Abstract
Gendered marketing – the division of the marketplace into restrictive binary gender categories – is particularly pronounced in children’s markets. In recent years, this practice has attracted increasing public and policy attention due to concerns about its potential to entrench gendered inequities from a young age. Yet, scholarship has largely overlooked how gendered marketing socialises children into binary gendered categories. To address this, we present an integrative review of the gendered marketing of children’s toys. We synthesise the fragmented interdisciplinary literature on the topic to develop a framework that illustrates how gendered marketing to children operates, in turn conceiving how marketing acts as a key agent of gender socialisation. Specifically, we identify four gendered marketing tools and their underlying tactics that (re)produce limited and harmful gender categorisations in the marketplace. To redress this, we present an agenda for de-gendering marketing to children to take action against gender injustices in markets.
Keywords
Heightened societal tensions and moral panics have shaped current gender discourse. While there are positive moves toward inclusivity – such as broader pronoun options, expanded access to gender-affirming care, and global gender equality movements (Hansman and Drenten, 2024; Peñaloza et al., 2023) – there’s also a growing backlash. Misogynistic rhetoric from ‘men’s rights’ groups and incel subcultures highlights this resistance (Flood et al., 2021; Lucy, 2024). In markets, although efforts toward inclusive marketing exist (Zayer et al., 2023), exclusionary practices still reinforce the gender binary, patriarchal power, and inequality (Gurrieri, 2021; Schroeder and Zwick, 2004). The persistence of gender categories in marketing (Murto, 2020; Peñaloza, 2021) suggests markets lag behind consumer calls for diversity (Burgess et al., 2021). Indeed, the history of feminist activism has been underpinned by widespread disbelief and suspicion as to the role of markets (and marketers) in a gender-equal world (Maclaran and Chatzidakis, 2022b). To address the harms of a gendered marketplace, it remains vital to understand its mechanisms and envisage a more inclusive future. In this paper, we focus on the site of children’s toys to examine how gendered marketing persists and how it can be challenged.
Gendered marketing practices are especially pronounced in children’s markets (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Fine and Rush, 2018), sparking concern from parents, activists, and politicians (Grinberg, 2015; Pink Stinks, 2012). Research confirms toys play a significant role in children’s gender, cognitive, social, and biological development (for a review, see Weisgram and Dinella, 2018). Gender stereotypes are widespread across children’s toys (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Caldas-Coulthard and Van Leeuwen, 2002; Fine and Rush, 2018; Pennell, 1994) and exposure to these can be socially and developmentally harmful. For example, movement, construction, and adventure-based toys marketed to boys promote hegemonic conceptions of manhood entrenched in action, aggression, and violence (Klugman, 1999), whilst care or beauty-focused toys marketed to girls promote restrictive gender roles and teach girls to self-objectify and measure their self-worth against a restrictive definition of attractiveness (Lemish, 2020). Such stereotypes limit children’s interests, development, and aspirations (Blakemore and Centers, 2005; Fine and Rush, 2018; Heybach and Pickup, 2017). Despite these concerns, research on gendered toy marketing remains fragmented and – consistent with research on gendered marketing in general – rarely moves beyond strictly dystopian or celebratory accounts (Maclaran and Chatzidakis, 2022b). This paper critically reviews extant research examining gendered marketing through the prism of children’s toy markets to understand how marketing, in its myriad forms, constructs, and reproduces harmful gendered differences. Building on these insights, this paper develops pathways to address the gender differences prevalent in children’s toy marketing.
Although marketing and consumer culture scholars have attended to children’s vulnerabilities, agency, and the social consequences of marketing to children (Asquith, 2015; Cook, 2004; Nairn and Clarke, 2012; Nairn and Fine, 2008; Sigirci et al., 2022), gendered differences constructed through children’s markets have received less attention. Recent exceptions (e.g. Foss, 2019a; Hains and Mazzarella, 2019) have highlighted the importance of understanding gendered marketing to children to complement our understanding of children’s consumption and consumer culture (DeLaCruz, 2021; Santo, 2021; Zaslow and Schoenberg, 2012). Moreover, interdisciplinary research on children’s markets, scholarly research on marketing and consumer culture, and gender socialisation research in feminist theory do not inform each other but remain ‘siloed’ (Cook, 2000) – utilising discipline-specific language, theories and frameworks. Scholars have noted this and called for interdisciplinary research that complements the fluid and hybrid nature of childhood and considers structural and agentic possibilities (Spotswood and Nairn, 2016; Thorne, 2007). Yet, research on the gendered marketing of children’s toys largely focuses on different aspects of gendered marketing; for example, gendered colours (Karniol, 2011; Lobue and Deloache, 2011), gendered product labels (Fagot et al., 1986; Yeung and Wong, 2018), or gendered media and advertising (De Jans et al., 2019; Gentry and Harrison, 2010; Smith, 1994). A holistic view is needed to understand how gendered marketing socialises children and to challenge its harms.
To do this, we present an interdisciplinary, integrative review that synthesises and conceptualises fragmented literature on the gendered marketing of children’s toys. We focus on how marketing socialises children towards prescribed gendered identities, employing a simple heuristic tool, the marketing mix, to allow literature from within and outside the marketing field to interact and structure the review. We acknowledge that the marketing mix has limitations, including it is internally oriented and fails to capture consumer insights (Constantinides, 2006), yet it remains integral to a firm’s marketing strategy (Wichmann et al., 2022). As such, the marketing mix provides a valuable and accessible apparatus for mapping how gendered marketing operates, thereby fuelling harmful practices that drive gender inequality in marketing and consumer culture (Gurrieri, 2021). By framing the marketing mix through a gendered lens, we identify gendered product, price, place, and promotion as gendered marketing tools to map how gendered marketing to children operates – this allows us to structure our review and develop pathways for how it can be redressed. Inspired by Pirani and Daskalopoulou’s (2022) exploration of queer possibilities in marketing, we use insights from our integrative review to propose a de-gendered marketing agenda to guide and inspire future scholarship to de-gender the marketplace.
The paper is structured as follows. First, we explore how children are socialised as consumers and how the role of gender in this process is understudied. We then use feminist theory to frame marketing as an agent of gender socialisation. Next, we present our integrative review, which identifies and synthesises extant interdisciplinary literature to provide a holistic understanding of how gendered marketing of children’s toys operates, functioning to socialise children into rigid and harmful conceptions of gender. Based on this, we develop a framework showing how marketing acts as a gender socialisation agent and propose ways to de-gender the marketplace. This feminist agenda presents future research opportunities towards addressing the problem of gendered marketing to children, in addition to other domains where marketing acts as a gender socialisation agent with harmful outcomes. Finally, we outline the contributions of our paper, namely: (1) we develop extant literature on socialisation and marketing (Littlefield and Ozanne, 2011; Russell and Tyler, 2002) to conceive the key role marketing can play as a gender socialisation agent (2) we address calls to better understand gendered marketing to children (Fine and Rush, 2016; Russell and Tyler, 2002) by synthesising the fragmented literature on the gendered marketing of children’s toys and conceptualising how gendered marketing to children operates; and (3) we build on the agenda to dismantle and take action against gender injustices in markets (Hein et al., 2016; Peñaloza et al., 2023) by devising an agenda for de-gendering marketing to children.
Gender socialisation and the child consumer
Conceiving children as consumers necessarily engages with debates about children’s agency and vulnerability (Cook, 2005; Nairn and Fine, 2008). On one hand, the discourse centred around an ‘agentive, empowered child’ is embedded in understanding children through a commercial lexicon, which asserts children are active social beings capable of participating in consumer culture (Cook, 2008; Martens et al., 2004). Yet others argue that marketing plays a more instructional or harmful role, directing children towards ‘appropriate participation’ in consumer culture (Asquith, 2015). Viewing marketing as potentially harmful means children are conceived as vulnerable to the persuasive intent of marketing (Nairn and Fine, 2008). Recognising both agency and vulnerability, scholars call for exploring the fluid relationships between marketing and children to understand how childhood is shaped through marketplace experiences (Spotswood and Nairn, 2016). One important consideration is how children are socialised into distinct consumer roles.
Consumer socialisation literature examines how young people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes for functioning as consumers (Ward, 1974). It focuses on socialisation agents – sources transmitting norms, attitudes, motivations, and behaviours (Chan and McNeal, 2006) – most commonly parents, peers, and mass media (Aleti et al., 2015; Aleti Watne et al., 2014; Dotson and Hyatt, 2005; Drenten et al., 2008; Mittal and Royne, 2010; Royo Vela et al., 2006). Early research highlighted mass media, particularly television advertising, as a key influence (Moschis and Moore, 1982). Nevertheless, only a few studies have explicitly suggested advertising often plays an influential role in shaping children’s interests and behaviour, acting as a socialisation agent (Arthur and Sherman, 2016; Royo Vela et al., 2006; Sherry et al., 1999). Recent consumer socialisation research also critiques advertising’s instructional and often harmful role in shaping children’s interests and behaviour (Gutmann et al., 2022; Royo Vela et al., 2006). However, the broader role of marketing – beyond advertising – as a critical agent in children’s socialisation remains underexamined.
Similar to how consumer socialisation reflects consumer roles, gender socialisation is instrumental in how children learn gender roles. Gender socialisation is a process through which children learn to shape their gender identities (Oakley, 1972), navigate gender structures (Lorber, 1994), perform gender roles (Butler, 2006), and learn how to ‘do gender’ (West and Zimmerman, 1987). Unlike consumer socialisation, which is market-oriented, gender socialisation occurs across various domains, focusing on identity, interaction, discourse, and social structures. Early work on gender socialisation focused on social learning theory (Bandura, 1969; Bussey and Bandura, 1999), which suggests that children’s gendered behaviour is reinforced through adults in their environment who encourage gendered behaviour. Patterns of gendered expectations (Martin, 1997) are conveyed through agents like parents, who treat children differently based on gender and influence their interests (Boe and Woods, 2018; Fagot and Hagan, 1991). Modelling also plays a role – children observe, internalise, and adopt gendered behaviour (Bandura, 1969; Maccoby, 1992). This is further reinforced by the approval and praise (cf. ‘reinforcement’, Bandura (1969)) children receive for conforming to gender expectations (Oakley, 1972).
Gender socialisation emerged as a key concern in feminist politics in 1953 when socialisation was underlined as central to ‘becoming’ gendered (De Beauvoir, 1953). These ideas around gender and children’s socialisation further gained momentum in the 1970s as feminist scholars sought to challenge deep-rooted assumptions about children and their place in the world (Meyering, 2015). Feminist scholars questioned the taken-for-granted understanding of gender as fixed in children’s sex role development (Janeway, 1971), arguing gender socialisation is a deliberate social learning process (Oakley, 1972). They challenged Freudian analyses of childhood socialisation (Friedan, 1973; Millett, 1971) and scrutinised the cultural and political power imbalances perpetuated by patriarchy, especially in children’s relationships to adults (Firestone, 1979; Greer, 1971; Millett, 1971). Feminist scholars focused on family as a key patriarchal structure that constructs gender imbalances and fuels inequalities (Friedan, 1973; Millett, 1971) and sought to redress the socio-cultural patriarchal structures (Maclaran, 2012).
Drawing upon social learning theory, second-wave feminists highlighted how children were socialised into patriarchal polities and encouraged to formulate their personality according to socially prescribed gender identities, dictating passivity and domesticity as feminine personality traits and aggression and intelligence as masculine traits (Millett, 1971). This socialisation was deep-rooted in an elaborate set of gendered rules and behavioural expectations that reinforced traditional gender roles, assigning domesticity as a feminine role and ambition and achievement as masculine roles (Friedan, 1973; Millett, 1971). Focusing on the binary divisions entrenched in children’s environments emphasising differences between girls and boys, second-wave feminist collectives highlighted the broader harms of gender socialisation in producing oppressive discourses of gender inequality that benefit the patriarchy (Greer, 1971; Millett, 1971). Second-wave feminists emphasised changing children’s environments, especially the toys children played with, the books they read, the clothes they dressed in, the television they watched and the gendered roles parents modelled (Martin, 2005). Through consciousness-raising groups (Evans, 2004), feminist magazines (Pogrebin, 1972, 1974), and scholarly texts (Friedan, 1973; Greer, 1971; Millett, 1971), second-wave feminists advocated for revising children’s socialisation. They argued for expanded roles for girls, such as equality in education and access to sports (Martin, 2005).
Although not naming marketing as a gender socialisation agent, second-wave feminist scholars critiqued and eschewed markets and marketing as harmful patriarchal systems that guided, manipulated, and controlled women’s lives and fuelled gender imbalances and inequalities (Maclaran, 2012). They targeted advertising in particular, criticising its role in promoting domesticity and negative stereotypes (Friedan, 1973). Despite feminist interventions and some progress (Howard, 2010), to date markets and marketing practices remain deeply enmeshed in gender structures (Murto, 2020; Steinfield et al., 2024). Children’s markets are frequently segmented by gender (Fine and Rush, 2018), with the marketplace replete with tactics reinforcing and communicating gendered differences (Murto, 2020). Marketing may thus function as a socialisation agent, shaping children’s gender conceptions. Yet, how gender and marketing influence childhood consumption and socialisation remains underexplored (Littlefield and Ozanne, 2011; Russell and Tyler, 2002), despite its potential to restrict children’s development, interests, and future career aspirations. Drawing these ideas together and to direct our integrative review, we consider the following research question:
How does marketing act as a gender socialisation agent that reproduces gender categorisations in the marketing and consumption of children’s toys?
To explore this question, we conduct an integrative review to understand how marketing functions as a gender socialisation agent for children. By mapping gendered marketing to children, we reveal how marketing reproduces harmful gender categorisations, towards identifying ways this can be challenged and redressed.
Integrative review method
We examine how gendered marketing has been explored in extant literature, focusing on children’s toy markets through an integrative review of interdisciplinary research from 1970 to the present. We take the 1970s as our starting point, as research on children’s socialisation as consumers (Ward, 1974) and feminist theorisations of gender socialisation (Greer, 1971; Millett, 1971) gained traction in the early 1970s.
The integrative review method creates a foundation to advance knowledge and theory development (Webster and Watson, 2002) by evaluating existing knowledge, identifying gaps, combining different perspectives, or creating a research agenda (Echeverri and Skålén, 2021; Torraco, 2016). Following Torraco’s (2005, 2016) broad/inclusive approach, we focus on the underexamined topic of gendered toy marketing. This approach incorporates a comprehensive view of the topic and openness to new ideas and arguments (Bloomberg and Volpe, 2008). We did not restrict our search by discipline but aimed to unify fragmented interdisciplinary literature and offer new insights (Elsbach and Van Knippenberg, 2020). We conducted our search across two databases – Scopus, and Web of Science – using the search term: ((gender* OR sex) AND (child* AND toy*) AND (market* OR consum* OR advertis* OR sociali*ation))
Overview of the integrative review literature. a
aFor comparative studies across geographical regions, all the countries/territories are included in the table.
Gendered marketing: An integrative review.
Gendered marketing of children’s toys: An integrative review
Our integrative review of the gendered marketing of children’s toys provides strong evidence that children’s toy markets are enmeshed in a dichotomous masculine and feminine divide. This divide is constructed through gendered segmentation (Murto, 2020; Schroeder and Zwick, 2004) and reinforced through the gendered marketing mix, which cements gendered differences in the marketplace. In the review that follows, we employ the marketing mix as a tool to structure our analysis and map how gendered marketing operates, to illustrate how marketing acts as a gender socialisation agent that reproduces gender categorisations in the marketing and consumption of children’s toys. Our review sheds light on how gendered inequalities are perpetuated through marketing, constructing childhoods emplaced in and increasingly shaped by ‘traditional’ gender ideology (Davis and Greenstein, 2009; Jones et al., 2020) whereby gendered meanings are perpetuated through patriarchal marketing which in turn fuels inequalities by establishing different norms for women/girls and men/boys (Gurrieri, 2021).
Gendered products
Gendered products refer to the market-oriented division of material and/or immaterial market offerings across gendered boundaries, reflected in the colours, product names, design, functionality, and packaging of products – as evident in our review. The largest group of articles (124) in our review focuses on gendered products. These articles highlight children’s toys are entrenched in gender stereotypes, communicated to children through reductive gendered demarcations (Blakemore and Centers, 2005; Francis, 2010; Idle et al., 1993; Markee et al., 1994). Consequently, toys establish gender differences and socialise children into gender roles by signifying gender appropriateness of different kinds of toy play (Cugmas, 2010; Eisen et al., 2021; Fagot et al., 1986; Jun Zhang, 2005; Lam, 2023; Lemish, 2020; Martin et al., 1995; Owen and Padron, 2015; Varney, 2002a).
Gendered colours
Marketers construct and create gender divisions through gendered colours. Gendered colours are the masculine and feminine qualities attributed to certain colours, particularly ‘blue for boys’ and ‘pink for girls’. Thirty-six articles in our review examine this demarcation of colours and highlight gendered colour coding as pervasive across children’s toy markets. These articles demonstrate that children learn gender through marketing, communicating what colours (and toys) are intended for them. Pink and pastel-coloured toys for girls and blue and primary-coloured toys for boys are powerful and easily recognisable gender markers that construct and reinforce gender differences (Buckingham, 2007; Hull et al., 2011; Mitchell, 1973; Picariello et al., 1990), in turn fostering different gender and cultural norms for boys and girls. For example, blue bikes with lightning bolts marketed to boys highlight problematic stereotypical associations of ‘action’ and ‘aggression’ for boys; (Pennell, 1994); and pink bikes with pink and lavender ribbons marketed to girls dictate problematic stereotypical associations of ‘childlike’ and ‘passive’ for girls (Caldas-Coulthard and Van Leeuwen, 2002; Pennell, 1994).
The past few years have seen heightened gender colour-coding of toys marketed specifically to girls. This is evident in the proliferation of pink STEM (Science, Technology, Education, and Maths) kits (Colatrella, 2012; Heybach and Pickup, 2017; Hudak, 2017; Liben, 2016) and construction sets (Black et al., 2016; DeLaCruz, 2021; Gutwald, 2017; Hains and Mazzarella, 2019; Hains and Shewmaker, 2019; Johnson, 2014a; Knudsen and Kuever, 2015; Merskin, 2019; Putland, 2020; Reich et al., 2018). Although STEM toys have historically been targeted to boys (Al-Gailani, 2009), they now signal girls’ inclusion in this field. Yet, the illusion of girls’ inclusion in STEM does not challenge structural inequalities (Mauk et al., 2020; Yeung and Wong, 2018), as the feminised ‘pinkification’ of toys is entrenched in harmful gender stereotypes. For example, STEM toys coupled with Disney-fied ‘doe-eyed, flowing-haired, and thin-waisted’ dolls (Hudak, 2017: 159) and Lego minifigures with painted-on curves (Hains and Shewmaker, 2019) perpetuate the same regressive stereotypes of fashion and consumption (Santo, 2021) girls’ dolls are commonly criticised for. Thus, pinkification tactics reinforce gender differences and collapse girls’ experiences and preferences to a single known entity transmitted through the colour pink (DeLaCruz, 2021; Heybach and Pickup, 2017).
