Sex Roles

, Volume 79, Issue 5–6, pp 285–298 | Cite as

Constructing Difference: Lego® Set Narratives Promote Stereotypic Gender Roles and Play

  • Stephanie M. ReichEmail author
  • Rebecca W. Black
  • Tammie Foliaki
Original Article


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.


Gender 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.

Supplementary material

11199_2017_868_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 22 kb)


  1. Adler, P., Kless, S., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65(3), 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auster, C., & Mansbach, C. (2012). The gender marketing of toys: An analysis of color and type of toy on the Disney store website. Sex Roles, 67, 375–388. Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought & action: A social cognitive theory. England Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Bazzini, D., Curtin, L., Joslinn, S., Regan, S., & Martz, D. (2010). Do animated Disney characters portray and promote the beauty-goodness stereotype? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(10), 2687–2709. Scholar
  8. Black, R. W., Korobkova, K., & Epler, A. (2013). Barbie girls and xtractaurs: Discourse and identity in virtual worlds for young children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(2), 265–285. Scholar
  9. Black, R. W., Tomlinson, B., & Korobkova, K. (2016). Play and identity in gendered LEGO® franchises. International Journal of Play, 5(1), 64–76. Scholar
  10. Blakemore, J., & Centers, R. (2005). Characteristics of boys' and girls'toys. Sex Roles, 53(9/10), 619–633. Scholar
  11. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386. Scholar
  12. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Englewood Cliffs: Merrill.Google Scholar
  13. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Scholar
  15. Campbell, I. (2007). Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 3661–3675. Scholar
  16. 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. Scholar
  17. Chew, J. (2015, Dec 30). How Lego® finally found success with girls. Fortune. Retrieved from
  18. Clearfield, M. W., & Nelson, N. M. (2006). Sex differences in mothers’ speech and play behavior with 6-, 9-, and 14-month-old infants. Sex Roles, 54(1/2), 127–137. Scholar
  19. Connor, J., & Serbin, L. (1977). Behaviorally based masculine and feminine preference scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behavior and cognitive tests. Child Development, 48, 1411–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Coyle, E., & Liben, L. (2016). Affecting girls' activity and job intersts through play: The moderating roles of personal gender salience and game characteristics. Child Development, 87(2), 414–428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. Scholar
  23. Dittmar, H., Halliwell, E., & Ive, S. (2006). Does Barbie make girls want to be thin? The effect of experimental exposure to images of dolls on the body image of 5- to 8-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 283–292. Scholar
  24. Eliot, L. (2010). Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gas. New York: First Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  25. England, D., Descartes, L., & Collier-Meek, M. (2011). Gender role portrayal and the Disney princesses. Sex Roles, 64, 555–567. Scholar
  26. Etaugh, C., & Liss, M. B. (1992). Home, school, and playroom: Training grounds for adult gender roles. Sex Roles, 26(3/4), 129–147. Scholar
  27. Fishel, C. (2001). Designing for children: Marketing design that speaks to kids. Gloucester: Rockport Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
  28. Francis, B. (2010). Gender, toys and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 325–344. Scholar
  29. Gerbner, G. (1969). Toward "cultural indicators": The analysis of mass mediated message systems. AV Communication Review, 17(2), 137–148.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119, 182–191. Scholar
  32. Guerro, M., Hoffman, M., & Munroe-Chandler. (2016). Children's active play imagery and its association with personal and social skills and self-confidence. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 11(1), 47–57. Scholar
  33. Hilliard, L., & Liben, L. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81(6), 1787–1798. Scholar
  34. Hudak, K. C. (2017). Deceiving or disrupting the pink aisle? GoldieBlox, corporate narratives, and the gendered toy debate. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 14(2), 158–175. Scholar
  35. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. P. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child (classification and seriation). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  36. Jirout, J., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Building blocks for developing spatial skills: Evidence from a large, representative U.S. sample. Psychological Science, 26(3), 302–310. Scholar
  37. Jordan, E. (1995). Fighting boys and fantasy play: The construction of masculinity in the early years of school. Gender and Education, 7(1), 69–86. Scholar
