There is concern that the body sizes of fashion store mannequins are too thin and promote unrealistic body ideals. To date, there has been no systematic review of the size of high street fashion store mannequins. In this article about Khosravi’s mannequin, we are going to examine the size of male and female mannequins. Stay with us until the end of this blog.
materials and methods
We checked out the national fashion retailers on the high street of two English cities. The body size of the “male” and “female” mannequins was assessed by two blind research assistants using visual rating scales. The average female mannequin size represented a very underweight woman, and 100% of the female mannequins represented an underweight body size. The average body size of the male mannequin was significantly larger than the average body size of the female mannequin. Only 8% of male mannequins were underweight. Of course, nowadays you can order the desired mannequin in suitable sizes, just visit Khosravi Mannequin website.
Conclusion about female and male mannequin size
The mannequin size used to advertise women’s fashion is unrealistic and medically considered unhealthy in humans. It is well known that the internalization of “super thin” body ideals in women acts as a risk factor for the development of eating disorders and impaired psychological well-being.
However, in the modern advanced world, unrealistic body ideals are conveyed to women both implicitly and explicitly. For example, female models tend to have very slim body sizes that are unattainable for most women. The body size dimensions of the popular girls’ toy doll “Barbie” are also unacceptably narrow.
Suitable size for a female mannequin
Similarly, catwalk fashion models often appear to be extremely underweight, and public concern has led to recent legislation in European countries banning extremely underweight catwalk models. Likewise, the use of underweight models has recently been banned in Israel, due to concerns that using such models conveys ultra-thin body ideals to young people. Therefore, there is a growing awareness that prevention efforts against body image problems need to address the broader environment and reduce associations of very thin body ideals.
Rintala and Mustajuki evaluated six female mannequins made in Italy, Japan, and Malaysia between the 1920s and 1960s. Based on the body dimensions of these mannequins, the authors concluded that if a human woman had the same body dimensions, she would have so little body fat that she would not be able to have periods. Recently, there has been public concern that the typical size of high street fashion store mannequins (the main retail street in a town or city) used in England represents an unrealistic body size for women, and that this may be misrepresented.
Price of female mannequin size
Body size ideals In response to this, there are some news reports that fashion retailers across the UK are starting to use more realistic mannequin sizes. However, no systematic review has been conducted on the size of street fashion store mannequins. The body size of mannequins used for fashion sales may be relevant to preventing body image problems, as thin mannequins may be an environmental factor that communicates and reinforces the ultra-thin ideal. The purpose of this research was to investigate the sizes of male and female mannequins used in national high street fashion retailers in England. The secondary objective is to investigate whether the size of the mannequins used in stores is different depending on the age of the consumer of the store in question. We reasoned that stores targeting a younger age range might use slim mannequins because of the greater value placed on thinness in young people.
Mannequin size rating scales
Once the mannequins were rated, each researcher completed two rating scales by selecting the shape on each scale that most closely resembled the size of the rated mannequin. A body size guide rating scale based on BMI [16] and a contour drawing rating scale [17]. The BMI-based body size guide rating scale consists of ten standardized photographs of adults with known BMI values and is a valid body size perception tool [16]. The scale is gender-specific and the images range in size from underweight (BMI < 18.5) to class III obesity (BMI≥ 40), with a BMI difference of approximately 3 points between scale figures. For the purpose of this study, we included the ends of the scale marked as “much narrower” or “much larger” than the first and last figures in the set, as we noticed that a number of mannequins were smaller than the first figure on the scale. This created a score between 1 and 12. See Figure 1. The scale includes nine male/male front view contour designs that scale body size, from a figure that looks very thin to one that is clearly overweight. We re-entered the ends of the scale labeled “much narrower” and “much larger,” resulting in a rating score between 1 and 11.
Female and male mannequin size
Average size of female and male mannequins
The average mannequin size using the contour drawing rating scale (left) and the BMI-based body size guide rating scale (right) are shown by the dashed boxes. For a guide rating scale
Body size based on BMI: scores 1 and 2 (underweight), 3 and 4 (healthy weight), 5 (overweight), 6-12 (obese class I and above)
Discuss the appropriate size of the mannequin
In the current research, we examined the size of the mannequins used in national fashion retail stores in the high streets of two English cities. The average female mannequin body size represented a very underweight female, and all female mannequins rated represented underweight body sizes for a female human. This was not the case for male mannequins. The average body size of the male mannequin was significantly larger than the average body size of the female mannequin and was representative of a man of healthy weight. Only 8% of male mannequins show an underweight body size for a man. We found that female mannequins used in high street fashion stores targeting a younger market (under 30 years of age) were similarly slimmer compared to mannequins used in stores without that target market. However, male mannequins used in street fashion stores targeting a younger age range were significantly slimmer than their counterparts in stores that did not target a younger age range, although analyzes of the store’s target age range in Sample sizes were limited and should be interpreted with caution.