Gender appropriateness of colours becomes ingrained in children’s minds, influencing how children see the world and shaping their preferences (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Cunningham and Macrae, 2011; Mitra and Lewin-Jones, 2011; Wilansky-Traynor and Lobel, 2008; Wong and Hines, 2015b). For example Picariello et al. (1990) found first-graders insisted characters dressed in pink were girls (not boys), despite being told otherwise. This reflects the larger sociocultural norm of associating pink with femininity. Crucially, gendered colours socialise children and guide preferences, even at a young age. At 24 months old, girls are socialised to embrace pink, and boys start avoiding it, claiming pink is a ‘girls’ colour’ (Lobue and Deloache, 2011; Mulvey et al., 2017; Weisgram et al., 2014). Children’s toy preferences often depend on stereotypical colour coding. For example, girls and boys showed significant variations in time spent playing with stereotypical pink dolls and blue trains instead of when the toys were counter-stereotyped (Wong and Hines, 2015a). This highlights that colour coding is deeply ingrained in children’s minds and influences the toys children play with (Boe and Woods, 2018; Jadva et al., 2010). Consequently, polarising children based on presumed interests limits what children could be interested in (Fulcher and Hayes, 2018). Therefore, pink and blue colour-coding of toys is an exclusionary practice that constructs a gendered dichotomy and guides children towards ‘appropriate’ gender preferences for feminine and masculine colours. Thus, marketing acts as a gender socialisation agent by emplacing societal norms, expectations and inequalities in the marketplace and reinforcing regressive ideas around ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ choice of colours from a young age.
Gendered product names
Marketers further establish differences between boys’ and girls’ toys through product names. Gendered product names are labels identifying and delineating ascribed masculinity and femininity (Hourigan, 2020; Klugman, 1999; Pennell, 1994; Varney, 1996). Nine articles in our review focus on gendered product names. These articles highlight that product names of boys’ toys are established through stereotypical and harmful action or violence-oriented meanings, for example, ‘NASCAR Hot Stock Raceway’, ‘Olympic Superstars’, and ‘Humvee Replica’. In contrast, girls’ toy names signify a fantasy world; for example, ‘Magic Tea Party’, ‘Every Little Girl’s Dream Horse’, ‘Starlight’, and ‘Dream Phone Game’ (Hains and Jennings, 2021; Hassinger-das et al., 2023; Hourigan, 2020; Klugman, 1999; Pennell, 1994; Varney, 1996).
The articles also show how boys’ toys are often classified according to social roles. For example, ‘Action Man’ is categorised as ‘Battle Force Action Man’, ‘Street Combat Action Man’, ‘Laser Force Action Man,’ and ‘Power Arm Ninja’, highlighting the characters’ various avatars and power relationships. By contrast, dolls (for girls) present idealised constructions of womanhood, with products such as ‘Blushing Orchid Bride’, ‘Country Rose’, ‘Summer’, and ‘Harpist Angel’ (Caldas-Coulthard and Van Leeuwen, 2002). Additionally, girls’ toys are often infantilised. For example, a rollerblading boy doll is a ‘dude’, and a rollerblading girl doll is a ‘baby’ (Pennell, 1994; Sherman and Zurbriggen, 2014).
Narratives around action and dominance for boys and infantilisation and domesticity for girls perpetuate detrimental gendered differences as children observe and reuse gendered cues as expected play narratives (Änggård, 2005). Infantilisation of girls from a young age perpetuates gender differences, fostering patriarchal gender roles juxtaposing femininity as subordinate to masculinity. Thus, marketers construct and communicate gendered differences and inequalities through gendered product names, socialising children by giving them cues about which toys (and meanings) are intended for their gender and which are meant for others.
Gendered product design
The review highlights that marketers establish gendered differences through product design. Gendered product design is a phenomenon where visual representation and physical features are encoded with regressive messages of masculinity or femininity. Fifty-one articles in our review examined how marketing establishes differences between boys’ and girls’ toys through the dichotomy of dolls versus action figures. These articles note dolls and action figures serve as ‘potent identity texts’ (Wohlwend, 2012b: 57) and tools for self-imagining (Mertala et al., 2016) constructing messages about femininity and masculinity through gendered product design (Brown, 2018; Russell and Tyler, 2005; Wagner-Ott, 2002).
Girls’ dolls emphasise the importance of appearance, attractiveness, cuteness, and thinness through wide-eyed innocence and high-fashion, statuesque bodies (Barbosa and Almeida, 2020; Best, 1998; Blakemore and Centers, 2005; Carrington, 2003; Chin, 1999; Ging, 2009; Gunter and Gunter, 2014; Horton, 2014; Karniol et al., 2012; McVeigh, 1996; Subrahmanyam and Greenfiel, 1998). In contrast, action figures emphasise distinctness from dolls (Bainbridge, 2010; Wagner-Ott, 2002) through a ‘man-machine metaphor’ (Varney, 2002b) reflected in a V-shaped body, large muscles and thin waistlines (Boyd and Murnen, 2017; Sills, 2019). These stereotypical ideals of femininity and masculinity in dolls and action figures portray petite female bodies and large male bodies (Klugman, 1999; Schwarz, 2005) and reinforce gendered dichotomies in toys prescribing masculinity and femininity for young children (Sweet, 2013; Tanaka, 2019; Wohlwend, 2016). Such portrayals can be harmful to children as they learn and internalise what constitutes an acceptable masculine and feminine body ideal. This is especially harmful to young girls as an unattainable beauty ideal is presented to them through stereotypical portrayals of femininity in dolls such as Barbie, which have been criticised for representing all that is ‘oppressive about femininity, the bodily self-surveillance accompanying eating disorders slavery to the dictates of the fashion industry’ (Messner, 2000: 776).