  38. Kahlenberg, S., & Hein, M. (2010). Progress on Nickelodeon? Gender-role stereotypes in toy commercials. Sex Roles, 62(11), 830–847. Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. Scholar
  41. Larson, M. (2001). Interactions, activities and gender in children’s television commercials: A content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 45(1), 41–56. Scholar
  42. Lauwaert, M. (2009). The place of play: Toys and digital cultures (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lego History Timeline (2017, October 18). Lego history timeline. Retrieved from
  44. 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
  45. (2015). LEGO® 2015 Highlights. Retrieved from
  46. Liben, L., & Coyle, E. (2014). Developmental interventions to address the STEM gender gap: Exploring intended and uninetended consequences. In L. Liben & R. Bigler (Eds.), The role of gender in educational contexts and outcomes (Vol. 47, pp. 77–115). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lillard, A., Lerner, R., Hopkins, E., Dore, R., Smith, E., & Palmquist, C. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34. Scholar
  48. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Martin, K. A. (1998). Becoming a gendered body: Practices of preschools. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2004). Children's search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gnder development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin, C. L., Eisenbud, L., & Rose, H. (1995). Children's gender-based reasoning about toys. Child Development, 66(5), 1453–1471.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Quantitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, S. (1988). Parents' beliefs about children's cognitive development. Child Development, 59, 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morgan, G. (1993). Content analysis: A guide to the paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 112–121. Scholar
  55. 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. Scholar
  56. Murnen, S., Greenfield, C., Younger, A., & Boyd, H. (2016). Boys act and girls appear: A content analysis of gender stereotypes associated with characters in children’s popular culture. Sex Roles, 74, 78–91. Scholar
  57. Pike, J., & Jennings, N. (2005). The effects of commercials on children's perceptions of gender appropriate toy use. Sex Roles, 52, 83–91. Scholar
  58. Rheingold, H., & Cook, K. (1975). The contents of boys' and girls' rooms as an index of parents' behavior. Child Development, 46, 459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Ruble, D. N., Taylor, L., Cyphers, L., Greulich, F., Lurye, L., & Shrout, P. (2007). The role of gender constancy in early gender development. Child Development, 78(4), 1121–1136. Scholar
  61. Russ, S., Robins, A., & Christiano, B. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal prediction of creativity and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 129–139. Scholar
  62. Saldaña, J. (2009). Coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Sherman, A. M., & Zurbriggen, E. (2014). "Boys can be anything": Effect of Barbie play on girls' career cognitions. Sex Roles, 70, 195–208. Scholar
  64. SimilarWeb (2017). Traffic Overview of Retrieved from https:// - overview.
  65. Singer, D., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith, L. (1994). A content analysis of gender differences in children’s advertising. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media Psychology, 38, 323–333. Scholar
  67. Starr, C., & Ferguson, G. (2012). Sexy dolls, sexy grade-schoolers? Media & maternal influences on young girls' self-sexualization. Sex Roles, 67, 463–476. Scholar
  68. Sutton-Smith, B. (1967). The role of play in cognitive development. Young Children, 22, 361–370.Google Scholar
  69. Sweet, E. (2014, December 9, 2014). Toys are more divided by gender now and than they were 50 years ago. Atlantica. Retrieved from
  70. United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Assembly Resolution 44/25. Retrieved from
  71. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. 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. Scholar
  73. Wohlwend, K. (2009). Damsels in discourse: Girls consuming and producing identity texts through Disney princess play. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 57–83. Scholar
  74. Wong, W., & Hines, M. (2014). Effects of gender color-coding on toddlers' gender-typical toy play. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1233–1242. Scholar
  75. Youngblade, L., & Dunn, J. (1995). Individual differences in young children’s pretend play with mother and sibling: Links to relationships and understanding of other people’s feelings and beliefs. Child Development, 66, 1472–1492. Scholar
  76. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie M. Reich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rebecca W. Black
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tammie Foliaki
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  3. 3.School of Education, Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations