Shelly Kaur
To what extent does advertising construct our ideas about gender? How much influence do children's toy advertisements have on our ideas about gender and how have these ideas changed over time? Thesis: Advertisements aimed at children (predominantly those of toys) have a huge impact in the way we view ideas about gender. Gender stereotypes and what traits are socially acceptable have been ingrained into our minds from what we see and learn as children. This is where it all begins. There are many theories about the way children learn. One of the most significant theories is the Social Learning Theory (1977) conducted by Albert Bandura, a Psychologist and Professor at Stanford University. The theory states that children learn through a process of social observation. Part of his theory suggested that there are certain models that children learn from. In terms of this argument, the most relevant is the Symbolic Model. This a character- either real or fictional- that represents behaviours through television, books, films etc. Bandura states ‘Some forms of modelling are so intrinsically rewarding that they can hold the attention of people of all ages for extended periods. This is nowhere better illustrated than in televised modelling. Indeed, models presented in televised form are so effective in capturing attention that viewers learn the depicted behaviour regardless of whether or not they are given extra incentives to do so.’- (Bandura, Grusec, & Menlove 1966: 7). This therefore suggests that children’s advertisements have a massive influence in the way children will behave due to their observations of the Symbolic Models featured in these adverts. It is also evident that children are watching more and more television as time goes on. A text written by Jennifer J. Pine & Nancy A. Jennings titled ‘The Effects of Commercials on Children’s Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use’ (2005) supports this idea. They say ‘over the past three decades, children’s estimated exposure to television advertising has doubled from an average of about 2,000 commercials... to more than 40,000 commercials per year’ (from 1970-1990)- which has probably increased now. The text also states that ‘heavy television viewers are more likely to express opinions and hold values similar to those represented on television’. Therefore, children are more likely to quickly pick up and adopt the behaviours they see in advertisements.
http://www.lego.com/en-gb
Shelly Kaur
Above is an advertisement for Lego, produced in 1981. The advert appears very gender neutral as it features both boys and girls and the clothing they are wearing isn’t stereotypical. The background colour is a neutral brown shade which gives a sense of warmth and this is consistent throughout all of the adverts. Along with the children’s reactions to the toys they have built, this collectively gives you a sense of happiness, making parents more likely to buy these toys for their own children so that they can experience the same thing. The different Lego sets are classed as ‘Universal Building Sets’ which suggests they are designed for all children, girls and boys. In terms of the semantics behind the text featured in these advertisements, it is obvious that Lego are focusing on the idea of children simply making something, enjoying building whatever they feel like building and being proud of what they’ve produced- ‘LEGO toys build anything. Especially pride.’, ‘Oh the fun of creating something you’re proud of.’ The adverts don’t contain any stereotypical traits that appeal to either boys or girls specifically and therefore represent a good Symbolic Model that teaches children that they can be (or make) whatever they wish. This advert is a great example of what children’s toy commercials should look like.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lego-friends/assets/posters/video-BFFbook-intro-video-704px.jpg
http://lego.brickinstructions.com/03000/3315/001.jp g
Shelly Kaur
However, years later in 2012, Lego launched a new line of toys- Lego Friends. The reason behind this strategy was to appeal to more girls as around 90% of their customers were boys before 2011. The sets in this range involve less building and more role play and most sets are based around the stereotype that females are generally concerned with cooking, cleaning, and looking pretty. This is a huge contradiction to Lego’s original selling pointpride. There are many differences between the 1981 advertisement and the 2012 one. First and foremost, the Symbolic Models (female) in the older one are real children, wearing gender neutral clothing and looking very happy playing with their Lego toys whereas the Symbolic Models shown in the image above appear to be very pretty, slim female characters. Research show this is a common theme in the media. Julia T. Wood, a Professor of Communication Studies at The University of North Carolina says ‘All forms of media communicate images of the sexes, many of which perpetuate unrealistic, stereotypical, and limiting perceptions.’ in her article ‘Gendered media: The Influence of Media on views of Gender’ (1994). This could support the fact that the newer range of toys represents a bad image of what young girls should aspire to be like and suggests that they have to be conscious about how they look and what they do in order to fit in. Another difference between both advertisements is the colour schemes used. In the new advert Lego have used pink and purple- stereotypically female colours- whereas in the old advert they’ve used a neutral brown shade. Furthermore, it is interesting that the one male character featured in the newer set appears to be working the barbeque which is stereotypical; however a female character can be seen mowing the lawn which isn’t stereotypical. This therefore shows that these toys convey mixed messages in terms of ideas about gender but there is clear evidence of the use of stereotyping as a way to draw in sales and appeal to young girls. Toy manufactures are now using gender as a driving force to create more business for themselves (as Lego has). Melissa Atkins Wardy, author of ‘Redefining Girly’ comments on this when talking about the marketing of children’s toys- ‘When all of the marketing consistently revolves around gender, it teaches our kids to look at the opposite sex as a different species, because in order to market gendered toys, you have to point out the difference and not the similarities.’ (America.aljazeera.com. (2014). Selling gender: Exploiting stereotypes for profit. [online]. This portrays the fact that the use of stereotypes in children’s toys is having a negative effect on their views. She also says ‘Because we know that gender stereotypes have profound social implications, it seems very irresponsible to exploit these stereotypes for profit’. So what gender stereotypes are actually being used in advertising? One of the most common is the use of blue for boys and pink for girls. This wasn’t always the case, but this stereotype was apparently generated in 1914 as Kalie Meyer states in her article ‘Gendered Stereotyping in Children’s advertising’ (2013). She says ‘pink for girls and blue for boys happened in America and elsewhere only after World War II, and in 1914 an American newspaper called the Sunday Sentinel advised mothers to “use pink for the girl and blue for the boy if you are a follower of convention".’ This has clearly stuck to this day. Parents will subconsciously buy a pink doll for their daughter or a blue car for their son as this has been the norm for many years. Research also shows that toy manufactures are targeting both genders with their products by simply changing the colours. Is it that toys become more desirable to a child if they are available in pink or blue? Is it unpopular to own a toy that isn’t either of these colours? A text written by Olaiya E, Aina & Petronella A. Cameron titled
Shelly Kaur
‘Why Does Gender Matter? Counteracting Stereotypes With Young Children’ states that ‘Children’s gender-typed toy preferences are more likely to be exhibited when the proximity of peers who approve of the gender-typed choices (Hughes, 2003)’. This suggests that children are almost pressured into liking certain toys as they are deemed as popular amongst other children. This may explain why blue and pink toys are so highly favoured. If children see other children with pink or blue toys then they may want the same thing for themselves. Toys are also now being categorised by gender in stores and being labelled ‘for girls’/ ‘girls toys’ or ‘for boys’/ ‘boys toys’. This suggests that children of the opposite sex can’t or shouldn’t be playing with toys from the opposite section. This could initiate bullying towards those who choose not to play with toys from the section specified for them or cause children to have sexist views. In the same text mentioned earlier, Aina & Cameron state that ‘Stereotypes and sexism limit potential growth and development (Narahara, 1998) because internalizing negative stereotypes impacts self-esteem and ultimately, academic performance.’ This therefore suggests that there are many underlying issues caused by this constant need to target children with gendered toys, aside from growing up to believe there are certain ways you have to behave or take an interest in depending on what gender you are. As well as colour there are other key stereotypes running through advertisements being shown to children. These are similar to those reflected in adverts for adults. Looking back on Julia T. Wood’s article about Gendered Media (mentioned earlier) it is clear that some common stereotypes of women are that they are passive, dependant, pretty housewives. Common stereotypical features of men include; active, uninvolved in human relationships, powerful, and the breadwinners. The article: ‘Stereotyping in Advertisements Viewed by Children’ written a few years before Wood’s- in 1990- suggests that children’s advertisements follow the same stereotypes as the ones listed earlier. The authors Janet Hoek and Wendy Sheppard state that ‘products advertised to girls focused on themes of popularity and beauty, while boy orientated commercials tended to concentrate on power and speed’. This portrays the idea that children’s toys are more commonly reinforcing these stereotypes in recent times to target specific audiences and therefore increase sales. Research into the history of toys shows that there are clear themes amongst toys within different time periods and that gendered toys have more become common over time. Back in the 70’s there were a lot of gender neutral toys such as Etch-a-Sketch, LEGO and the Rubik’s Cube. However, there were also some toys specifically for either gender. Video games were created in the late 70’s and these were popular amongst boys, as well as toys that had some kind of electronic element. Girl’s toys focused on this idea of mothering and nurturing- cooking sets, dolls to look after, which was a common theme for many years prior to the 70’s as well. Although these toys seemed gender specific, many advertisements from the 70’s showed both genders playing with the toys which encouraged children to play together and resulted in less of a divide between boys and girls. The 80’s were similar in the way that there were a mixture of gender neutral and gendered toys that were popular; however there were more of the latter, especially for girls. As well as the previous toys mentioned, Strawberry Shortcake, Polly Pocket and My Little Pony came onto the scene and were in high demand during the 80’s. There weren’t as many equivalents for boys aside from Transformers. Most other toys seem pretty neutral; examples are Pogo Balls, Jenga