Although children animate the identities of toys and add layers to storylines, children often use gendered characteristics and identities of toys as play scripts (Wohlwend, 2009), with research establishing that gendered play is restrictive and encourages stereotypical behaviour (Antonova and Sukhareva, 2022; Levy, 1994; Li and Wong, 2016; Sherman and Zurbriggen, 2014; Todd et al., 2018; Worobey and Worobey, 2014). Research on body image found that five to eight-year-old English girls felt dissatisfied with their bodies after reading stories with illustrations of Barbie, as opposed to girls who read stories without illustrations (Dittmar et al., 2006). Additionally, playing with gendered toys restricts children’s educational and occupational aspirations (De Caroli and Sagone, 2007; Leaper and Bigler, 2018). For example, four to seven-year-old girls who played with Barbie dolls considered fewer career opportunities as future possibilities (Coyle and Liben, 2016; Sherman and Zurbriggen, 2014) than those who didn’t play with Barbies. Importantly, research highlights that counter-stereotypical play, that is, boys playing with dolls and girls playing with action figures and neutral toys, can help children navigate and move away from gendered expectations (Bloch and Lemish, 1999; Buckingham and Sefton-Green, 2003; Coyne et al., 2021; Eschenfelder, 2019; King et al., 2019; Kollmayer et al., 2018; Leaper, 2000; Raag, 1999; Raag and Rackliff, 1998; Wohlwend, 2012a; Wong and Yeung, 2019; Wood et al., 2002). Research further establishes positive childhood experiences and home environments where parents approve of counter-stereotypical play (Rogers et al., 2023). However, parents are often more tolerant of their daughter’s interest in stereotypically masculine toys in most instances rather than boys’ interest in stereotypically feminine toys (Rees and Saguy, 2024).
Marketers construct gender divisions through gendered product design, including the characteristics and appearance of the toy(s). Thus, marketing-created oppressive presentation of the female body, in contrast to the dominating muscular presentation of the male body, reaffirms hierarchical roles, produces inequalities and acts as a forceful gender socialisation agent for children by highlighting differences between masculinity and femininity.
Gendered product functionality
The review highlights that gendered differences are also constructed by product functionality. Gendered product functionality is the demarcation of product usage and movement based on gender. Twenty-one articles from the review focus on the gendered functionality of children’s toys. Berger’s claim (Klugman, 1999) that ‘men act and women appear’ is emblematic in the construction and functionality of dolls and action figures.
Dolls like Barbie were originally sold as a ‘manikin’ with decorative clothing for girls to role-play dress-up; therefore, Barbie was a passive, statuesque doll with five moveable parts – neck, arms, and legs (Collins, 2011; Murnen et al., 2016; Wagner-Ott, 2002). Dolls are equipped with large accessories, for example, combs and makeup that the dolls, which their immobile joints, are not designed to hold. Instead, girls are meant to use these accessories to act upon, dress up and take care of their dolls (Blakemore and Centers, 2005; Klugman, 1999). Thus, the doll’s assemblage of accessories continuously points to selfhood in making and remaking (Collins, 2011; Varney, 1996) through a narrow construction of girlhood.
In contrast, functional clothing and body in motion are masculine characteristics often associated with action figures (Murnen et al., 2016). As the term suggests, these ‘active’: moveable body parts equip action figures with complex movements signifying ‘body in motion’ (Wagner-Ott, 2002). Action figures are equipped with accessories, for example, swords, nunchakus, and dynamite, which the action figure can hold and operate (Klugman, 1999). Thus, functionality is an overt gender-specific feature signalling problematic stereotypes of masculinity or femininity and fostering gender inequality.
Gendered functionality demarcates children’s play (Cherney and Dempsey, 2010), whereby boys can pay more attention to movement through playing with complex toys that encourage manipulation and exploration thus developing spatial abilities (Benton, 2013; Cherney et al., 2003; Cherney and London, 2006; Liss, 1981; Patterson and Vannoy, 2023; Serbin et al., 1990). By contrast, girls’ dolls have limited functionality. They are objects that encourage nurturing and attentiveness to appearance, developing verbal skills rather than spatial skills (Blakemore and Centers, 2005; Caldera and Sciaraffa, 1998; Campenni, 1999; Cherney and London, 2006; Clearfield and Nelson, 2006; Leaper and Gleason, 1996; Li and Wong, 2016; O’Brien and Nagle, 1987). The gendered functionality of toys also impacts how parents play with children, showing both explicit praise and encouragement, demonstrating obvious gender socialisation practices (Caldera and Sciaraffa, 1998; Freeman, 2007). Parents can also demonstrate implicit encouragement towards gendered play, contributing to gender socialisation and promotion of narrow societal roles and careers for children, especially for young girls (De Vries et al., 2023). Consequently, gendered functionality constructs differences in play and inequalities in learning opportunities toys offer, thus socialising children into an inherently problematic gendered dichotomy.
Gendered packaging
How products are packaged further cement gender differences. Gendered packaging denotes dichotomous ways in which masculinity and femininity are ascribed through how products are contained, wrapped, and presented. Gendered packaging is examined in nine articles in our review, highlighting how toy packaging interpolates, communicates gendered differences, and perpetuates regressive gender stereotypes. Gendered images – that is, images of the toys and the gender of the child portrayed on the toy package (Barbosa and Almeida, 2020; Dinella et al., 2017; Mzoughi et al., 2017) – create disparities between boys’ toys and girls’ toys.
For example, boys’ toy packaging is often ‘busy’, with pictures of vehicles hurtling at full speed, illustrations of larger-than-life action figures with angry expressions, or characters adopting martial arts stances whilst wielding weapons to conjure action and machismo (Francis, 2010; Klugman, 1999). Girls’ doll packaging typically features fashion dolls with unique characteristics, such as varying hair colours and outfits (Carrington, 2003). Girls’ toy packaging also portrays real girls playing with, holding or gazing at the dolls, thus creating a link between fantasy and reality. By contrast, boys’ toy packaging does not portray boys playing with action figures and is situated entirely in fantasy (Klugman, 1999), allowing room for imagination and differing possibilities.
Research has established gendered images and packaging design can influence children’s interests (Blakemore et al., 1979; Hull et al., 2011; Mzoughi et al., 2017). Coyle and Liben (2018) found that replacing images of a girl with a boy on an engineering set affected how mothers approached the toys. The researchers found mothers spent more time reading the package if there was an image of a girl on the package instead of the image of a boy, highlighting mothers had different expectations of what toys mean for boys and girls (Coyle and Liben, 2018).
