Remixing Gender in Advertising: A Qualitative Study of Early Adolescents’ Views of Gender Targeting in LEGO Commercials
Young media users see a number of commercial messages each day that are carefully crafted to be attention-getting and appealing. Advertisers sometimes rely on gender stereotypes when marketing toys to children, making assumptions about who wants to buy or play with what product. In the current study, the researchers led a sample of 58 sixth-grade students in an exercise in which the audio component of LEGO commercials marketed to boys was played over the video component of LEGO commercials marketed to girls and vice versa. Researchers then drew qualitative data from students’ written responses to questions about how the commercials target boys and girls differently and what messages that targeting is sending to kids. Results indicate that participants of all genders considered production components of the commercials as well as how characters are depicted in their critiques of these gendered advertising practices targeted at young people.
adolescents, advertising literacy, commercials, gender, media literacy, representation, stereotypes, toys
Children encounter a significant number of advertising and commercial messages as they watch YouTube, scroll through social media, search the internet, spend time gaming, and watch television. Despite policies intended to protect children’s data and privacy, algorithms and other developments have brought more sophistication to the long-standing practice of targeting commercial messages to media users who fall into particular demographic groups or have particular attributes.1 In targeting audiences for products or brands—like dolls for girls or action figures for boys—advertisers sometimes rely on stereotypical conceptions of what is likely to be appealing to particular people.2
Media or advertising literacy education invites children into critical conversations about processes such as these, creating space for the analysis of industry practices, a close reading of the features of media texts, and discussions about how audiences are likely to make sense of those texts.3 Although young audience members’ understandings of advertising are complex, an opportunity to engage in media or advertising literacy education can bring new depth and insights to those understandings.4 The goal is for young people to have the tools to negotiate the highly commercial media landscape in which they are immersed.5
Despite a large body of literature showing that gender stereotypes persist in advertising directed at young people, surprisingly little research has been conducted on how children make sense of gender stereotypes in commercials.6 Even fewer studies examine that question from a media literacy perspective. In the study at hand, we explore a group of 11- and 12-year-olds’ views of the practice of targeting child audiences in commercials by gender in the context of an in-school media literacy program in which the students were taking part. We focus primarily on toy commercials since, as Martínez found, toy commercials are particularly likely to stereotype by gender.7 This study, therefore, illuminates how a sample of young media users makes sense of advertising practices amid their participation in an educational program designed to give voice to and advance their media literacy.
Literature Review
Commercials, Gender, and Young Media Users
Gender-based stereotypes—defined as overly simplistic and reductive attributes that limit our understanding of diverse identities—appear in advertising, including in commercial messages targeted to children and teens.8 Gender stereotypes are apparent, partly, in which characters are depicted with which products in the ads. For instance, in a sample of toy commercials on Nickelodeon, Kahlenberg and Hein found that ads featuring dolls mostly portrayed girls playing, while those advertising sports gear, transportation/construction toys, and action figures were likelier to feature boys.9 In a similar analysis in Spain, Martínez found more boys appearing with products like vehicles and action figures whereas girls were linked to dolls, accessories, beauty, and motherhood.10
Gender-based stereotyping is also apparent in how characters are shown interacting with toys or other products. In the Kahlenberg and Hein data, commercials with only boys often depicted competitive play whereas girl-centric commercials showcased calmer indoor activities. Hentges, Bartsch, and Meier found that boys were portrayed more authoritatively compared to girls in a sample of US television commercials for children, and Martínez similarly found ads with boys emphasized competition, power, and strength.11 In magazine ads from 2006 and 2016, Timke and O’Barr observed that “advertisements continue to showcase distinct roles for girls and boys,” including girls appearing inside and doing activities like dress-up or cooking and boys appearing outside and being active.
Nerf Super Soaker Marketing to Boys, 2010.12
Baby Alive Marketing to Girls, 2009.13
Another way in which commercials have been found to be gendered in nature is in their production components or formal features. In British toy commercials targeting boys and girls, for example, Chandler and Griffiths observed that boy-targeted ads had more edits, shorter shot durations, and more long shots, resulting in a faster-paced, action-oriented presentation than girl-targeted commercials.14 Timke and O’Barr observed “gender-stereotyped coloring, such as pink for girls and blue for boys” in their sample of US print ads.
There is indication in the existing research that children do tend to notice differences in how boys and girls are depicted in advertising, and as they approach middle childhood, they may label that content as gender stereotypical. Zimmerman found that children as young as 3 to 6 years old could identify commercials’ gender targeting with judgments based on their sense of who might enjoy the toy, their own preferences, and the gender of the children in the commercial.15 In in-depth interviews in the United Kingdom, Lewin-Jones and Mitra observed that children aged 4 to 10 associated particular products, the presence of characters of particular genders, as well as particular color schemes in commercials with understandings of whether the products were “for boys” or “for girls” and made assumptions about whether products would appeal to other children by gender.16 A study with US fourth and fifth graders found that after viewing gender-targeted commercials, both boys and girls considered them to be stereotypical.17
The existing research is less clear, however, on whether children respond positively, negatively, or otherwise to gender stereotypes in commercials. Existing research suggests children’s own gender identity, flexibility in views of gender, and whether they are responding to stereotypes about masculinity compared to femininity all make a difference.18 In Bakir, Blodgett, and Rose’s research with third and fourth graders, for instance, girls but not boys responded less favorably to an ad with a communal (emphasizing nurturance, empathy, friendship, and calm) compared to an agentic (emphasizing physical activity, strength, and decisiveness) depiction. When a group of US junior high and high school students was asked to write down thoughts and feelings after seeing beer commercials, Rouner, Slater and Domenech-Rodriguez found that girls were more likely than boys to critique the sexism in the ads and that most critical comments pertained to how women rather than men were portrayed. Among 8- to 12-year-olds in the Netherlands, Beentjes and Janssen found greater liking for images of a boy character in an ad as tough, rather than sweet, and a man, rather than a woman, in handyperson roles. However, participants also preferred a girl in the tough, rather than sweet role (a counter-stereotype), and no significant differences emerged in liking for a man or a woman shown in housekeeping roles.