Shelly Kaur
and Nintendo. Skipping forward to the 2000’s, you can see a massive change in the design of children’s toys. Reinforcing stereotypes was a common theme and the split between ‘girls toys’ and ‘boys toys’ was much more prominent. Although some toys were not specifically for either gender in particular- for example Tamagotchi’s- they were still divided by colour. The introduction of Bratz dolls is an example of how the themes of ‘girls toys’ changed from playing the mother role, to being concerned with fashion and looking pretty. These dolls had extremely large eyes and lips, dangerously thin figures and wore lots of make-up. Going back to Bandura’s theory about children’s learning and this notion of Symbolic models, this clearly sets an unrealistic example for young girls and what they should aspire to look like. The image below further illustrates this idea. The character on the left is Strawberry Shortcake in 1981 alongside a picture of her in 2007. You can quite clearly see the newer version has been altered to appear prettier and more feminine in comparison to the old version which seems more real. 2007’s Shortcake features a much slimmer figure, with bigger eyes and long hair.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rachelmarie
Furthermore, computer games have been increasingly popular amongst boys, and in the present day these games tend to portray acts of violence and destruction, which don’t send positive messages about the way children’s should act. Research by Professor of Psychology at Indiana University Judith Elaine Blakemore backs up this point- ‘Strongly gender-typed toys might encourage attributes that aren’t ones you actually want to foster. For girls, this would include a focus on attractiveness and appearance, perhaps leading to a message that this is the most important thing—to look pretty. For boys, the emphasis on violence and aggression (weapons, fighting, and aggression) might be less than desirable in the long run.’ in the text ‘What the Research Says: Gender-Typed Toys’ (no date). It’s really quite interesting that toys and their advertisements have taken this turn as it is the opposite of what has been happening in society across the years. Gender equality is something that has been a massive issue for a very long time. Society’s views on gender have evolved significantly over time and we are now living in a place where women have been socially accepted as being equal to men (in most cases). A lot has changed over the last 30 years due to women’s right to vote in 1928 as well as The Sex Discrimination Removal Act
Shelly Kaur
1920, The Equal Pay Act 1970 and The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which are just a few examples of the key events and legislation that have bought us to now. These changes and laws were made as a result of the three waves of feminist movement. ‘The first wave refers to the movement of the 19th through early 20th centuries, which dealt mainly with suffrage, working conditions and educational rights for women and girls. The second wave (1960s1980s) dealt with the inequality of laws, as well as cultural inequalities and the role of women in society. The third wave of feminism (late 1980s-early 2000s (decade)), is seen as both a continuation of the second wave and a response to the perceived failures.’ as stated in the ‘History of feminism Wikipedia’ (2012). Having come so far in succeeding to change society’s views about women and men being equal, it seems silly to then reinforce these ideas to children through advertisements. It can only take us back to the position we were in so many years ago. Although, saying this, research shows that we can quite quickly change children’s views about things through the media. Alice E. Courtney and Thomas W. Whipple say that ‘advertisements using reverse stereotypes affected children’s attitudes, at least in the short term. This suggests advertising has the power to educate and bring about change, as well as reinforce the status quo.’ (‘Stereotyping in Advertisements Viewed by Children’ 1990). An experiment carried out by Pike and Jennings in 2005 reinforces this. In the simplest terms, 62 children were shown advertisements featuring toys and were asked to say at the end when shown the toys; whether they thought they were aimed at girls, boys or both genders. All of the toys being shown were classed as gender neutral before the experiment began. Some advertisements were altered digitally to replace some of the boys faces for girls. These were shown to half the group as non-traditional adverts and the originals shows to the other half as traditional adverts. Both groups were a mixture of boys and girls. The results of the experiment were as follows- ‘children in the non-traditional condition reported more often than those in the traditional condition that the toys were for both boys’ and girls’ (‘The Effects of Commercials on Children’s Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use’ 2005) This therefore supports the idea that children can be influenced very easily and so if advertisements simply used fewer stereotypes and looked at being more gender neutral, this would have a significant effect on children’s ideas about gender. Toy companies should either make their toys less stereotypical and more gender neutral or more easily look at using both genders in their advertisements/segregate toys by theme or age rather than gender. This will encourage children to play with non-conventional toys and over time this will become a social norm and be accepted by both adults and children. In the words of Pike & Jennings ‘If brief exposure to non-traditional images creates change in children’s beliefs, imagine what prolonged exposure could do for children’s beliefs and their behaviours’.