Toy packaging is gendered through the portrayal of toys and children playing with the toys. Toy packaging serves as a signpost for how to play with the toy and who the toy is intended for, based on normative behavioural gendered expectations, reinforcing harmful gendered divisions and inequalities.
Summary of gendered products
Products are ‘gendered’ by virtue of their colours, names, design, functionality, and packaging. Gendered products are loaded with harmful gender stereotypes distinguishing between masculinity and femininity. Children absorb gender stereotypes and socially constructed messages about the gender appropriateness of colours (Buckingham, 2007; Fulcher and Hayes, 2018; Hull et al., 2011; Mitchell, 1973; Picariello et al., 1990). This, along with gendered product names and product designs, encourages gendered expectations (Hourigan, 2020; Klugman, 1999; Pennell, 1994; Varney, 1996). The gendered functionality of children’s toys and the dichotomy of learning opportunities further encourage gendered behaviour (Murnen et al., 2016). Finally, gendered packaging replete with gendered norms of regressive societal expectations illustrates and encourages gendered play (Klugman, 1999). Thus, through gendered products, children observe and internalise gendered and patriarchal expectations reproduced through marketing, through which they are socialised into regressive gendered roles.
Gendered pricing
Gendered pricing refers to the practice of setting different prices for products based on gender. Five articles (the smallest grouping in our review) highlight that gender-based price differences pervade children’s markets (Lapierre et al., 2022). In 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs examined price differences across markets, highlighting girls’ toys are often priced 7% higher than boys’ toys (Bessendorf, 2015; Powers, 2019). This phenomenon of charging a higher price for girls’ toys is referred to as the ‘pink tax’ (Powers, 2019). In their research, Starling Bank (2018) analysed 450 products and found that ‘pinkified’ toys cost an average of 5.16% more than other toys. For example, Brown (2020) noted the retail prices of VTech KidiBuzz G2 Smart Devices marketed to children and found the pink version was priced at $99.99, whereas the blue version (featuring a boy) was priced at $69.99% – 30% cheaper.
Gendered pricing reflects how girls’ toys are often overpriced compared to boys’ toys. Gendered differences in pricing mean that boys can buy more toys than girls (Powers, 2019; Starling bank, 2018). This evidences that the early stages of children’s financial education are gendered – which normalises the detrimental idea of price disparities between men/boys’ and women/girls’ products (Brown, 2020), fostering a problematic patriarchal gender hierarchy with greater convenience and affordability for boys.
Gendered place
Gendered place refers to the various ways physical and virtual places and spaces define boundaries surrounding the placement of gendered products. Compared to articles focusing on products and promotion, fewer articles in our review, thirty-three discussed gendered places, both in terms of physical places, such as retail stores, and virtual spaces, such as websites. Gendered places demarcate boys’ and girls’ interests through ‘for boys’ and ‘for girls’ signage on retail store aisles and websites. Therefore, gendered places consistently and starkly reflect problematic ideas around the presumed target market of children’s toys (Brownell, 2016; Chan, 2022; Fine and Rush, 2018; Johnson, 2014b; Sweet, 2013).
Gendered retail stores
Gendered differences are constructed and cemented through gendered retail stores. Gendered retail stores are a physical representation of gendered places. Twenty articles in our review discuss gendered retail stores. These articles highlight how retail stores can be gendered through location and layout, with gendering further entrenched through gendered signage on retail aisles.
Girls’ toy aisles are often arranged in a straight or spine layout, allowing younger girls easy access to toys designed for older age groups. In contrast, boys’ toy sections are designed as alcoves, preventing younger boys from accessing toys intended for older boys (Cook, 2003). The location of these aisles is also gendered (Auster and Mansbach, 2012). Girls’ toy aisles are placed near aisles with explicit signage indicating products for babies or infants. This proximity perpetuates harmful stereotypes by constructing the commodification and domestication of femininity in both reality and pretend play from an early age (Barbosa and Almeida, 2020; Russell and Tyler, 2002; Seiter, 1992). Boys’ toy aisles are often located near sports goods aisles, establishing links with sports and leisure (Luke, 1994; Seiter, 1992). These gendered differences are further evident in the placement and accessibility of boys’ and girls’ aisles. Boys’ toy aisles are often located at the front of the store, whereas girls’ toy aisles are usually at the back, meaning girls pass through the boys’ section when walking towards their section, whereas boys can completely avoid toy aisles for girls (Valiulis et al., 2007). This highlights how boys playing with girls’ toys (Raag and Rackliff, 1998) or browsing girls’ toy aisles is more culturally stigmatised than girls passing through boys’ aisles.
Gendered differences are cemented through gendered signage; for example, ‘for boys’ and ‘for girls’ signage on retail store aisles (Cook and Kaiser, 2004; Fine and Rush, 2018; Knudsen and Kuever, 2015; Valiulis et al., 2007). This is further reinforced by sales personnel often being more rigid when suggesting toys for boys (Kutner and Levinson, 1978; Ungar, 1982). Furthermore, research highlights that gender crossing, particularly by boys towards girls’ aisles, is heavily stigmatised, as boys’ consumption outside of what is considered ‘gender appropriate’ results in a regressive moral panic that questions young boys’ masculinity, labelling them as effeminate or gay (Giuliano et al., 2000; Henshaw et al., 1992; Kane, 2006; Martin, 1997; Masters et al., 1979; O’Driscoll, 2019; Rabelo et al., 2014).
Therefore, location, layout, and gendered signage in retail stores are a physical representation of a gendered place providing children with harmful boundaries and guidance around gendered societal expectations, acting as an agent of their gendered socialisation, whilst reinforcing gender differences and inequalities.
Gendered websites
Gendered toy websites further perpetuate gender differences. Gendered websites are a virtual representation of gendered places, as gendered websites posit a social world available to children systematically differentiating between girls and boys (Carrington and Hodgetts, 2010; Lemish, 2013). This was discussed in 10 articles in our review. These articles highlight how gendered websites use gendered tabs, that is, ‘for boys’ and ‘for girls’ tabs. These sections are populated with gendered everyday objects, such as stereotypically masculine toys for boys and stereotypically feminine toys for girls (Carrington and Hodgetts, 2010; Francis, 2010; Freeman, 2007; Malik and Wojdynski, 2013).
