays in the globalization era. Int J Bus Glob 2010; 5(4): 411-20.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2010.035475] ] For Halloween in North America, commercially-produced costumes account for the largest share of such holiday consumer spending, and the child-oriented costume market has been dramatically expanding to meet growing demand for adult-sized costumes [3Britt D. Halloween is big business, South Source Publication of South University, Available at: http://source.southuniversity.edu/ halloween-is-big-business-27678.aspx. 2010., 4Horovitz B. Scary! Halloween’s been hijacked by adults. USA Today, Available at: retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/ story/money/ business/2012/10/24/ halloween-adults- costumes-elvira-mistress-of-the-dark/1593177. 2012.] Children and adults alike may face pressures to abide by gender role expectations in their costume choices [5Macmillan C D, Lynch A, Bradley L A. Agonic and hedonic power: The performance of gender by young adults on Halloween Paideusis, 5 2011.]. Our research explores gender typing in Halloween costumes marketed to both children and adults, recognizing gender socialization pressures as a lifespan issue [6Bem SL. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing source. Psychol Rev 1981; 88: 354.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354] , 7Kemper S. Gendering the Psychology of Aging. In: Ryan M, Branscombe N, Eds. The SAGE handbook of gender and psychology. London: Sage 2013; pp. 148-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446269930.n10] ].

Amongst the scant academic studies of Halloween costuming and gender, Ogletree, Denton, and Williams attributed children’s gender typed costume choices to their internalized gender role schemas [8Ogletree SM, Denton L, Williams SW. Age and gender differences in children’s Halloween costumes. J Psychol 1993; 127: 633-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1993.9914902] ]. However research suggests there are external influences on gender typed choices such as product advertisements and even characteristics of the manufactured items themselves [9Belk RW. Halloween: An evolving American consumption ritual, in M E . 1990. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, (508-517), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.]. Gender-targeted products inform consumers of traits and values that are expected of their gender, create gendered demand, and encourage consumers to be attracted to the product itself to fulfill those expectations. The notion that inanimate commercial objects contribute to gender socialization has been recently highlighted in a report by the American Psychological Association [10Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association 2007.], implicating clothes, dolls, toys, and other gender-targeted merchandise as contributing to the sexualization of girls. Despite ongoing debate over which came first-gender-typed merchandise or consumer demand for it-data has been accumulating to show that commercially produced products serve as proximal influences on consumer attitudes and demand [11Chan K. Children and consumer culture. In: Lemish D, Ed. The Routledge Handbook of Children, Adolescents and Media Studies. Oxon, U.K.: Routledge 2013; pp. 141-7., 12Durham GM. The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of girls and what we can do about it. NY, NY: The Overlook Press 2009.].

Arguing that “the commercial marketplace plays a major role” in children’s costuming choices (p. 138), Nelson examined gendered messages on package labels of over 400 ready-to-wear costumes and costume patterns sold in North America [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ]. When she collected her sample (the 1990’s), costumes were not gender-segregated by merchandisers on the sales floor, so Nelson identified implicit gender markers used by marketers as a proxy for explicitly gender-labeled, gender-targeted packaging (e.g. pastel vs. primary colors, fashion vs. athletic shoes, etc.). Nelson then used Klapp’s [14Klapp OE. Heroes, villains, and fools: The changing American character. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1962.] symbolic interactionist model of character archetypes to classify costumes into masculine and feminine versions of the good (heroes), the bad (villains), and the silly (fools). Merchandisers exploit such familiar archetypes to generate consumer demand for their products [15Mark M, Pearson C, Pearson CS. The hero and the outlaw: Building extraordinary brands through the power of archetypes. New York: McGraw-Hill 2001.]. Nelson classified heroes into three subtypes: conventional (e.g. warriors, princesses), superheroes who possess supernatural powers (e.g. comic book super-humans), and exemplars of prosocial conformity (e.g. pioneer boy, Puritan girl). She classified villains into three types: symbols of Death (e.g. ghosts), monsters (e.g. werewolves), and anti-heroes (e.g. pirates, witches). She classified fools who conjure perceptions of simplicity into two types: humans (e.g. clowns) or non-humans (e.g. objects or animals). Nelson’s coding revealed costumes marketed to boys to be more evenly dispersed across these eight possible costume character archetypes (see Table 1). In contrast, the majority of costumes marketed to girls (over 70%) were concentrated in just two of the eight categories: conventional heroes (i.e. in the feminine form of beauty queens and princesses) and non-human fools (e.g. baby animals, bugs). She also informally observed that boys’ costumes portrayed a range of “active-masculine” traits involving agency; in contrast, girls’ costumes emphasized “passive-feminine” traits involving passive display of beauty and winsome charm, what she also refers to as “ornamental feminine passivity.”

Table 1
Costume Character Archetypes from Nelson (2000) and Study 1.

Such gendered themes have been recognized variously in feminist social science as resulting in an association of boys and men with activity and agency and girls and women with passivity and display [16Kaiser S. The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context (2m1 ed Revised). NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. 1997., 17Monk-Turner E, Wren K, McGill L, Matthiae C, Brown S, Brooks D. Who is gazing at whom? A look at how sex is used in magazine advertisements. J Gend Stud 2008; 17(3): 201-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589230802204167] ]. Macmillan et al. noted that males are socialized toward an agonic ideal of power through physical expressions, accomplishment, and power over others [5Macmillan C D, Lynch A, Bradley L A. Agonic and hedonic power: The performance of gender by young adults on Halloween Paideusis, 5 2011.]. In contrast, women are socialized toward indirect power through attracting attention from others. Kirsch and Murnen [18Kirsch AC, Murnen SK. “Hot” girls and “cool dudes”: Examining the prevalence of the heterosexual script in American children’s television media. Psychol Pop Media Cult 2015; 4(1): 18.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000017] ] suggest this is a common cultural pattern of boys objectifying girls for their appearance and girls reciprocating with self-objectification, so that “girls treat themselves as an object; they learn to be observed and recognize the utility in their appearance” (p. 20).