Some research has examined children’s responses to ads that go against gender stereotypes. In a sample of second and third graders, for instance, Pike and Jennings found that exposure to nontraditional gender roles in children’s toy advertisements resulted in the children saying that the toy was appropriate for both boys and girls to play with.19 More recently, Varghese and Kumar studied the impact of commercials depicting empowerment for women and girls on 17- to 19-year-olds in Tamil Nadu, India, and found an increase in self-esteem from pre- to post-test among both boys and girls in the feminist advertising or “femvertising” condition compared to the control condition.20 When commercials go against stereotypical conceptions, therefore, research suggests that they can have a positive impact.
Overall, these results support the notion that gendered content in ads directed toward young people is reflected in production features, characters, settings, and roles. Both stereotypes and counter-stereotypes are able to shape children’s sense of themselves (i.e., their self-esteem) and others (in terms of what is likely to appeal to other children). Yet, girls may be more likely to respond negatively to stereotypes in commercials than boys, and stereotypes associated with masculinities appear to be less often critiqued than stereotypes associated with femininities.
Conceptualizing Media and Advertising Literacy
Media literacy education (MLE) seeks to advance the capacity to “decode, evaluate, analyze, and produce both print and electronic media.”21 Thoman and Jolls provide “Five Key Questions” to pose as students critically examine media: 1) Who created this message? 2) What creative techniques are used to attract my attention? 3) How might different people understand this message differently from me? 4) What lifestyles, values, and points of view are represented in—or omitted from—this message? and 5) Why is this message being sent?22 Media analysis, then, includes the logics of media industries, audience reception, and both form (such as camera angles, editing, and sound) and content of texts.23
Critical media literacy education, in particular, positions both media and education as inherently political and critiques the hegemonic role of mainstream media.24 This approach involves addressing topics such as class, race, gender, sexuality, and power with a goal of fostering social justice, equity, and human emancipation.25 Critical media literacy encourages students to reflect on their own positions as well as the distribution of power in society.26
Given the attempts at persuasion that make advertising a particular media form, advertising literacy is a unique subset of media literacy.27 Hudders and colleagues conceptualize it as including the ability to distinguish commercial content from other media content, to understand that ads are attempting to persuade, to recognize the affective work of ads (instilling moods or emotions, for example), and to consider the ethics of advertiser practices. The ethical dimensions of advertising literacy—judgments about whether particular tactics are fair or equitable—are both understudied and important in the current landscape.28
According to Baker, media literacy education often involves the close reading of a text, and Iyer and Luke propose the analysis of gender representation as a prominent theme.29 However, too much emphasis can be placed by media literacy facilitators on deconstructing texts in media literacy education without considering the broader forces shaping texts, media institutional practices, and the sociopolitical and economic conditions of media production and distribution.30 Thus, “stereotype analysis alone can be a too-limited tool for understanding media representations, failing to articulate the mechanisms and processes by which gender inequalities are sustained, and how gender justice might be realized.”31
Building on calls for advertising ethics, social responsibility, and accountability, Gurrieri, Zayer, and Coleman put forth a transformative advertising research framework that considers individuals (including advertising practitioners, audiences, and content creators) at the microlevel, institutions (such as agencies, media, platforms, and regulatory bodies) at the meso-level, and society and culture at the macro-level.32 Gurrieri and Finn further introduce a gender transformative advertising pedagogy defined to promote “advertising that challenges harmful gender norms, roles and relations and promotes gender justice by transforming gendered representations beyond stereotypical and limited notions of masculinity and femininity.”33 Sharing many principles of critical media literacy, gender transformative advertising pedagogy seeks to raise consciousness regarding gender injustices in advertising and take steps toward the transformation of policies, practices, structures, and cultures that sustain those injustices.
Media/Advertising Literacy Education on Targeting Audiences by Gender
Despite such theorizing about what media or advertising literacy should look like, outside of the topic of body image, only a handful of prior studies explore how children or adolescents respond to media literacy education (MLE) focusing on gender representation. Even fewer focus on advertising literacy education (ALE), in particular. In prior research that calls on young participants to analyze television, movies, or video games for the treatment of gender, there is evidence that media literacy participants are able to recognize and critique gender stereotypes and counter-stereotypes.34 Thus, MLE “can be used to foster gender equity and promote positive gender roles.”35 Yet, the same body of evidence also shows complexity in responses to MLE experiences: Puchner, Markowitz, and Hedley found a reluctance among participants to believe their views can be shaped by depictions of gender, and Walsh, Sekarasih, and Scharrer detected a greater tendency to critique media depictions of girls and women than depictions of boys and men.
Similar complexities are apparent in the limited body of existing research on young people’s responses to ALE pertaining to gender. When Olson and colleagues asked media literacy participating sixth graders to produce public service announcements (PSAs) on gender and advertising, the students called out stereotypes in ads, but they also simply called for media audiences not to gender stereotype rather than calling for change among advertisers or in the wider culture.36 Markowitz and Puchner asked eighth grade students, after they participated in a critical media literacy program, to challenge the limitations associated with the gender binary in the creation of their own video-produced ads.37 Their productions showed subtle ways of reinforcing the gender binary, such as by including boys failing or humorously exaggerating performances in stereotypically feminized tasks.
In what is perhaps the closest parallel to the study at hand, Sekarasih and colleagues designed a quantitative study in which a sample of fourth and sixth graders participated in an in-school ALE program that focused, in part, on the ways in which advertisers attempt to appeal to particular audiences with the use of colors, music, pace, and depictions of characters in particular roles or activities in a manner that is gender stereotypical. Participants compared and contrasted two commercials for LEGO toys: one targeted girls, featuring girl characters at a cafe, cooking, and chatting, with mostly pink and purple colors, and the other centered boys, depicting boy characters saving a city and defeating villains with rapid edits and exciting music. The findings showed that girls but not boys became less likely to agree that commercials portray boys and girls fairly one week after their participation in the program compared to before. Berman and White similarly found a greater tendency to see depictions of women in ads as unrealistic by the girls, rather than the boys, participating in a peer-led media literacy program focusing on advertising, gender, and representation.38
LEGO Friends Party at the Cafe, 2012.39
LEGO Chima for Boys, 2014.40
Overall, therefore, there is evidence that MLE or ALE can, indeed, spur the critique of stereotyping associated with gender in media texts and inspire the recognition of or need for counter-stereotyping. However, such critique may not be equally present across MLE or ALE participants of all genders. And just as has been observed previously, such critique also does not consistently extend to media institutional practices or the sociopolitical and economic conditions of media production and distribution that are necessary to be critically examined for a transformative approach to advertising literacy.41
The Current Study
The current study focuses on sixth graders’ written responses to an MLE/ALE assignment in which they assess gender stereotypes in toy commercials, thereby offering insights into young participants’ sense-making processes as they conduct a close reading. The participating students engaged with the assignment in the midst of participation in a media literacy program designed to advance their criticality regarding media industry practices and media texts as situated in understandings of the wider culture. The approach includes analyzing how commercial content challenges and/or reflects gender hierarchies, as Gurrieri and Finn’s gender transformative advertising pedagogy framework calls for, and prompts participants to consider Hudders and colleagues’ questions about the ethics behind advertising practices and texts.
We put forth two research questions in association with the main themes of gender-stereotyped advertising directed at children: 1) Can a critical MLE/ALE approach help children identify gender stereotypes associated with the formal features of toy commercials? and 2) Can a critical MLE/ALE approach help children identify gender stereotypes associated with depictions of traits, roles, or activities among characters in toy commercials? Furthermore, given prior research that suggests individuals’ own gender identity may shape critiques of gender in advertising inside or outside of media or advertising literacy contexts, we also ask a third research question: 3) How will the gender identity of the child shape critiques of gender stereotypes in toy commercials produced within a critical MLE/ALE program?
Methods
In spring 2020, the authors worked with community partners in a local public elementary school to create and put into place an MLE program on gender in the media for sixth grade students. The authors and the liaison teacher at the school created the lesson plans, which called for the authors and other graduate students to facilitate five one-hour in-school sessions to be facilitated by the authors and other graduate students. Due to the onset of the COVID pandemic, the five planned visits were reduced to four.
The school is in a largely rural community in New England, US. According to the state’s Department of Education website, the school population is 84.5% White, 7.8% multi-racial non-Hispanic, and 7% Hispanic. About one-third (33.4%) of the population is identified as students with disabilities or receiving special education services, 19.7% as economically disadvantaged, and 2.8% as English-language learners. Based on information collected from the teachers, 16% of the sixth grade population (11 of the 68 students) identified as students of color. Each sixth grader was invited to participate through an informed consent letter delivered to parents and caregivers and an opportunity for the students themselves to provide their assent (a protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board at the authors’ university, IRB#4176). Fifty-eight students turned in signed consent forms and assented to participate.
In keeping with the critical media literacy tradition, the lessons were designed to give voice to the opinions, experiences, and views of the sixth graders and were organized through a series of slides, with information and definitions shared, discussion questions posed, and selected media texts analyzed.42 During the facilitation, the classroom teachers were present, participated in the discussion occasionally, worked one-on-one with students who needed help, and/or refocused the students’ attention as needed.
The lesson plan began with an introduction to media literacy and Thoman and Jolls’ Five Key Questions and a class-wide discussion on how to discuss gender representation sensitively as well as the social construction of gender, its intersectionality with other identities, and societal shifts towards a nonbinary understanding of gender as well as persistent gender disparities. Facilitators articulated the MLE program’s goals: critical media analysis and openness and inclusivity regarding gender and identity. Next, facilitators asked students why gender is an important topic to think about for media literacy as well as in general. The resulting discussion defined stereotypes and counter-stereotypes and noted (in line with Kelly and Currie) that a single text might have both. Potential harms stemming from stereotypes were discussed, including making assumptions about people that are not always fair or accurate and the idea that stereotypes put people in boxes. Such an approach responded to the call to connect MLE/ALE to wider social and cultural contexts in a transformative or critical approach.43
Following this background information, the focus on ALE, in particular, began by asking students why commercials exist, who makes them, and what their goals are, where and when they see commercials, what messages they think particular commercials are sending, and how they have responded to commercials. An infographic presented statistics on the number of commercial messages typically encountered by child audiences. Students engaged in a “think, pair, and share” exercise to discuss their favorite commercials and reasons for liking them. A slide introduced two main goals of advertising: persuading people to 1) purchase products and services and 2) embrace values driving desire for these offerings. After sharing data about the number of advertising creative directors who identify as women, the facilitators led students in a discussion about whether diversity in creators leads to more inclusive media practices and/or diversity in media content, thus including institutional/media industry analysis.44
All of the instruction described thus far occurred before researchers collected the data at the center of the current study and therefore provided context for the students’ responses to the data collection prompts used for the current analysis. The next part of the lesson was most important for the study at hand. It involved utilizing the online tool called the gender remixer (http://www.genderremixer.com), created by Jonathan McIntosh, that swaps the audio or video elements of commercials targeted at boys with those targeted at girls, thereby illustrating differing features in form and content. Using the tool in class to juxtapose the audio of girl-targeted commercials with the video of boy-targeted commercials (and vice versa) made evident for the students distinctions in pacing, music, voiceover, colors, and play styles (gentle and nurturing versus action-packed and exciting), as noted in the literature.
Screenshot of the Gender Remixer Online Tool.
During the current study, the commercials available in the remixer tool were all from LEGO, some marketed toward boys (e.g., Ninjago LEGO, Star Wars LEGO) and some toward girls (e.g., LEGO Friends café set). The researchers considered the analysis of LEGO commercials a good choice for the current study as LEGO has enduring market appeal among children. The LEGO Friends, Ninjago, and Star Wars characters featured in the commercials available on the remixer tool figured prominently on the LEGO website at that time, and kids could play games or watch video episodes as well as buy new playsets featuring the characters. LEGO sets with these characters were also still being advertised as recently as 2023.45
Screenshot of Gender Remixer LEGO page.