Gendered toy websites often provide options to select gender before venturing further into the online store (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Black et al., 2013; Foss, 2019b). Auster and Mansbach’s (2012) content analysis of toy websites found that customers had the option to click an explicit ‘girl tab’ or ‘boy tab’, but there was no option for a ‘neutral’ or an ‘all children’ tab. Toys marketed as neutral were instead categorised twice, under the ‘for boys’ and ‘for girls’ tabs.
Even when websites are not divided by ‘for boys’ and ‘for girls’ tabs, visually and thematically, they present a gendered world for children through gendered stylisations, such as colours, fonts, and images (Putland, 2020). Moreover, gendered websites are loaded with stereotypical representations, with female characters presented through hyper-feminine stereotypes, whereas male characters are portrayed through stereotypes of hegemonic masculinity, for example, action and aggression (Murnen et al., 2016). Thus, gendered websites are virtual representations of gendered places, dividing children’s toys through gendered tabs. These virtual boundaries perpetuate inequalities in the marketplace and act as a means of teaching children problematic ideas about what is meant for boys and what is for girls.
Summary of gendered places
Gendered places – namely gendered retail stores and websites – are physical and virtual representations of problematic patriarchal boundaries placed around young children in the marketplace. Gendered retail stores and websites perpetuate marketplace inequalities and define societal boundaries for children around what is intended for them and what is intended for others (Cook, 2003). This socialisation and social sanctioning of gendered boundaries is often accompanied by harmful societal stigmatisation of gender crossing (Kane, 2006).
Gendered promotion
Gendered promotion encompasses gendered methods used to market and communicate products to consumers. In our review, advertising, as a form of gendered promotion, is highlighted as a commercial practice that plays an instrumental role in shaping gendered expectations (Antoniou and Akrivos, 2020; Luna and Barros, 2019; Pugh, 2005). This group of articles for review was the second largest, comprising seventy-five articles focused on gendered advertising, examining how gendered advertising operates through gendered role portrayals and voiceovers, and is designed through gendered formal features such as certain production, camera, and sound techniques.
Gendered portrayals
Gendered advertising disseminates problematic gendered portrayals (Bakir, 2013). Gendered portrayals are the stereotypical and limited representations of boys and girls in advertisements. Gendered portrayals were examined in fifty-five articles in our review. For example, boys are often portrayed in central roles, whereas girls are relegated to the sidelines (Bakir and Palan, 2010, 2013; Galizia, 2022; Kline, 1993; Levinson, 1975; Macklin and Kolbe, 1984; Panarese, 2015; Schwartz and Markham, 1985; Spinner et al., 2018; Walsh and Leaper, 2020). Gender stereotypes are embedded in the portrayals of girls and boys in toy advertisements (Bakir et al., 2008; Coyne et al., 2016, 2021; Davis and Hines, 2020; Eisend, 2010, 2019; Foss, 2019b; King and Douai, 2014).
Portrayals of boys emphasise harmful masculine gendered roles of rebellious troublemakers, whereas portrayals of girls are replete with feminine stereotypes of passivity and domesticity (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Baker and Raney, 2007; Baker-Sperry and Grauerholz, 2003; Bakir, 2013; Basch et al., 2015; Browne, 1998; Bush and Furnham, 2013; England et al., 2011; Gentry and Harrison, 2010; Johnson and Young, 2002; Kahlenberg and Hein, 2010; Rajecki et al., 1993; Steiner et al., 2014). Even when girls are portrayed as lead characters, they are embedded in a commercial lexicon of agency and conformity, where agency is maintained through consumerism (Almeida, 2014; Banet-Weiser, 2004; Stevens and St John, 2020) thus (re)producing hegemonic gender differences and inequalities in the marketplace (Collins and Rothe, 2017).
Moreover, gendered portrayals are locational. Boys are portrayed in bright and loud outdoor settings, for example, parks, cinemas, and football fields, playing with action-oriented and violent toys (Chang-Kredl, 2015; Dillon and Bushman, 2017; Kahlenberg and Hein, 2010; Klinger et al., 2001; Smith, 1994). By contrast, girls are portrayed as confined to indoor spaces in quiet, domestic settings, for example, nursery, bedroom or kitchen, and playing with toys centred on family and friendship (Azmi et al., 2021; Bir et al., 2019; Chan, 2022; Chandler et al., 2017; DeAnda et al., 2018; Johnson and Young, 2002; Owen and Padron, 2015; Verna, 1975). These gendered portrayals communicate limited societal expectations around masculine and feminine roles, centring outdoor spaces for boys and domesticity and indoor spaces for girls.
Children tend to avoid toys that they believe are advertised to the other gender (Pike and Jennings, 2005; Ruble et al., 1981). Marketed gendered role portrayals are constructed through the stereotypical representation of boys and girls in advertisements that perpetuate inequalities whilst communicating harmful messages about how boys and girls should behave, which they may absorb as behavioural cues. Through this, marketing functions as a gender socialisation agent.
Gendered voiceovers
Gendered voiceovers further perpetuate and cement gendered differences. Gendered voiceovers are stereotypical narrations frequently used in advertisements. Gendered voiceovers are examined in 17 articles in our review. Men/boys dominate the faceless voices that provide information in advertising and urge children to purchase products (Johnson and Young, 2002; Kolbe, and Muehling, 1995; Martínez et al., 2013; Neto and Furnham, 2005; Ogletree et al., 1990; Peruta and Powers, 2017; Rajecki et al., 1993). Research highlights that male voices emphasise agency and authority (Bakir and Palan, 2013; Merskin, 2002; Thompson and Zerbinos, 1995). Even when both boys and girls are present, our review highlights that girls speak 20% fewer words than boys, indicating that male voices still have a dominant presence (Golden and Jacoby, 2018). Moreover, voiceovers are often caricatured: boys’ voiceovers are wild and loud, and girls’ voiceovers are high-pitched and sing-song (Johnson and Young, 2002).