Contemporary Halloween masquerade is a lighthearted vestige of its historic more serious purpose: in mediaeval times, a successful costume served to disguise the wearer in order to protect them from evil spirits lurking on October 31^st [9Belk RW. Halloween: An evolving American consumption ritual, in M E . 1990. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, (508-517), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.]. Today’s more playful function of costuming is to disguise the wearer’s usual way of being as a liberation from their regular self [19Caillois R. Man, Play and Games. Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1961.]. The creative freedom that comes from masquerade is an integral part of costume play, and some argue it can provide a rare opportunity to be freed from everyday practical limitations and cultural norms [20Fron J, Fullerton T, Morie JF, Pearce C. Playing dress-up: Costumes, roleplay and imagination. In: In Philosophy of Computer Games Conference; 2007; pp. 25-7.]. As Nelson [21Nelson A, Robinson BW. Gigolos and madams bountiful. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press Incorporated 1994.] noted, “Children’s Halloween costumes suggest a flight of imagination that remains largely anchored in traditional gender roles, images, and symbols… of what women/girls and men/boys are capable of doing even within the realm of their imaginations (p. 143).

So, how might gender-typed and gender-targeted commercial costumes restrict this masquerade function to fit within the confines of everyday gender role norms? Nelson [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] anecdotally observed that girls’ costumes provided less coverage and accentuated the wearer’s own physical attractiveness as the child herself (rather than her costume character) became the featured subject. It seems that girl’s costumes had to fulfill demands for feminine ornamental display-she must not simply be a princess, she must display herself as pretty, in her princess costume. Similarly, as Macmillan et al. observed of women’s costuming preferences, full disguises are less desirable, in particular because anonymity does not allow the wearer to get “credit” for the ornamental display she feels compelled to exhibit [5Macmillan C D, Lynch A, Bradley L A. Agonic and hedonic power: The performance of gender by young adults on Halloween Paideusis, 5 2011.]. This is in marked contrast to achievement contexts, where women report downplaying display demands with clothing that conceals (or disguises) the body to regulate other’s sexual objectification and their own self-objectifying body-monitoring [22Breines JG, Crocker J, Garcia JA. Self-objectification and well-being in women’s daily lives. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2008; 34(5): 583-98.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207313727] [PMID: 18281441] , 23Fredrickson BL, Roberts T. Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychol Women Q 1997; 21: 173-206.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x] ]. It is also in contrast to what how boys approach their costuming. Research shows that men report a greater preference for Halloween costumes that disguise with masks and report feeling more freedom to portray different identities or roles while wearing costumes [5Macmillan C D, Lynch A, Bradley L A. Agonic and hedonic power: The performance of gender by young adults on Halloween Paideusis, 5 2011., 24Miller K, Jasper CR, Hill DR. Costume and the perception of identity and role. Percept Mot Skills 1991; 72(3): 807-13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1991.72.3.807] ]. Nelson [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] mentioned a tendency for boys’ costumes to be more elaborate and fantastical, especially the gruesome villains. When it comes to the function of boys’ and men’s everyday garments, they already enjoy a distinct advantage over that of girls’ and women’s, as their clothing is more likely to favor function, comfort, durability, and coverage [25Jeffreys S. Beauty and misogyny: Harmful cultural practices in the west. NY, NY: Routledge 2005.]. It is thus reasonable to suspect that if a costume’s function is to disguise and conceal so that the wearer can masquerade, this function may be more available in boys’ and men’s costumes.

To explore patterns in a contemporary sample of costumes, we extended Nelson’s [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] study to include costumes marketed to children and also adults. In Study 1, we compared the representation of girls’, boys’, women’s, and men’s costumes across the Klapp costume character archetypes, on Nelson’s active-masculinity/passive-femininity, and for degree of disguise. In Study 2, we examined an additional sample of girls’ and women’s costumes with regard to Nelson’s construct of ornamental feminine passivity.

Based on Nelson’s [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] distributions of the Klapp character archetypes of hero, villain, and fool, we expected boys’ costumes to be “less singular in the visual images they portrayed” (p. 141), and therefore dispersed across all the Klapp subtypes. We also expected girls’ costumes to be concentrated in subcategories of conventional heroes (e.g. attractive princesses, beauty queens, and brides) and non-human fools (e.g. adorable ladybugs and baby animals). We expected the pattern of archetypes in men’s costumes to be similar to boys’, and in women’s costumes to be similar to girls’. Throughout this section, we made note of any differences and similarities in our patterns compared to Nelson’s. Finally, within our sample, we compared proportions of costumes falling into three major character archetypes to determine if there were statistically significant gender differences between boys’ and girls’ costumes, and then between women’s and men’s costumes (although Nelson did not run such statistical tests).

Next, we explored active-masculinity/passive-femininity. She noted that girls’ costumes tended to be on the passive-feminine end of this dichotomy, characterized as erotic, ornamental, and “concentrated in the narrow realm of beauty” (p. 141), and boy costumes tended to be on the active-masculine end, characterized by themes of agency, warriors, and repellent or “blood-curdling” masculinity (p. 142). Based upon Nelson’s informal observations, we expected boys’ and mens’ costumes would display more active-masculinity than would girls’ and women’s costumes.