Bibliography Aina, O. E. and Cameron, P. A. (2011) Why does gender matter? Counteracting stereotypes with young children. Available at: http://www.southernearlychildhood.org/upload/pdf/Why_Does_Gender_Matter_Countera
Shelly Kaur
cting_Stereotypes_With_Young_Children_Olaiya_E_Aina_and_Petronella_A_Cameron.pdf (Accessed: 31 January 2016). A letter Lego sent to parents in 1974 holds an important message for the parents of 2014 (2014) Available at: http://mic.com/articles/104894/this-1970s-lego-set-letters-to-parentsholds-an-important-message-on-gender-equality#.WJxbbbAOl (Accessed: 31 January 2016). Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. 2nd edn. United States: Prentice Hall. Hoek, J. and Sheppard, W. (1990) ‘Stereotyping in advertisements viewed by children’, Marketing Bulletin, 1(2), pp. 7–12. Home (no date) Available at: http://www.lego.com/en-gb (Accessed: 31 January 2016). Lego advert (no date) Available at: http://lego.brickinstructions.com/03000/3315/001.jpg Lego advert (no date) Available at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/legofriends/assets/posters/video-BFF-book-intro-video-704px.jpg Stone, R.M. (2012) The evolution of strawberry shortcake. Available at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rachelmariestone/2012/05/01/the-evolution-ofstrawberry-shortcake/ (Accessed: 4 May 2016). Pike, J. J. and Jennings, N. A. (2005) ‘The effects of commercials on children’s perceptions of gender appropriate toy use’, Sex Roles, 52(12). doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1195-6. The women’s Timeline (no date) Available at: http://www.mmu.ac.uk/equality-anddiversity/doc/gender-equality-timeline.pdf (Accessed: 28 January 2016). Wood, J. T. (no date) Gendered media: The influence of media on views of gender THEMES IN MEDIA. Available at: http://www.udel.edu/comm245/readings/GenderedMedia.pdf (Accessed: 31 January 2016). @amelscript, A.A. (2014) Selling gender: Exploiting stereotypes for profit. Available at: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/30/selling-genderexploitingstereotypesforprofit.html (Accessed: 29 April 2016). Terms, P.I. (2016) Gender Stereotyping in children’s advertisements. Available at: https://prezi.com/56oejzi_4eeu/gender-stereotyping-in-childrens-advertisements/ (Accessed: 1 May 2016). Timetoast (1903) Most popular toys of the last 100 years timeline. Available at: https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/most-popular-toys-of-the-last-100-years (Accessed: 2 May 2016). Written and Phipps, P. (2013) Toys in the 1970s. Available at: http://www.retrowaste.com/1970s/toys-in-the-1970s/ (Accessed: 2 May 2016). (No Date) Available at: http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2433-popular-toys-decade.html (Accessed: 3 May 2016).
Shelly Kaur
St, L. (1313) National association for the education of young children. Available at: http://www.naeyc.org/content/what-research-says-gender-typed-toys (Accessed: 4 May 2016). History of feminism Wikipedia (2012) (2012) Available at: http://www.saylor.org/site/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/polsc101-3.2.3_History-of-Feminism.pdf (Accessed: 4 May 2016).