Unmixed LEGO Friends Ad at the GenderRemixer.com.46
Unmixed LEGO Ninjago Ad at the GenderRemixer.com.47
Three questions (one with two parts) were posed to the students in relation to the gender remixer activity and students’ responses to those questions form the data analyzed in the current study: 1) How does LEGO target boys and girls differently in their commercials? 2) What kinds of messages about gender do you think those commercials send to kids? 3) Do you think LEGO is the only company to do this, or do other companies do something similar? Can you think of any other examples of toys advertised differently to boys and girls?
The researchers collected 58 responses, an 85% response rate for the 68 sixth graders at the school and 100% of those for whom parental consent and assent were obtained. Students were asked to indicate their pronouns or gender identity. Among the 58 responses, 28 students identified as male, 26 as female, one as transgender male, one as nonbinary, one as “mixed” (in the words of the student themselves), and one as unidentified. For the purposes of concealing the identities of those who identified in the latter four categories, those students will be referenced as identifying outside of the gender binary.
The researchers transcribed all responses collected from the worksheets and then analyzed the data using thematic analysis based on the constant comparison method to look for themes and group each data element into those themes, continuing to do so until no new themes emerged.48 They identified data elements—keywords or phrases that made unique points or observations—in a line-by-line analysis using different colors to indicate emerging themes. First a single coder performed the analysis and then two additional coders, both authors, either confirmed or reconsidered those initial codes in a second round of coding, the latter both authors. An iterative process ensued, requiring multiple readings to develop a coding scheme covering the data. Researchers conducted a final round of coding to look for similarities and differences according to the gender identity of the student.
The size of the data corpus varied by question, with 20 words, on average, provided per question (Question 1 answers averaged 22 words and ranged from 5 to 56 words, Question 2 answers averaged 19 words and ranged from 0 to 41 words; Question 3 answers averaged 19 words and ranged from 1 to 42 words). We note word counts to show that some students wrote short responses and others wrote longer responses, which impacts the richness of the data. The averages of 19 to 22 words, respectively, however, did form a substantial basis for data analysis.
Results
Production Components of the Commercials
The first research question asked whether the MLE/ALE program would spur the sixth graders to discuss production components in their analysis of gender in the commercials. Three interrelated themes emerged: formal features, comprised of elements such as use of color, sound, and music; gender of voiceover narrator; and gender of characters, the latter consisting of the observed gender of the children playing with the toys in the commercials.
These three themes, therefore, had to do with observations of the production components of the LEGO commercials and analysis of what those components signify. Such responses demonstrate perceptions of the presence or absence of certain features as intentional decisions by media makers to target a specific audience Students also connected production decisions with implications for the purchasing desires or decisions of children, demonstrating media literate observations of the interplay among industry practices, texts, and reception, key components of a gender transformative advertising pedagogy.
Because the gender remixer swaps audio and video components of children’s toy commercials, the researchers expected and observed ample reference to these audiovisual components or Formal Features of the commercials in the data. For instance, a male-identifying and a female-identifying student, respectively, reported, “The color schemes are much different … as well as the music;” and “They use color and music differently.” Many students named specific colors, such as the female-identifying student who noted, “for example the girls have the colors purple, pink. But the boys have blue, red, gray.” Participants also highlighted differences in sound in observations of “deeper/lighter voices” (male-identifying student) or about volume, such as “The boys’ sound is loud. The girls’ sound is calm” (male-identifying student). A number of sixth graders focused on the music, with a student identifying outside of the binary, for example, noting that “boys—action movie music. girls—calm music” and a female-identifying student suggesting that in the LEGO commercials targeted to boys, “the music is cooler than the girls.”
Prior research has identified color, sound, and music as components of commercials that signal to children the gendered nature of products and brands. Indeed, many of the sixth graders connected their observations of differences in formal features to the advertisements’ gender messages. Some suggested that the commercials assumed what boys or girls like, such as “Girls like pink, boys like blue” (male-identifying student) or “That girls like pretty pink and really light blue and boys like dark colors” (female-identifying student). Others went a step further to suggest that the commercials might actually shape these preferences, noting, for instance, “That girls should like pink” (emphasis included in original response; female-identifying student), and that “girls are supposed to be all pink and pretty” (male-identifying student), or “The music and voice tell young kids to buy one of the other to keep feminine or masculine” (male-identifying student).
Observations of Formal Features were associated with observations about Gender of the Voiceover Narrator, as seen from the following responses: “Girls: Pink and Purple … A nice warming girl’s voice. Boys: Gray and black … Big scary man’s voice” (female-identifying student); “Also the narrators’ voices are completely different. For LEGO Friends it’s a girl talking in a high voice. But for the boys it’s a man with a raspy mean voice” (female-identifying student); and “They use men/women’s voices. They use stereotypical colors/actions” (student identifying outside of the binary). Some students were explicit that these production components were part of targeted marketing: “The voices in the commercials are different based on whether they are targeted at boys or girls. For example, in the LEGO Friends commercial the narrator's voice is a sweet, high-pitched voice, while in STAR WARS the narrator’s voice is deep and serious” (male-identifying student).
The final theme in regard to production components included observations of the Gender of the Characters in the commercials. For example, a student identifying outside of the binary stated, “They only have boys in the commercials or only also have girls,” and a female-identifying student also observed, “Only boys in LEGO City. Only girls in LEGO Friends.” Some noted that by including characters of particular genders, restrictions on who can or should purchase or play with a particular toy are implied. For example, one female-identifying student stated that the message was that “girls can only get the ones with girls in it and boys can only get the ones with boys in it,” and another reported, “I think the commercials have boys playing with the toys so only boys want it because it’s only boys and makes it seem like its only for boys.” Another female-identifying student stated, “Young girls may think that they aren’t allowed to use LEGO sets ‘meant’ for boys because they use boys in their commercial, and young boys may think that they aren’t allowed to use LEGO sets ‘meant’ for girls” (quotes in original).
In relation to the third research question that asked whether differences in critiques of gender stereotypes in toy commercials would be apparent based on the gender identity of the student, as seen in Table 1, there was a greater tendency among male-identifying students to note the gender of the voiceover actor and a greater tendency among female-identifying students to note the gender of the characters. On the other hand, no clear differences emerged by gender of student in mentions of the formal features of the commercials such as colors or music. On balance, then, we do not see the pattern apparent in prior research in which girls are more critical of gender stereotypes in media or in commercials in particular than boys.49
Distribution of responses pertaining to each theme by gender identity of the student.