We then explored the additional dimension of disguise. We expected boys’ and men’s costumes would be more disguising (i.e. more functionally masquerading) than would girls’ and womens’. We also expected a positive correlation between active-masculinity and disguise, because active-masculine costumes would provide more coverage in support of the costume’s masquerade function, and feminine-passive costumes would provide less coverage in support of display concerns.

Costume Sample. Our costume sample came from two major nationwide online costume “superstores” in the USA, operating out of “big box stores” and seasonal “pop-up stores,” but also accessible online via a standard online search for “Halloween Costumes,” offering a large selection, and nationwide shipping. We diverged from Nelson’s method of visiting brick-and-mortar costume and sewing stores to view packaging labels for several reasons. First, internet store sales have dramatically overtaken in-store sales in the United States [26Dilworth D. More consumers are buying Halloween costumes online, Direct Marketing News Available at: http://www.dmnews.com/ more-consumers-are-buying-halloween-costumes-online/ article/93239. 2006.]. Second, online catalogs reflect the gender-targeted marketing boom [27Sadler J. Gender marketing strategies in food and drinks: Future profit opportunities, best practice innovation, and NPD. Business Insights Reports 2005.] of “conveniently” directing the costumer to gender-appropriate browsing via explicitly gender-tagged product links where they will find the product displayed in vivid photographic imagery by a “gender appropriate” model. Third, with a decline in home sewing [28Highbeam Fabric, craft & sewing supplies stores market, Report NAICS45113 Available at: http://www.business.highbeam.com/ industry-reports/retail/sewing-needlework-piece-goods-stores 2013.] and an increase in the proliferation of inexpensive outsourced product manufacturing [29Pollen A. Performing spectacular girlhood: Mass-produced dressing-up costumes and the commodification of imagination. Text Hist 2011; 42(2): 162-80.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/174329511X13123634653820] ], the mass-produced costume market has grown substantially.

Our sample of costume images was initially collected in 2010 and 2011 (about a decade after Nelson’s study) and printed off onto a costume master file. We matched Nelson’s [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] sample size of 428 children’s costumes and added 428 adults’ costumes, for a total of 856 costumes. Using pre-labeled gender links “boys’ costumes,” “girls’ costumes,” “women’s costumes,” and “men’s costumes,” we selected every other unique and non-repeating costume (up to the total of 233 for girls, 195 for boys, 233 for women, and 195 for men). Matching Nelson’s sample size made for easier comparisons, and it kept our costume selection to a manageable size. With the costume master as a reference, coders were able to revisit costume images online through the end of 2013, as needed, with the sample of costumes still accessible, and most still available for purchase, at the time of write up.

Coding Procedure. A mixed-gender group of eight undergraduate psychology majors (two men and six women) worked with the authors to code all costumes in the selected sample. Coding assistants were given operational definitions of each code and a few practice trials for training purposes. Then a pair of assistants was assigned a subset of costumes to code (about 200 costumes per pair), each applying codes separately from each other. After each coder in the pair completed independent coding of their set, they met to count and reconcile any discrepancies. Discrepancies were reconciled through discussion between the coding pair, referring back to costume images and operational definitions. Interrater agreement was calculated as the proportion of matching codes to total codes for each category after all coders had completed coding the entire costume sample (but before the coding pairs met to reconcile to 100% agreement).

Coding of Costume Gender and Age. The internet stores organized costumes by age and gender on separate links for boys’, girls’, men’s, and women’s costumes, typically available in sizes small, medium, large, and extra-large. For occasional instances when more than one age or gender of model was pictured in a single product image or when a costume was incorrectly linked by age or gender due to a web link error (e.g. an image of a woman displayed on the boys’ costume link), coders replaced that costume with the next eligible costume on the website.

Coding of Costume Character Archetypes. Costume character archetypes were first coded into the three Klapp [4Horovitz B. Scary! Halloween’s been hijacked by adults. USA Today, Available at: retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/ story/money/ business/2012/10/24/ halloween-adults- costumes-elvira-mistress-of-the-dark/1593177. 2012.] character archetypes (interrater agreement = 90%). Costumes were sub-coded according to Nelson’s into eight subcategories: Heroes (i.e. Conventional, Superhero, Exemplar), Villains (i.e. Symbol of Death, Monster, Antihero), and Fools (i.e. Human, Non-Human) (interrater agreement = 69%).

Coding of active-masculinity/passive-femininity. We coded each costume for active-masculinity/passive-femininity, based on a set of five indicators derived from Nelson’s descriptions. Coders rated costumes on a three point scale (0 = not at all, 1 = somewhat, and 2 = great deal) for how agentic (interrater agreement = 86%), aggressive (interrater agreement = 86%), eroticized (interrater agreement = 90%), fearsome (interrater agreement = 99%), and winsome (interrater agreement = 88%) each costume was. The agentic dimension was operationally defined as the display of self or costume in action, using a skill, and/or in an alert, confident, or triumphant stance. The aggressive dimension was operationally defined as the display of warrior traits of physical strength, preparation for fighting, violence, or weapon use. The eroticized dimension was operationally defined as an eroticized, seductive, or sexually suggestive display. The fearsome dimension was operationally defined as a frightening, grotesque, or visually repellent display. The winsome dimension was operationally defined as an adorable, charming, cute, innocent, or submissive display. After coders reconciled their ratings, a final scale score was calculated as an average of these five ratings (reverse coding eroticized and winsome), with high indicating more active-masculinity (and low indicating more passive-femininity), putting Nelson’s dichotomy on a single continuous scale (inter-item scale reliability for the five item scale was Alpha = .63).

