Media plays a powerful role in shaping how children see their and other people’s bodies, and that influence begins early. By 15 to 18 months, children start recognizing themselves in a mirror and connecting movement to identity (Brownell, Zerwas, & Ramani, 2012). At first, they focus on what their bodies can do. But as they grow, that focus shifts to how their bodies look, making the images they see on screen especially impactful in shaping body image, belonging, and self-worth. This is why body representation in children’s television matters. From an early age, children begin forming ideas about what an “ideal” body looks like. As these ideals take hold, young people learn to judge both themselves and others based on appearance.

Unfortunately, bodily self-awareness commonly escalates into body dissatisfaction, and body dissatisfaction can occur as early as the ages of three to six years old (Spiel, Paxton, & Yager, 2012). Moreover, body dissatisfaction is consistently higher for girls than boys, though boys exhibit body dissatisfaction as well (Tatangelo, McCabe, Mellor, & Mealey, 2016). Longitudinal studies show that body dissatisfaction increases between middle school and high school—and continues to rise into young adulthood (Bucchianeri, Arikian, Hannan, Eisenberg, & Neumark-Szatainer, 2013).

How do ideas about the “ideal” body develop? Decades of research show that media plays a powerful role in shaping perceptions of physical attractiveness (Thompson & Stice, 2001). Children and teens internalize body ideals not just from peers or family but also from the characters they see on screen. These repeated images send strong signals about which bodies are admired, accepted, or ignored. Contributing to unrealistic ideals is the reality that fat characters remain rare on screen. One study found that in top primetime shows, male characters are almost twice as likely as female characters to be fat (Greenberg, Eastin, Hofschire, Lachlan, & Brownell, 2003). If larger body types are invisible, this sends a clear message about whose bodies are considered acceptable and worthy of being seen. It reinforces harmful norms and denies children the opportunity to see the full spectrum of human bodies as normal and valued.

This report uses the term “fat” as a value-neutral descriptor that is not rooted in harmful medical practices (such as “obese” or “overweight”). As a description, “fat” is not suggestive of being outside of some sort of “norm” or “average” (unlike terms such as “plus size” or “bigger”). 

Media representation of bodies outside of a thin, perceived “ideal” are rare. Many people grow up watching TV shows where characters with larger bodies were shamed for their size, or served mostly as a punchline. Heard early in life, these messages can shape how viewers understand which bodies are valued and which are mocked. That’s why accurate, diverse, and multidimensional body representation in children’s television matters. 

Representing a wide array of body types in media can affirm that all bodies and shapes are normal, and encourage children to understand this reality from an early age. We know from social psychology research that how bodies are portrayed in media can either reinforce harmful stereotypes—especially about fat people—or actively work to dismantle them. The Geena Davis Institute believes that when children see inclusive and affirming portrayals on screen, it helps build a more equitable and accepting world off screen.

To understand body representation in children’s television and its potential real-world impact, the Geena Davis Institute analyzed new English-language scripted series that originated in the U.S. from 2022 to 2024, across cable, broadcast, and streaming platforms, based on data from Luminate Film & TV, by Variety. 