Depictions of Traits, Roles, and Activities in the Commercials
The second research question examined students’ observations of what boys and girls appearing in the commercials do and/or seem to enjoy and the implications of those depictions. Three themes emerged: Jobs, Hobbies, and Interests; Calm/Quiet vs. Tough/Action, and General Observations about Gender Targeting and Stereotypes. Responses across these themes are consistent with prior research demonstrating that toy commercials feature boys engaged in active and high-energy play while girls are shown playing with dolls or other nurturing activities.50 We can infer from their responses that students believe that “boy stuff” and “girl stuff” are constructs marketed by LEGO and other companies that normalize societal stereotypes.51
The sixth graders recognized differences depicted in the commercials about Jobs, Hobbies, and Interests as gendered. For example, two female-identifying students responded, respectively, “In the girls commercial there is makeup and cute animals and in the boy commercial there is firetrucks and police,” and “Girls: … Let’s go to the café. Boys: - be a fighter, - be a police or firefighter, - save girls.” Some expressly linked observations about jobs, hobbies, and interests to gender-targeted marketing, such as a male-identifying student who observed that “LEGO targets boys by … making firetrucks and police cars look great … In the girls’ commercial, … they had jobs like a makeup artist and a baker.”
Students recognized that commercials often imply that specific activities are appropriate for boys or for girls, a practice they largely recognized as stereotypical messaging that reinforces gender norms. Sample quotes included “I think they make it look like guys are supposed to do work and girls just hang-out with their friends and make cupcakes” (female-identifying student). Extending beyond the LEGO commercials, one female-identifying student observed, “Toy brands such as Barbie separate boys as manly and girls as loving pink, dresses, and dreamhouses,” and another said, “I think all toys and other commercials [advertise differently to boys and girls]. There is a company called Poopsie and it’s all about ‘glamor’ and then there is Nerf which is about gun violence.”
The second theme pertaining to this research question that emerged in the data included observations that can be summarized as Calm/Quiet vs. Tough/Action. Students described “boy stuff” in the commercials as including “dangerous stuff,” being “adventurous,” and “saving girls.” Conversely, students defined “girl stuff” in the commercials as “calm stuff,” associating it with indoor activities like “going to cafes” and “not having much action” or “do(ing) nothing.” Some expressly contrasted the excitement in the commercials with boys to the calm and inaction in the commercials with girls: “The LEGO city stuff has heroes and action. They were doing amazing things. The LEGO friends are doing leisurely, fun, easy activities” (female-identifying student); “Boys have more action than girls have in the commercials” (male-identifying student). Some associated these observations with recognition of societal messages about how to perform gender, as seen in examples such as, “Girls should love pink cute things and are not adventurous. Boys should love excitement and should never want anything ‘girly’” (female-identifying student), or “girls are supposed to be dainty, pretty, and elegant. However, boys are supposed to be rough, tough, strong, and brave” (male-identifying student). Similar observations were made about advertising practices of other companies. For example, one female-identifying student wrote, “Disney uses princesses which have to be sweet and the warriors are rough, tough, and fight a lot and make it seem that girls are too weak for that,” and another female-identifying student stated, “There are definitely other companies that do this. For example, Disney, which is a big part of kids growing up. Girls are the ones in makeup and give princesses to girls ...”
The final theme associated with the second research question that emerged in the data was General Observations about Gender Targeting and Stereotypes. In this theme, students reflected on the overall implications of the gendered advertising that they saw in the LEGO remixer tool as well as their recall of additional advertising practices by other companies. Important for critical and/or transformative literacy, some observations within this theme explicitly connected depiction of gender with economic goals of advertising companies whereas others connected to society and culture at large.
Within this theme, students suggested that LEGO commercials generally perpetuate stereotypes by “sending messages to kids that girls should be one way and boys should be another” (female-identifying student). For example, a female-identifying student stated: “It sends [the message] that you have to act the same way as your gender. It’s putting everything girls are supposed to like in one commercial and the same with boys.” Two male-identifying students aptly stated, respectively, “They send a message that separates what boys and girls are interested in,” and “That boys and girls should play with different things.”
Many of the responses to the question of whether other companies beyond LEGO advertise differently to girls and boys fall under this theme as students made observations about how advertising is targeted to audiences by gender. A student who identified outside of the gender binary, for instance, stated, “LEGO is not the only one. Other ads on YouTube target girls/boys with other toys ... Girls (stuffies, LEGO, perfume sets, Barbie dolls, clothing) Boys (LEGO, robots, action figures, Nintendo Switch, Hotwheels, monster trucks, Nerf guns).” And another student identifying outside of the binary similarly noted, “Hot Wheels mostly directed toward males. La La Loopsy and LOL dolls mostly directed toward females.”
Some students explicitly connected gender stereotypical messages in the commercials with purposeful attempts at persuasion to like or buy the toys. For example, a male-identifying student identified the message being sent as “That only the boys should buy that and girls should buy this. Boys: it sends the message that only boys can have this. Girls: It sends the message that only girls should buy this.” A female-identifying student mentioned that the LEGO Friends commercial tries to “get girls to like their product” and LEGO Ninjago tries to “get boys to like their product” and noted that the commercials model “how boys should act and how girls should act, setting a big stereotype.”
As is apparent in Table 1, there is very little evidence of differential patterns in making observations about traits, roles, and activities by gender identity of the participants. Once again, then, in contrast to prior research, we see no indication that girls were more critical of the commercials in their identification of these themes. In fact, the only additional pattern apparent in the data by gender identity of the student is that the transgender and gender non-conforming students were, on the whole, more likely to focus on traits, roles, and activities in their critiques rather than production components.
Discussion and Theoretical Implications
In attempting to reach young audience members, marketers often make assumptions about what they are like or what they will like. As the research we have already cited thus far documents, these appeals are often gendered, using differing production components, voices, characters, and ways of interacting with the product in ads marketed toward boys compared to toward girls.