Coding for Disguise. Coders separately rated costumes on four indicators of disguise. On a 3 point scale (0 = not at all, 1 = somewhat, and 2 = great deal), coders rated each costume for masking of the face (interrater agreement 99%), skin display (interrater agreement 90%), tightness (interrater agreement 81%), and coverage (interrater agreement 84%). Masking of the face was operationally defined as display of any full or partial masks or facial applique that concealed the wearer’s face. Skin display was operationally defined as exposure of the wearer’s arms, legs, or torso. Tightness was operationally defined as fabric that was body shape revealing, clinging, and form fitting. The coverage dimension was operationally defined as the incorporation of a sufficient quantity and thickness of fabric, to provide the wearer overall bodily coverage, drape, or insulation against the elements. After coders reconciled their ratings, a final scale score was calculated as an average of these four ratings (reverse coding the skin display and tightness scores), with high indicating more disguise (inter-item scale reliability for the four item scale was Alpha = .83).

Costume Character Archetypes. In view of Nelson’s findings, we expected boys’ costumes to be more evenly dispersed across all the Klapp subtypes and girls’ costumes to be concentrated in the subtypes of conventional heroes and non-human fools. We expected a parallel pattern in comparing men’s costumes to women’s costumes. Table (1) displays the number and percentage of costumes in each character classification, alongside those from Nelson’s [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] original sample.

Our sample of boys’ costumes was generally dispersed across the costume character archetypes, however there was a notable increase in conventional heroes (from 26% in Nelson’s sample to 42% in our sample of boys’ costumes). The conventional heroes consisted of famous licensed protagonists from film and television merchandising, a media marketing trend that has recently become a standard marketing strategy [30Tashjian J, Naidoo JC. Licensing and Merchandising in children’s television and media. 2007; pp. 1-36. The Children’s Television Community]. The proportion of superheroes and exemplars was about the same as in Nelson’s study, as was the overall requirement that boy heroes represent strong and powerful characters such as boxers, race car drivers, and any character scheme promising a “show of force” or to be “ready for battle.” Boys’ villains costumes remained distinctly less friendly than girls’ villains, with boys’ villains described as “evil” and “slayer,” paired with violent or repellent props (e.g. weapons, oozing blood operated with a hand pump) and anti-heroes made up of licensed film and television “bad guys”. The category with the greatest dip in boy costumes (compared to Nelson) was in the category of fools-with human (e.g. clowns) or nonhuman (e.g. animals) fool costumes for boys.

Table 2
Costume Character Archetypes in the (Study 2) Girls and Women’s Costume Sample.

As expected, the largest proportion of girls’ costumes (67% in our study compared to 72% in Nelson’s study) fell into the categories of conventional heroes and non-human fools. As in Nelson’s study, girls’ heroes included princesses, beauty queens, and fashionable divas, at the expense of superheroes (i.e., boys were 5 times more likely to be superheroes in our study and in Nelson’s), and girls’ fools were typically dainty and winsome winged creatures or bashful baby animals. There was an increase, compared to Nelson, in the proportion girls’ villain costumes, specifically in symbols of death and monsters popularized by television and movies [31Butler E. The Rise of the Vampire. London, UK: Reaktion Books 2013., 32Foltyn J L. Corpse Chic: Dead models and living corpses in fashion photography. 2011. Fashion Forward, 379.]. Similar to Nelson’s sample, girls’ villain costumes were accompanied with friendly descriptors such as “sparkle,” “adorable,” and “pretty.”

The largest proportion of men’s costumes were conventional heroes, most typically representing strength, ruggedness, and accomplishment. As with boys’, men’s villains were paired with violent imagery and film and television “bad guys”. The unexpected pattern in men’s costumes was in the proportion of fools—which was substantially higher than was found in women’s costumes. Fools dropped out in our sample of boys, but they remained for men and girls. However, the men’s fool costumes were different from the “adorable” girls’ fool costumes, with men’s fool costumes often outrageously comical or politically controversial, incorporating cross dressing, mockery of women, ageism (e.g. exposing faux “aging” female body parts), intentionally vulgar phallic symbols, or sexual innuendo (not for sexual appeal, as was emphasized in women’s fool costumes). These costumes offered men an excuse for both sexual display and for “playing” dress up, with promises to “be the life of the party.” Men’s costumes seemed to emphasize masculine pressures toward same-sex approval and one-upmanship [33Flood M. Men, sex, and homosociality how bonds between men shape their sexual relations with women. Men Masculinities 2008; 10(3): 339-59.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1097184X06287761] ].

As expected, women’s costumes were not as dispersed across categories as were men’s costumes. A higher proportion of women’s costumes were heroes, in comparison to men’s costumes, with the largest proportion (59%) falling into the single category of conventional heroes. In addition to the standard beauty queens and divas, women’s hero costumes included masculine occupational heroes Nelson had noted in boys’ costumes (e.g. firefighters, police, etc.), however these women heroes were highly sexualized in revealing clothing and high heels inconsistent with the uniform of the job. Sexualized outfits were repeated in all of women’s superhero costumes (e.g. “Sexy Robin/Batman Costume”) and in standard “pin-up” girl costumes, as well. Women’s and girls’ villains included more overt themes of sex-work and seduction. Fools represented less than one in ten women’s costumes compared to one in four girls’ costumes, and women’s fools emphasized sexiness rather than the winsomeness found in girls’ fools. Across all types of women’s costumes, there were messages encouraging competitive self-sexualization for attention [34Allen J, Gervais SJ. The drive to be sexy: Prejudice and core motivations in women’s self-sexualization. In: Russell DW, Russell CA, Eds. Psychology of prejudice: interdisciplinary perspectives on contemporary issues. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science 2012.], often with accompanying textual descriptions promising “all eyes” will be on her.