Key Findings

  • Fat representation is uncommon. Across all years, 15.5% of characters in new children’s television programs are fat. When limited to human characters, 11.9% of characters are fat. Among nonhuman characters, 20.6% are fat. All told, fat representation is highest among animated nonhuman characters, suggesting there is more effort to visually communicate body diversity among animated nonhumans than among human characters.
  • When fat representation is shown, those characters are likely nonhuman. Fat characters are significantly more likely to be nonhuman characters than human characters (55.2% of fat characters were nonhuman, compared with 44.8% who are human).
  • The more prominent a character’s role, the less likely they are to be fat. Out of all leads/co-leads, just 12.0% are fat. Of all notable supporting roles, 13.5% are fat. Of all supporting roles, 18.3% are fat.
  • Fat animated characters have distinguishable features that highlight them as different from the rest. Animators make intentional choices to communicate fatness in animated characters. Common ways include highlighting the neck area (e.g., having no neck, a saggy neck, or a double chin), clothing choices that are too small, fat rolls, unique facial features, wideness, and making these characters much larger in stature than other characters in their worlds.
  • Male characters and older characters are the most likely to be fat. Intersectional analysis indicates that fat characters are more likely to be male (64.5% of fat characters vs. 51.6% of characters who are not fat) and about three times as likely to be 50-plus (14.1% vs. 4.5% for characters who are not fat).
  • A double standard exists between gender, body type, and revealing clothing. While fat female characters are significantly less likely than female characters who are not fat to be wearing revealing clothing (3.9% compared with 9.2%), fat male characters are significantly more likely to be wearing revealing clothing than male characters who are not fat (5.0% compared with 2.6%).
  • Fat characters are significantly more likely to be portrayed with negative traits—but are equally shown with positive traits. When comparing characters who are fat with characters who are not fat, both groups are equally shown with an occupation, dreams and aspirations, as smart, and as funny. However, there are notable differences with negative traits examined: Fat characters are significantly more likely to have poor personal hygiene (1.6% compared with 0.5% for characters who aren’t fat), to be lazy (1.4% compared with 0.5%), “dumb” (8.8% compared with 2.2%) and to be the butt of the joke (12.2% compared with 8.5%).
  • Fat characters are less likely to be involved in physical activity. The stereotype that fat people are inactive and sedentary is reinforced in children’s television shows. Fat characters are significantly less likely to exercise (6.2% compared with 9.4% for characters who are not fat) and participate in sports (4.2% compared with 7.6%).
  • Fat characters are more likely to be shown displaying food-bingeing tendencies but are equally shown eating. There are no differences between fat characters and characters who are not fat in terms of whether they are shown eating, the nutritional quality of what they are eating, and other eating behaviors. Nevertheless, fat characters are more likely to express food-bingeing tendencies, such as eating large amounts of food at a quick speed or with hyper fixations about food.
  • Fat characters are shown facing body-size microaggressions. Episodes that contained at least one fatness-related microaggression are significantly more likely to include at least one fat character in that episode.

Recommendations

  • Diversify body types on screen. Fat characters are rare, especially among human roles.
    • When casting, choose actors of varied body types across all roles, not just sidekicks.
    • In animation, intentionally design a variety of body sizes that feel real and non-stigmatizing.
    • Let body diversity show up in every scene, not just as the punchline.
  • Show more fat girls and young fat characters. Boys and older characters are more likely than girls and younger characters to be shown as fat, sending the message that fatness is more acceptable for men and older people.
    • Include fat girls and teens in stories about love, leadership, friendship, and identity.
    • Don’t limit fat representation to “old” characters or one-off roles.
  • Cast fat characters as leads. Fat characters are often relegated to the sidelines in children’s television programs.
    • Put fat characters at the center of the story, not just as comic relief or helpers.
    • Give fat characters full emotional lives, aspirations, and story arcs.
  • Address clothing bias. Fat male characters are more likely than fat female characters to wear revealing clothes.
    • Avoid over-covering fat characters unless it serves the character, not the stigma.
    • Where possible, let actors have input on what makes them feel seen and powerful.
  • Subvert fat tropes. Fat characters are still commonly shown as lazy, messy, or dumb.
    • Show fat characters as smart, stylish, driven, funny (without being the butt of the joke), and kind.
    • If a character has a flaw, make sure body size isn’t the punchline.
    • Spread negative and positive traits across characters of all sizes.
  • Show fat characters being active. Fat characters are significantly less likely than characters who are not fat to be shown exercising or playing sports.
    • Include fat characters in gym scenes, dance parties, and as members of sports teams.
    • Make activity look fun, normal, and inclusive—not surprising when fat people do it.
  • Normalize eating. Fat characters are more likely than characters who are not fat to be portrayed bingeing food.
    • Let all characters eat without comment or shame.
    • Avoid tying food obsession or binge eating to fatness as a punchline.
    • Show food as fuel, joy, and culture, not stigma.

How to cite this study:

Terán, L., and Conroy, M. (2025). Body representation and portrayals in children’s television. The Geena Davis Institute.