In the current study, a sample of sixth graders participated in a program designed from the principles of a critical or transformative approach to media/advertising literacy. The topic of gender stereotyping in advertising content and practices—an important theme in the critical tradition—was the focus. As in other studies, the researchers analyzed the written expressions of young people to learn about how they make sense of and respond to gender stereotypes in the media. Overall, the data show ample evidence of the students’ capacity to critique the LEGO commercials featured in the gender remixer exercise, suggesting that the media/advertising literacy program was successful at giving voice to critical analysis.
The sixth graders’ observations of the production components of the LEGO commercials—voiceover, cast of characters, and use of audiovisual techniques—demonstrate their engagement with the “What creative techniques are used to attract my attention?” key question of media literacy and their consideration of media practices alongside critiques of texts. Chandler and Griffiths identified production components of commercials directed at children as central to gendered target marketing, and therefore, the ability of this sample of young people to identify these practices is important. The data also show that the students engaged with the “What lifestyles, values, and points of view are represented in—or omitted from—this message?” media literacy question, in recognizing, for instance, that only boy characters or only girl characters appeared in certain LEGO commercials or that boy characters or girl characters acted in a particular way—as seen through their traits, roles, and activities—the second main theme in the analysis. The students’ responses show recognition of underlying values communicated in the ads of girls’ play as calm, quiet, and nurturing and boys’ play as loud, action-oriented, and heroic in nature.
Toy commercials or other ads targeted toward children tend to limit who is shown playing with particular toys or how they play, and the current study joins others, such as Beentjes and Janssen, Lewin-Jones and Mitra, and Zimmerman, in suggesting that young media users notice these patterns (and see them as gender stereotypical). When asked to do so, many participants could transfer their critique beyond the LEGO commercials featured in the gender remixer exercise toward additional brands and products, a promising result given the media literacy education goal of fostering autonomous critical thinking. The critique of advertising practices demonstrates the capacity to examine the meso-level systems that are a component of transformative advertising literacy as well as the moral or ethical components of advertising literacy.
Practical Implications
Advertising professionals have defended targeted practices based on gender essentialism: commercials for toys are just reflecting what girls want compared to what boys want.52 Yet, there is growing recognition in the trade press that newer generations’ views of gender are changing and thus increasing calls for advertising to become “ungendered” or “gender-neutral.”53 Judging from the results of the present study, today’s youth largely see gender stereotypes in toy commercials as problematic, and they are critical of the practices and assumptions of advertising professionals who continue to trade on restrictive or regressive assumptions. If toy commercials or other marketing messages for children and early teens were to avoid stereotyping in content and form, those messages would presumably be less likely to incur critique and more likely to be positively received. Transforming advertising in terms of gender will likely be contingent on such practices as diversifying advertising and marketing professionals themselves; adopting diversity, equity, and inclusion oversight in ad companies; and moving beyond the binary in casting for commercials and targeting of audiences.54
For media or advertising literacy educators, the current findings suggest that an interactive, open-ended approach scaffolded with facilitator-provided information and tools can provide a space for deep thinking about industry practices, texts, and audience reception. Prior research had suggested that young people tend to be critical of gender stereotypes associated with femininity more so than masculinity or that boys and girls may approach critique of media practices or messages about gender differently.55 In the current study, however, no patterns emerged based on the gender identity of the students, suggesting that the gender remixer tool used in the current analysis was consistently effective at invoking critique and thus that tool or a similar one should be used in future advertising literacy contexts. With students no doubt encountering many advertising messages as they spend time with media each day, educators can help encourage their capacity to approach those messages with a critical lens.
Limitations and Future Research
The current study is limited by its reliance on a small sample of young people in which youth of color are underrepresented and only a small number of students identified outside of the gender binary. It is possible, as well, that some of the students saw the gender remixer exercise as heavy handed or that their responses were shaped by a desire to please the media literacy facilitators. Media literacy education research efforts often suffer from the limitation that, of course, interacting with media in the context of an educational setting is not the same as doing so on one’s own time and in one’s own space.
Despite these limitations, however, the current study offers a view that very few existing studies provide in centering the voices of 11- and 12-year-olds in the context of a critical media/advertising literacy program. It suggests that creating an opportunity for young people to explore and express their views of and responses to media texts and the practices that create them has the potential to open up thoughtful critique of media and/in the wider world. We agree with the observations of Timke and O’Barr who note: “In the end, advertisements do not merely serve the function of selling products. Rather, their representations can be a site of struggle to hold on to, or let go of, old ways of conceiving of masculinity and femininity.” Laying bare the differences in form and content that still exist in advertising directed at youth may help take steps toward gender transformational advertising and a more inclusive future.
Dr. Erica Scharrer is professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Alina Ali Durrani is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Nora Suren is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Footnotes
1. Jenny Radesky et al., “Digital Advertising to Children,” Pediatrics 146, no. 1 (2020): e20201681, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1681.
2. Cordelia Fine and Emma Rush, “‘Why Does All the Girls Have to Buy Pink Stuff?’ The Ethics and Science of the Gendered Toy Marketing Debate,” Journal of Business Ethics 149 (2018): 769–784, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3080-3.
3. Patricia Aufderheide, “Media Literacy: From a Report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy,” in Media Literacy Around the World, ed. Robert Kubey (New York: Routledge, 1997), 79–86; David Buckingham, Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2013).
4. Liselot Hudders et al., “Shedding New Light on How Advertising Literacy Can Affect Children’s Processing of Embedded Advertising Formats: A Future Research Agenda,” Journal of Advertising 46, no. 2 (2017): 333–349, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1269303; Michelle R. Nelson, “Developing Persuasion Knowledge by Teaching Advertising Literacy in Primary School,” Journal of Advertising 45, no. 2 (2016): 169–182, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1107871.
5. Laras Sekarasih et al., “Effectiveness of a School-Based Media Literacy Curriculum in Encouraging Critical Attitudes about Advertising Content and Forms among Boys and Girls,” Journal of Advertising 47, no. 4 (2018): 362–377, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1545269.
6. Laura K. Zimmermann, “Preschoolers’ Perceptions of Gendered Toy Commercials in the US,” Journal of Children and Media 11, no. 2 (2017): 119–131, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1297247.