We compared the proportions of the character archetypes to test for statistically significant gender differences, comparing the proportions of boys versus girls costumes, and then the proportions of women’s versus men’s costumes. In the children’s sample, the proportion of hero costumes was higher for boys than for girls, X² (n = 428, df = 1) = 4.40, p. < .05, and the proportion of fool costumes was higher for girls than for boys, X² (n = 428, df = 1) = 8.13, p. < .01. In the adults’ sample these patterns were unexpectedly flipped, with the proportion of hero costumes being higher for women than for men, X² (n = 428, df = 1) = 20.02, p. < .001 and the proportion of fool costumes being higher for men than for women, X² (n = 428, df = 1) = 24.79, p. < .001. There were no statistically significant gender differences in the proportions of villains in the children’s sample, X² (n = 428, df = 1) = .014, NS, nor in the adult sample, X² (n = 428, df = 1) = 1.81, NS.

Active-masculinity/passive-femininity. As we expected, boys’ costumes were higher in active-masculinity (M = 1.10; SD =.39) than were girls’ costumes (M = .59; SD =.23), t (426) = 16.15, p. < .001 (Cohen’s d = .63). Also as expected, men’s costumes were higher in active-masculinity (M = 1.15; SD =.44) than were women’s costumes (M = .31_; SD =.40), t (426) = 20.71, p. < .001 (Cohen’s d = .71). Women had the lowest ratings for active masculinity, which is consistent with developmental theories that suggest there is more gender normative freedom for girls before they reach adolescence [35Pipher MP. Reviving Ophelia: Helping you to understand and cope with your teenage daughter. NY, NY: Random House 2010.]. Women’s costumes nearly universally incorporated what Nelson called ornamental passive-femininity at the expense of agency.

Disguise. As anticipated, boys’ costumes offered more disguise (M = 1.65; SD =.26) than did girls’ costumes (M = .99; SD =.41), t (426) = 19.28, p. < .001 (Cohen’s d = .68). Likewise, men’s costumes offered more disguise (M = 1.51; SD =.39) than did women’s costumes (M = .27; SD =.43), t (426) = 31.13, p. < .001 (Cohen’s d = .83). Boys’ and men’s costumes often completely covered the wearer with a full head mask and full body suit. This was rarely the case for girls’ and women’s costumes, with women’s costumes having the least disguise. In our sample, boys were offered more liberation from the “regular” self in the act of Halloween masquerade, without being obligated to literally possess featured traits [19Caillois R. Man, Play and Games. Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1961.]. Combining across all costumes, we found the expected positive correlation between active-masculinity and disguise, r (n = 856) = .704, p. < .001; thus, regardless of gender or age, the more active-masculinity displayed in the costume, the more disguise it afforded.

Despite the promise of progress in the ten years passing since Nelson’s [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] study and the potential for greater choice in an expanded costume market, children are still being presented with the same gender-typed costume options. We found very similar gender typing in the character archetypes of children’s costumes to what Nelson reported. Boys’ costume choices represented a wider range of characters of agency and girls costume choices were more restricted to pretty heroes and darling fools. For our adult costume sample, we found more divergent patterns, with women’s costumes predominantly incorporating a heightened emphasis on display through sexualized heroes, and men’s costumes offering options to be agentic heroes and clever fools. We found statistically significant gender differences in costume archetypes for both children and adults. Medium effects sizes were evident in the differences between girls’ and boys’ options, and medium to large effect sizes were evident in the differences between women’s and men’s options. Moreover, the two dimensions were related to each other across the entire sample, suggesting that costumes providing greater active masculinity also provided the wearer more opportunity to masquerade. Inversely, costumes high in passive femininity offered less opportunity for playful disguise, hindering what is the express purpose of costume masquerade-to be incognito. Girls’ and women’s costumes emphasized the wearer herself as the winsome or sexualized feature of that costume.

The “ornamental passive femininity” that Nelson described of girls’ costumes generally emphasized winsomeness, as she made only minor reference to eroticizing. With the inclusion of a sample of women’s costumes, we found the eroticizing or sexualizing to be far more common. To a lesser degree, we also saw an emphasis on the sexualizing of girls’ costumes, too; however, for them the ornamental value also emphasized innocent sweetness, or what is referred to as infantilizing. It seems that these two themes of sexualizing and infantilizing are in need of closer attention.

