Constructing Difference: Lego® Set Narratives Promote Stereotypic Gender Roles and Play
- 1.5k Downloads
LEGO® construction sets are a staple in many children’s lives. Given worldwide distribution, generations of children have grown up playing with these brightly colored, interlocking plastic bricks. Historically marketed to all children, the LEGO® Group has begun targeting male and female consumers differentially with the introduction of product lines such as LEGO® City and LEGO® Friends. Although the packaging, marketing, brick colors, and characters have changed, little is known about whether these product series encourage differences in the way boys and girls play. This content analysis compared the play narratives of sets marketed to boys (LEGO® City) and girls (LEGO® Friends). Our analysis found distinct gendered messages that encourage boys to enact various skilled professions, heroism, and expertise, whereas girls are encouraged to focus on having hobbies, being domestic, caring for others, socializing, being amateurs, and appreciating and striving for beauty. Although LEGO® City and Friends sets offer opportunities for construction, they also promote stereotyped gender roles for enacting femininity and masculinity in play. Parents, educators, and practitioners often focus on the educational affordances of LEGO® construction. We recommend that they also consider the other lessons, both explicit and implicit, being taught through gender-specific LEGO® sets.
KeywordsGender Toys LEGO® Marketing Gender stereotypes Play
Partial funding for the present project was provided by UCI’s Undergraduate Research Opportunities (UROP) Program. We greatly appreciate the assistance of Dorothy Kozina, Emily Dmytryk, and Ksenia Korobkova.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study involves content and discourse analyses of marketing materials associated with LEGO Friends and LEGO City sets. It does not involve human subjects.
This manuscript is not under review with any other journal and we take responsibility for the veracity of the content of the paper.
Conflict of Interest
We do not have any affiliation, financial agreement, or involvement with a company that could pose a conflict of interest to the publication of this work.
- Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought & action: A social cognitive theory. England Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
- Basow, S. (2006). Gender role and gender identity development. In J. Worell & C. Goodheart (Eds.), Handbook of girls' and women's psychological health (pp. 242–251). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bawden, T. (2011, March 5). Lego® bids to build a greater appeal for girls - after the Danish toymaker unveils a massive surge in profits, UK managing director Marko Ilincic explains the next step. The Observer. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/mar/06/lego-appeal-to-girls.
- Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Englewood Cliffs: Merrill.Google Scholar
- Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Carrington, B., Francis, B., Hutchings, M., Skelton, C., Read, B., & Hall, I. (2007). Does the gender of the teacher really matter? Seven- to eight-year-olds' accounts of their interactions with their teachers. Educational Studies, 33(4), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701423580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chew, J. (2015, Dec 30). How Lego® finally found success with girls. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/12/30/lego-friends-girls/.
- Coyle, E. (2015). Influences on children's play with a STEM toy: Interactions among children, parents, and gender-based marketing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College Park: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
- Coyne, S. M., Linder, J. R., Rasmussen, E. E., Nelson, D. A., & Birkback, V. (2016). Pretty as a princess: Longitudinal effects of engagement with Disney princesses on gender stereotypes, body esteem, and prosocial behavior in children. Child Development, 87(6), 1909–1925. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12569.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eliot, L. (2010). Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gas. New York: First Mariner Books.Google Scholar
- Fishel, C. (2001). Designing for children: Marketing design that speaks to kids. Gloucester: Rockport Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
- Gerbner, G. (1969). Toward "cultural indicators": The analysis of mass mediated message systems. AV Communication Review, 17(2), 137–148.Google Scholar
- Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43–67). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. P. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child (classification and seriation). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
- Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex- role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccody (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x.Google Scholar
- Lauwaert, M. (2009). The place of play: Toys and digital cultures (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
- Lego History Timeline (2017, October 18). Lego history timeline. Retrieved from https://wwwsecure.Lego.com/en-us/aboutus/Lego-group/the_Lego_history.
- Lego Learning Institute (2002). Time for playful learning? A cross-cultural study of parental values and attitudes toward children’s time for play. Retrieved from http://www.playscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/Documents/TheLEGOTimeStudyReport.pdf.
- Lego.com. (2015). LEGO® 2015 Highlights. Retrieved from http://www.Lego.com/en-us/aboutus/events/annual-result-2015.
- Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Quantitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Mulvey, K., Miller, B., & Rizzardi, V. (2017). Gender and engineering aptitude: Is the color of the science, technology, engineering and math materials related to children's performance? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Saldaña, J. (2009). Coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Sutton-Smith, B. (1967). The role of play in cognitive development. Young Children, 22, 361–370.Google Scholar
- Sweet, E. (2014, December 9, 2014). Toys are more divided by gender now and than they were 50 years ago. Atlantica. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/toys-are-more-divided-by-gender-now-thanthey-were-50-years-ago/383556/.
- United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Assembly Resolution 44/25. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/malaysia/1959-Declaration-of-the-Rights-of-the-Child.pdf.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Weisgram, E. S., Fulcher, M., & Dinella, L. M. (2014). Pink gives girls permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-typed colors on preschool children's toy preference. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zigler, E., & Bishop-Josef, S. (2004). Play under siege: A historical overview. In E. Zigler, D. Singer, & S. Bishop-Josef (Eds.), Children’s play: The roots of reading (pp. 1–13). London: Zero to Three Press.Google Scholar