7. Esther Martínez, “Gender Representation in Advertising of Toys in the Christmas Period (2009–12)/La representación de género en las campañas de publicidad de juguetes en Navidades (2009–12),” Comunicar [English edition] 21, no. 41 (2013): 187–194, http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-18.
8. For a definition of stereotype, see Stuart Hall, “Heroes or Villains?; and Stereotyping as a Signifying Practice,” in Equity in Schools and Society, eds. Judith Marie Barnes, Judy M. Iseke-Barnes, and Njoki Nathani Wane (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2000), 97–109. On stereotypes in advertising, see Emily J. H. Contois, “Gender and Advertising: Representations of Femininities, Masculinities, and Nonbinary Identities,” Advertising & Society Quarterly 24, no. 1 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2023.a898059; Stacy Landreth Grau and Yorgos C. Zotos, “Gender Stereotypes in Advertising: A Review of Current Research,” in Current Research on Gender Issues in Advertising, eds. Yorgos Zotos, Stacy Grau, and Charles R. Taylor (London: Routledge, 2018), 3–12; Edward Timke and William M. O’Barr, “Representations of Masculinity and Femininity in Advertising,” Advertising & Society Review 17, no. 3–4 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2017.0004. On advertising targeting children and teens, see Beth A. Hentges, Robert A. Bartsch, and Jo A. Meier, “Gender Representation in Commercials as a Function of Target Audience Age,” Communication Research Reports 24, no. 1 (2007): 55–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090601128174; Jenny Lewin‐Jones and Barbara Mitra, “Gender Roles in Television Commercials and Primary School Children in the UK,” Journal of Children and Media 3, no. 1 (2009): 35–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482790802576964; Barbara Mitra and Jenny Lewin-Jones, “Colin Won’t Drink Out of a Pink Cup,” in The Handbook of Gender, Sex, and Media, ed. Karen Ross (Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2012), 383–400; Sonali Srivastava, Terhi-Anna Wilska, and Johanna Sjöberg, “Girls’ Portrayals in Fast Fashion Advertisements,” Consumption Markets & Culture 25, no. 6 (2022): 501–524, https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2022.2067149.
9. Susan G. Kahlenberg and Michelle M. Hein, “Progression on Nickelodeon? Gender-Role Stereotypes in Toy Commercials,” Sex Roles 62, no. 11–12 (2010): 830–847, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9653-1.
10. Martínez, 190.
11. Martínez, 191.
12. Swashbuckler Studio, “Nerf Super Soaker 2010 Commercial - Countdown To Summer,” YouTube video, March 7, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bh56eFJh6s.
13. Happy Children - Dolls & Toys Television, “Baby Alive - Real Surprises - Hasbro,” YouTube video, March 1, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nWWZpitqsg.
14. Daniel Chandler and Merris Griffiths, “Gender-Differentiated Production Features in Toy Commercials,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44, no. 3 (2000): 503–520, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4403_10.
15. Zimmerman, 124.
16. Lewin-Jones and Mitra, 43–45.
17. Lori J. Klinger, James A. Hamilton, and Peggy J. Cantrell, “Children’s Perceptions of Aggressive and Gender-Specific Content in Toy Commercials,” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 29, no. 1 (2001): 11–20, https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2001.29.1.11.
18. On childrens’ perception of their own gender identity, see Aysen Bakir, Jeffrey G. Blodgett, and Gregory M. Rose, “Children’s Responses to Gender-role Stereotyped Advertisements,” Journal of Advertising Research 48, no. 2 (2008): 255–266, https://doi.org/10.2501/S002184990808029X; Johannes W. J. Beentjes and Loes Janssen, “Dutch Children’s Judgments of Gender Stereotypical Pictures in Advertisements,” Journal of Children and Media 3, no. 1 (2009): 68–79, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482790802576980; and Donna Rouner, Michael D. Slater, and Melanie Domenech-Rodriguez, “Adolescent Evaluation of Gender Role and Sexual Imagery in Television Advertisements,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 47, no. 3 (2003): 435–454, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4703_7. On childrens’ flexibility in views of gender, see Aysen Bakir and Kay M. Palan, “How Are Children’s Attitudes toward Ads and Brands Affected by Gender-related Content in Advertising?,” Journal of Advertising 39, no. 1 (2010): 35–48, https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367390103. And on childrens’ response to masculine- vs. feminine-coded stereotypes, see Beentjes and Jannsen, and Rouner, Slater, and Domenech-Rodriguez.
19. Jennifer J. Pike and Nancy A. Jennings, “The Effects of Commercials on Children’s Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use,” Sex Roles 52, nos. 1/2 (2005): 83–91, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1195-6.
20. Neema Varghese and Navin Kumar, “Femvertising as a Media Strategy to Increase Self-Esteem of Adolescents: An Experiment in India,” Children and Youth Services Review 113 (2020): 104965, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104965.
21. Aufderheide, 79.
22. Elizabeth Thoman and Tessa Jolls, “Media Literacy—A National Priority for a Changing World,” American Behavioral Scientist 48, no. 1 (2004): 25–27, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204267246.
23. Buckingham, 53–61.
24. Douglas Kellner and Jeff Share, “Critical Media Literacy: Crucial Policy Choices for a Twenty-First-Century Democracy,” Policy Futures in Education 5, no. 1 (2007): 59–69, https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2007.5.1.59.
25. Belinha S. De Abreu et al., “Arc of Research and Central Issues in Media Literacy Education,” in International Handbook of Media Literacy Education, eds. Belinha S. De Abreu, Paul Mihailidis, Alice Y. L. Lee, Jad Melki, and Julian McDougall (New York: Routledge, 2017), 1–15; Kellner and Share, 61–62.
26. Nolan Higdon, Allison Butler, and J. D. Swerzenski, “Inspiration and Motivation: The Similarities and Differences between Critical and Acritical Media Literacy,” Democratic Communiqué 30, no. 1 (2021): 1, https://doi.org/10.7275/3d1r-v052.
27. Hudders et al.; Nelson.
28. Brahim Zarouali et al., “Considering Children’s Advertising Literacy from a Methodological Point of View: Past Practices and Future Recommendations,” Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 40, no. 2 (2019): 196–213, https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1503109.