As feminist psychologists have noted [36Basow SA. The hairless ideal: Women and their body hair. Psychol Women Q 1991; 15: 83-96.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00479.x] , 37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] ], infantilization and sexualization are at the very foundation of sexism against women in contemporary Western culture. The pervasiveness of these themes, acting separately or in tandem, contributes to perceptions of their normativity while they erode the agency, instrumentality, and independence of girls and women [38Swim JK, Hyers LL. Sexism: Evidence and challenges to documenting its prevalence. In: Nelson TD, Ed. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. NY, NY: Psychology Press 2008.]. There has been significant and growing research attention paid to sexual objectification, culminating in APA’s [10Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association 2007.] report on the sexualization of girls. Little attention has been paid to infantilizing stereotypes of girls and women, with the largest share of the literature to be found in the work of evolutionary psychologists’ who view female neoteny as a biologically determined adaptive female sex-linked trait [39Furnham A, Reeves E. The relative influence of facial neoteny and waist-to-hip ratio on judgements of female attractiveness and fecundity. Psychol Health Med 2006; 11(2): 129-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13548500500155982] [PMID: 17129903] , 40Jones D. An evolutionary perspective on physical attractiveness. Evol Anthropol 1996; 5: 97-109.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1996)5:3<97::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-T] ]. Feminist scholarship is more likely to view such associations as stereotypes serving to justify a status quo that prevents adult women from being viewed as mature and competent [41Kristal S. Advertising assault: Women awaken from media induced slumber. Retrieved from Available at: http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/media/advertisingassault.html. 2012.].

We collected an additional sample of costumes for Study 2, selecting only girls’ and women’s costumes, so that we could explore the pattern of two unique subtypes of Nelson’s construct of ornamental feminine passivity in across age groups. First, we explored the qualitative nature of the costume characters, classified into Klapp’s three major character archetypes, as in Nelson [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] and in our Study 1. Given previous findings, we expected the largest proportion of costumes would again be heroes (i.e. feminine beauty queens, princesses, etc.). We also tested for statistically significant age differences in the proportions of the archetypes in girls versus women’s costumes. Based on results of Study 1, we anticipated a higher proportion of girls’ costumes would be fools, compared to women’s costumes.

Next, we explored infantilization and sexualization. Infantilization of girls and women involves viewing them as immature and equating femininity with vulnerability and submission [37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] , 42Spagnoli F. Infantilization, a collection of images. Retrieved from Available at: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/ 2010/10/22/infantilization-a-collection-of-images. 2010.]. Infantilizing is the foundation of the “school girl” motif [12Durham GM. The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of girls and what we can do about it. NY, NY: The Overlook Press 2009.], “romper craze” [43Grose J. The romper craze: Why grown women dress like toddlers and which one looks best. Retrieved from Available at: http://www.doublex.com/section/life/romper-craze-why-grown-women-dress-toddlers. 2009.], “princess effect” [44Orenstein P. Cinderella ate my daughter. NY, NY: Harper Collins 2011.], and “girl power,” when are set apart from ordinary power [45Douglas S. The rise of enlightened sexism. NY, NY: St. Martin’s Press 2010.]. Infantilization is also evident in the fashion media with its strategic fetishizing of infantilized poses by models, putting their hands over or in their mouths, covering their eyes, tilting their heads, twirling their hair, or gazing in a state of mental drift as if lost in a daydream [37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] , 46Kang ME. The portrayal of women’s images in magazines advertisements: Goffman’s gender analysis revisited. Sex Roles 1997; 37: 979-96.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02936350] , 47Mears A. Discipline of the catwalk: Gender, power and uncertainty in fashion modeling. Ethnography 2008; 9(4): 429-56.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1466138108096985] ]. Clothing styles, fabrics, and decorations also contain infantilizing elements that resemble doll clothes [25Jeffreys S. Beauty and misogyny: Harmful cultural practices in the west. NY, NY: Routledge 2005., 48Karniol R. The color of children’s gender stereotypes. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 119-32.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9989-1] ]. Nelson [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] did not explicitly code for infantilizing themes; however, some of the infantilizing elements she observed included the use of the color pink (hence the “Pink Dragon” in her title), bashful gestures (with female costume models depicted in a non-agentic stance), or additions of bows (e.g. to suggest an animal costume female). She also noted how infantilization of girls’ villain costumes “emphasized their winsome rather than wicked qualities, to neutralize the malignancy” (p. 142).

Sexualization emphasizes seductive ornamental display with clothing that has become eroticized [10Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association 2007., 49Entwistle J. The fashioned body fashion, dress, and modern social theory. Oxford: Policy Press 2000., 37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] , 50Levin DE, Kilbourne J. So sexy so soon. NY, NY: Ballantine Books 2008.]. Sexualization has a new potency as the images of mainstream fashion have coopted themes from the commercial sex industry, such as symbols of bondage, sadomasochism, and sexual exploitation [12Durham GM. The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of girls and what we can do about it. NY, NY: The Overlook Press 2009., 51Kilbourne J. Can’t buy my love: How advertising changes the way we think and feel. NY, NY: Simon & Shuster 2000., 52Merskin D. Reviving Lolita? A media literacy examination of sexual portrayals of girls in fashion advertising. Am Behav Sci 2004; 48: 119-29.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764204267257] ]. Termed “The Lolita Effect” or the “pornographization” of the culture, the “stigmata of prostitution” is brought into the everyday life of women and girls [12Durham GM. The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of girls and what we can do about it. NY, NY: The Overlook Press 2009., 25Jeffreys S. Beauty and misogyny: Harmful cultural practices in the west. NY, NY: Routledge 2005., 52Merskin D. Reviving Lolita? A media literacy examination of sexual portrayals of girls in fashion advertising. Am Behav Sci 2004; 48: 119-29.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764204267257] , 53Paul P. Pornified: How Pornography is transforming our lives, our relationships and our families. NY, NY: Times Books 2005.]. Sexualizing clothing and products are increasingly available for girls of all ages [50Levin DE, Kilbourne J. So sexy so soon. NY, NY: Ballantine Books 2008., 54Liebau CP. Prude: How the sex-obsessed culture damages girls. NY, NY: Hachette Book Group 2007.-56Maine M. Something’s happening here: Sexual objectification, body image distress, and eating disorders. In: 2009.], however due to the taboo of sexuality being associated with youth, infantilizing elements are often added to dilute the overt sexuality products marketed to younger girls’ [37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] ]. Nelson [13Nelson A. The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychol Women Q 2000; 24: 137-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00194.x] ] did note occasions, particularly for villains, in which costumes emphasized “erotic” themes (e.g. “trim at the top of the ribcage served to create the suggestion of a bosom,” and “the names of villains emphasized the erotic side of their villainy e.g. Echantra,” p. 141).

We explored the patterns of infantilizing and sexualizing across the four age groups of baby girls’, child girls’, teen girls’, and women’s costumes. We expected to find both infantilizing and sexualizing themes to some extent in all age groups. With little research on infantilizing, it was unclear how it would vary across age groups, however, we did assume sexualization would be more frequent in costumes for teen girls and women. Furthermore, based on observations of Goodin et al. [37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] ] that girls’ clothing incorporates infantilizing elements as a “cover” for sexualization (to diffuse resistance that might occur if clothing is exclusively sexualizing), we expected that the combination of infantilization and sexualization would be most common in children’s and teen’s costumes, targeted at an age group where overt sexualization is increasing, but still taboo.

Finally, we developed a descriptive inventory of the symbols of sexualization and infantilization evident in our sample of girl Halloween costumes. Visual symbols or cues are important units of meaning [57Banks M. Using visual data in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 2008.], including with regard to gender [58Schroeder JE, Borgerson JL. Marketing images of gender: A visual analysis. Consump Mark Cult 1998; 2(2): 161-201.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253866.1998.9670315] ]. We developed a thematic coding framework with examples, not unlike the extracts use in narrative qualitative codes [59Shank G. Six alternatives to mixed methods in qualitative research. Qualitative. Research in Psychology 2006; 3(4): 346-56.]. Cultural symbols are strategically developed and applied by product designers [60Pink S. Home truths: Gender, domestic objects and everyday life. Oxford, UK: Berg 2004.], thus the inventory of symbols we develop in one domain, Halloween costumes, is likely to inform our understanding of other female-targeted merchandise and gender socialization via objects in other domains.

The fairly substantial infantilizing in girls’ costumes can impact their sense of efficacy [37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] ] as they make a “mockery” of female power [21Nelson A, Robinson BW. Gigolos and madams bountiful. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press Incorporated 1994.]. Perhaps societal symbols to disempower girls and women (whether conscious, covert, or institutionalized) only need to be engaged once they actually can pose a threat to the status quo, so the older she is, the more these markers are applied [62Okimoto TG, Brescoll VL. The price of power: power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2010; 36(7): 923-36.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371949] [PMID: 20519573] , 63Rudman LA, Glick P. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J Soc Issues 2001; 57(4): 743-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239] ].

Though exclusive sexualization was not evident in the majority of girls’ costumes, there were still substantial proportions, especially for child and teen girls’ costumes. This is of concern when it appears in girls as young as 4 -14, since sexualizing contexts have been shown to inhibit healthy maturation, leading girls to become body conscious while they are still learning to understand the meaning and implications of their sexuality [44Orenstein P. Cinderella ate my daughter. NY, NY: Harper Collins 2011., 64Coy M. Milkshakes, lady lumps, and growing up to want boobies: How the sexualization of popular cultures limits girls horizons. Child Abuse Rev 2009; 18: 372-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/car.1094] -66Olfman S. The sexualization of childhood: Growing older younger/growing younger older. The sexualization of childhood (1-4). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 2009.]. Girls and women choose sexualized display in part because they are choosing from available options, and marketing techniques to promote these images [50Levin DE, Kilbourne J. So sexy so soon. NY, NY: Ballantine Books 2008.]. Girls report that their choice of costume is affected by a desire (or what they are told should be their desire) for attention (Lamb & Brown, 2006 [50Levin DE, Kilbourne J. So sexy so soon. NY, NY: Ballantine Books 2008.] and are encouraged to flaunt sexuality, even if they do not feel intrinsic interest in doing so [12Durham GM. The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of girls and what we can do about it. NY, NY: The Overlook Press 2009., 44Orenstein P. Cinderella ate my daughter. NY, NY: Harper Collins 2011.]. This supports Goodin and colleagues [37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] ] observation of this insidious combination of disempowering messages directed at children.

Sexualizing and infantilizing images are of concern in feminist psychology [36Basow SA. The hairless ideal: Women and their body hair. Psychol Women Q 1991; 15: 83-96.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00479.x] , 47Mears A. Discipline of the catwalk: Gender, power and uncertainty in fashion modeling. Ethnography 2008; 9(4): 429-56.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1466138108096985] ], and they were quite prominent in Study 2. With repeated pairing over time, the one may come to imply the other, so that infantilizing can essentially become eroticized, creating a confusing combination [67Dines G. Childified women: How the mainstream porn industry sells child pornography to men. The sexualization of childhood In: Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 2009; pp. 120-42.], encouraging a tendency to view children as sexually seductive [68Machia M, Lamb S. Sexualized innocence: Effects of magazine ads portraying adult women as sexy little girls. J Media Psychol 2009; 21: 15-24.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.21.1.15] ]. The general emphasis on appearance and the lack of agentic role models further contributes to the inhibition of creativity and efficacy in girls and women [69Raphael-Leff J. Femininity and its unconscious ‘shadows:’ Gender and generative identity in the age of biotechnology. Br J Psychother 2007; 23(4): 497-515.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0118.2007.00047.x] ].

Some postmodern feminist thought points to women’s choice to dress in an infantilized or sexualized way as a means to rebel or reclaim these displays [44Orenstein P. Cinderella ate my daughter. NY, NY: Harper Collins 2011., 70Egan R, Hawkes G. Endangered girls and incendiary objects: Unpacking the discourse on sexualization. Sex Cult 2008; 12: 291-311.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12119-008-9036-8] ]. Certainly some measure of these hyper-normative costumes may have been poking fun at it, perhaps dismantling normative power [71Hyers C. The spirituality of comedy: Comic heroism in a tragic world. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers 1996.]. Some girls and women may choose to use Halloween as an opportunity to embrace their sexuality, or to rebel against traditional modesty. However, some research suggests another perspective. One study by Erchull and Liss [72Erchull MJ, Liss M. Exploring the concept of perceived female sexual empowerment: Development and validation of the sex is power scale. Gend Issues 2013; 30(1-4): 39-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12147-013-9114-6] ] found that women “believing that sex is a personal source of power was related to greater experiences of body surveillance and unwanted body evaluation (p. 50).”

Overall, in Study 2, it appeared that girls and women had very similar pressures of intertwining infantilizing and sexualizing to wrestle with, starting quite young. Future research might focus on developing a standardized scoring system for all media to assess the degree of infantilizing and sexualizing in a range of products, including everyday clothing items, toys, magazine images, movies, and literature [73Rudy RM, Popova L, Linz DG. The context of current content analysis of gender roles: An introduction to a special issue. Sex Roles 2010; 62(11-12): 705-20.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9807-1] [PMID: 20694031] ]. Marketers have been found to overwhelmingly favor thin, young, white models [74Barnett HL, Keel PK, Conoscenti LM. Body type preferences in Asian and Caucasian college students. Sex Roles 2001; 45(11-12): 867-78.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015600705749] ]. Sizeism, ageism, and racism may add layers to sexualization and infantilization, and further potential for threats to girls’ and women’s self–esteem [75Polce-Lynch M, Myers BJ, Kilmartin CT. Gender and age patterns in emotional expression, body image and self-esteem: A qualitative analysis. Sex Roles 1998; 38: 1025-48.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018830727244] ].

Dressing in gender-stereotyped garments is one way in which children and adults participate daily in creating disparate gendered environments, reinforcing conventional gender roles [37Goodin SM, Van Denburg A, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Putting on sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles 2011; 65: 1-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9966-8] , 45Douglas S. The rise of enlightened sexism. NY, NY: St. Martin’s Press 2010.-49Entwistle J. The fashioned body fashion, dress, and modern social theory. Oxford: Policy Press 2000.]. Clothing is public part of our gender performance that can be judged by others [76Graff K, Murnen SK, Smolak L. Too sexualized to be taken seriously? Perceptions of a girl in childlike vs. sexualizing clothing. Sex Roles 2012; 66: 764-75.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0145-3] , 77Gurung RA, Chrouser CJ. Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing and observer characteristics matter? Sex Roles. 2007; 57: pp. (1-2)91-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9219-z] ]. Feminist psychology must remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that powerful sources of gender role restriction and gender typing remain even in a seemingly mundane activity such as Halloween costuming and not to discount their influence despite so many cultural advances for women and girls [38Swim JK, Hyers LL. Sexism: Evidence and challenges to documenting its prevalence. In: Nelson TD, Ed. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. NY, NY: Psychology Press 2008., 50Levin DE, Kilbourne J. So sexy so soon. NY, NY: Ballantine Books 2008.].

Creative play is essential to growth and it opens up possibilities to reinvent norms [55Linn S. A royal juggernaut: The Disney princesses and other commercialized threats to creative play and the path to self-realization for young girls. In: 2009.]. An overarching theme of Halloween is creative expression, which itself inspires originality, imagination, and risk taking [78Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. NY, NY: Free Press 1995.]. Creative behaviors are influenced by external factors such as cultural values [79Kasof J, Chuansheng C, Himsel A, Greenberger E. Values and creativity. Creat Res J 2007; 19(2/3): 105-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410701397164] ], gender role schemas [1Ogletree SM. How do I love thee? Let me count the valentines. Soc Behav Personal 1993; 21(2): 129-34. [doi: http://dx.doi.org/].
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1993.21.2.129] -6Bem SL. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing source. Psychol Rev 1981; 88: 354.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354] ], and restricted choice in commercially produced products [10Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association 2007.]. In their book Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing our Daughters from Marketers' Schemes, Lamb and Brown [80Lamb S, Brown M. Packaging girlhood: Rescuing our daughters from marketers’ schemes. NY, NY: St. Martin’s Press 2006.] argue that girls are particularly disadvantaged in the commercial marketplace compared to boys. Similarly, we found boys and men still enjoyed more creative freedom in playful disguise while girls and women were held in the binds of display concerns.

As millions wear Halloween costumes annually [3Britt D. Halloween is big business, South Source Publication of South University, Available at: http://source.southuniversity.edu/ halloween-is-big-business-27678.aspx. 2010.], costume designs and choices are likely to have some impact on how we think about gender. The relationship between individually held beliefs and commercially produced gender stereotypes is an important matter for continued future research. We must continue to work on media literacy in order to resist the power of commercially produced gender socialization, encourage alternative media outlets with positive gender images, develop peer discussions, and demand more counter-stereotypic media images.