29. Frank Baker, Close Reading the Media: Literacy Lessons and Activities for Every Month of the School Year (New York, Routledge, 2018); Radha Iyer and Carmen Luke, “Gender Representations in the Media and the Importance of Critical Media Literacy,” in Handbook of Research in the Social Foundations of Education, eds. Steven Tozer, Bernardo P. Gallegos, Annette Henry, Mary Bushnell Greiner, and Paula Groves Price (New York: Routledge, 2011), 434–449.
30. Robert L. Duran et al., “Holistic Media Education: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of a College Course in Media Literacy,” Communication Quarterly 56, no. 1 (2008): 49–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370701839198.
31. Deirdre M. Kelly and Dawn H. Currie, “Beyond Stereotype Analysis in Critical Media Literacy: Case Study of Reading and Writing Gender in Pop Music Videos,” Gender and Education 33, no. 6 (2021): 676, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1831443.
32. Lauren Gurrieri, Linda Tuncay Zayer, and Catherine A. Coleman, “Transformative Advertising Research: Reimagining the Future of Advertising,” Journal of Advertising 51, no. 5 (2022): 539–556, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2098545.
33. Lauren Gurrieri and Fiona Finn, “Gender Transformative Advertising Pedagogy: Promoting Gender Justice through Marketing Education,” Journal of Marketing Management 39, no. 1–2 (2023): 112, https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2157461.
34. See, for example, Li-Ling Liao et al., “The Effects of a Television Drama-based Media Literacy Initiative on Taiwanese Adolescents’ Gender Role Attitudes,” Sex Roles 82 (2020): 219–231, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01049-5; Laurel Puchner, Linda Markowitz, and Mark Hedley, “Critical Media Literacy and Gender: Teaching Middle School Students about Gender Stereotypes and Occupations,” Journal of Media Literacy Education 7, no. 2 (2015): 23–34, https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-7-2-3; Kimberly R. Walsh, Laras Sekarasih, and Erica Scharrer, “Mean Girls and Tough Boys: Children’s Meaning Making and Media Literacy Lessons on Gender and Bullying in the United States,” Journal of Children and Media 8, no. 3 (2014): 223–239, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2013.851094.
35. Liao et al., 227.
36. Christine Olson et al., “Producing PSAs on Consumer Culture: Youth Reception of Advertising,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 36, no. 1 (2019): 58–74, https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2018.1526390.
37. Linda Markowitz and Laurel Puchner, “Troubling the Ontological Bubble: Middle School Students Challenging Gender Stereotypes,” Journal of Gender Studies 25, no. 4 (2016): 413–426, https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2014.987657.
38. Naomi Berman and Alexandra White, “Refusing the Stereotype: Decoding Negative Gender Imagery through a School-Based Digital Media Literacy Program,” Youth Studies Australia [online] 32, no. 4 (2013): 38–47.
39. LEGOClubTV, “LEGO® Friends 2012 TVC,” YouTube video, December 27, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEbJQmiZlEk.
40. Clever Toys, “LEGO CHIMA Laval vs Sir Fangar (70212),” YouTube video, May 26, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UY3RGNenIg.
41. On the limited reach of critique to structural conditions, see Duran et al., and Kelly and Currie. On the possibility of transformative ALE, see Gurrieri, Zayer, and Coleman, and Gurrieri and Finn
42. On critical media literacy tradition, see Higdon, Butler, and Swerzenski.
43. See Duran et al.; Gurrieri, Zayer, and Coleman; Gurrieri and Finn; and Kelly and Currie.
44. Duran et al.; Gurrieri, Zayer, and Coleman; Gurrieri and Finn; and Kelly and Currie.
45. For a sample of the product websites, see https://kids.lego.com/en-us/friends and https://kids.lego.com/en-us/kids/ninjago. For advertisements, see https://www.ispot.tv/ad/5gEX/lego-star-wars-themandalorian; https://www.ispot.tv/ad/1utT/lego-ninjago-be-ninja-battle; and https://www.ispot.tv/ad/24Q_/lego-friends-a-day-in-the-life.
46. RemixingGender, “LEGO Friends Welcome to Heartlake City - (30 second spot),” YouTube video, February 8, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYW_zEYtXeQ.
47. RemixingGender, “LEGO Ninjago Ice Dragon Ad - (30 Second Spot),” YouTube video, February 8, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHmbbM-2S4c.
48. Jane F. Dye et al., “Constant Comparison Method: A Kaleidoscope of Data,” The Qualitative Report 4, no. 1/2 (2000): 1–9, http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-1/dye.html.
49. See, for example, Bakir, Blodgett, and Rose; Beentjes and Janssen; Berman and White; Rouner, Slater, and Domenech-Rodriguez; and Sekarasih et al. In these studies, the ages of the young participants range from 8 to 18: Bakir, Blodgett and Rose: ages 8–10; Beentjes and Janssen: ages 8–12; Berman and White: ages 13–14; Rouner, Slater, and Domenech-Rodriguez: ages 12–18; Sekarasih et al.: ages 11–12.
50. See Kahlenberg and Hein; Klinger et al.; and Martínez.
51. Linda Tuncay Zayer and Catherine A. Coleman, “Advertising Professionals’ Perceptions of the Impact of Gender Portrayals on Men and Women: a Question of Ethics?,” Journal of Advertising 44, no. 3 (2015): 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2014.975878.
52. See Fine and Rush; and Gurrieri, Zayer, and Coleman.
53. See Contois; and Imogen Watson, “The Future Is Fluid: Is the Age of Gender Neutral Marketing upon Us?,” The Drum, January 11, 2021, https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/01/11/the-future-fluid-the-age-gender-neutral-marketing-upon-us.
54. Val DiFebo, “Beyond the Non-Binary: Advertising Confronts Gender Colloquium,” Advertising & Society Quarterly 23, no. 4 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2022.0033; Martin Eisend and Anna Rößner, “Breaking Gender Binaries,” Journal of Advertising 51, no. 5 (2022): 557–573.
55. On children’s tendency to be more critical of gender stereotypes associated with femininity, see Beentjes and Janssen; and Varghese and Kumar. On a gender-differentiated approach to critique, see Sekarasih et al.