In advertising for young girls, voiceovers are catchy jingles emphasising girls’ beauty as a key to success, romance, and happiness (Collins, 2011; Ging, 2009; Pedelty and Kuecker, 2014). This objectification lays the groundwork for harmful self-objectification, encouraging young girls to view themselves as objects existing for appearance (Baker-Sperry and Grauerholz, 2003). Although recent research has highlighted that boy-led and girl-led media is becoming less stereotypical (Setten and Chen, 2024), stereotyped language is still replete in children’s media, which influences children’s understanding of gender (Patterson and Vannoy, 2023). Thus, gendered voiceovers reflect disparities and inequalities in how gender is represented in advertising.
Gendered formal features
The gendered dichotomy is also evident in the formal features of advertisements. Gendered formal features are the gendered production techniques (e.g. action, movement, and pacing) and camera techniques (e.g. cuts, zooms and animation) and the sound (music, sound effects and narration) of advertisements (Welch et al., 1979). Gendered formal features were examined in four articles, highlighting formal features imbued with gender stereotypes that are translated into content, namely gendered portrayals and voiceovers in advertisements (Huston et al., 1984). For example, advertisements targeted at boys are often fast-paced, with jazzed-up background music echoing stereotypes of masculinity as action-oriented. By contrast, advertisements targeted towards girls are often soft-paced, with frequent fades and mellow background music, thus equating softness and gentleness with femininity (Chandler et al., 2017; Welch et al., 1979).
These gendered formal features convey and reinforce messages evident in the content of advertisements and feed into harmful stereotypical characterisations of what is appropriate for boys and girls (Valiulis et al., 2007). Accordingly, gendered differences evident in formal features (production, camera techniques) and sound effects of advertisements provide pathways for children’s gender socialisation and perpetuate inequalities in the marketplace.
Summary of gendered promotion
Gendered promotion reflects the problematic binary divide in marketing messages conveyed to children through advertisements. Gendered role portrayals in children’s advertisements are replete with harmful and stereotypical characterisations that convey socially prescribed and patriarchal gendered expectations (Bakir, 2013), which children observe and internalise (Klemenović, 2014; Parsons and Howe, 2006; Pine et al., 2007; Pine and Nash, 2003), alongside unequal representation in gendered voiceovers (Golden and Jacoby, 2018). This can impact children’s worldviews (Pike and Jennings, 2005) and alienate children who do not fit within a binary framework (Zimmermann, 2017). Finally, formal features in advertisements are gendered, which translates into advertisements’ content such as portrayals and voiceovers. Thus, marketing acts as a gender socialisation agent through gendered promotion that perpetuates gender roles whilst constructing and reinforcing gender inequalities.
An integrative framework of the gendered marketing of children’s toys
In our integrative review of interdisciplinary literature on gendered marketing of children’s toys, we address calls to better understand gendered marketing to children (Fine and Rush, 2016; Russell and Tyler, 2002) by synthesising the fragmented literature on the gendered marketing of children’s toys and conceptualising how gendered marketing to children operates, and socialises children into harmful and limited gendered identities. In doing so, we develop extant literature on socialisation and marketing (Littlefield and Ozanne, 2011; Russell and Tyler, 2002) to conceive the key role marketing can play as an agent of gender socialisation through gendered products, price, place, and promotion tools that construct, communicate and emphasise gendered differences to children. In fuelling these differences and inequalities in the marketplace, gendered marketing operates as a tool of patriarchal structures whereby differences between women/girls and men/boys are further cemented.
Previous research has long focused on children’s consumer socialisation (Sigirci et al., 2022), establishing the role of media as a central consumer socialisation agent for children (Royo Vela et al., 2006), often making specific inferences about the role of advertising within media (Arthur and Sherman, 2016; Eisend, 2010; Sherry et al., 1999). Here, we highlight that marketing is particularly invested as a specific gender socialisation agent, not just through advertising in media but through the tactical implementation of the entire gendered marketing mix. We present a framework below (Figure 1) that articulates how gendered marketing operates and acts as a gender socialisation agent for children. An integrative framework of the gendered marketing of children’s toys.
Our framework illustrates how the child consumer enters a marketplace deeply enmeshed in gender structures. The tools of gendered marketing, namely gendered product, price, place, and promotion, singularly and collectively draw the child consumer into the gendered marketplace, which is replete with gender stereotypes highlighting and exaggerating differences between boys and girls and acting as conduits of children’s gender socialisation.
Children are socialised to adopt gendered narratives ‘baked into’ the products marketed to them. Children’s toys are entrenched with gender stereotypes, starting with gendered packaging that interpolates and communicates gendered differences through colours, imagery, and design of the way products are contained and wrapped (Barbosa and Almeida, 2020; Dinella et al., 2017). These gender differences further fuel children’s gender socialisation through the binary of ‘blue for boys’ and ‘pink for girls’ association that cement gender differences and develop children’s preferences (Caldas-Coulthard and Van Leeuwen, 2002) whilst presenting children with an elaborate set of rules and gendered behavioural expectations (Millett, 1971). Gender expectations in the design of toys are communicated to children through gender stereotypes of action, adventure, and aggression for boys, and gender stereotypes of passivity, domesticity, and beauty for girls (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Browne, 1998; Bush, 2013; Fine and Rush, 2018). These gender expectations communicate to children who girls are, who boys are and how they are expected to act and behave (Lemish, 2013). In turn, this fuels gender inequalities and maintains patriarchal expectations, therefore encouraging different learning opportunities for boys and girls (Cherney and Dempsey, 2010; Martin, 2005; Millett, 1971). Products marketed to boys involve physical manipulation and promote the development of spatial skills, whereas those marketed to girls encourage domesticity and the development of verbal skills (Benton, 2013; Cherney et al., 2003). Therefore, gendered toys are unequal in the development opportunities they offer (Fine and Rush, 2016) thus, perpetuating and reinforcing gender socialisation through hierarchies that often favour boys (Bettany et al., 2010; Hearn and Hein, 2015).
Gendered price differences in children’s toys suggest that boys can buy more toys than girls because their toys cost less (Powers, 2019; Starling bank, 2018). Research also suggests a gender gap in children’s income, with parents giving more pocket money to boys than to girls (Wilska and Lintonen, 2016). This evidences that the early stages of children’s financial education are gendered, influenced by the normalisation of price disparities between men/boys’ and women/girls’ products (Brown, 2020). Consequently, gendered pricing is the first step towards the gender socialisation of girls into a gender-unequal world, socialising girls into accepting fewer financial resources and paying more for everyday products (Friedan, 1973; Lapierre et al., 2022).
Gender socialisation is further evident through gendered places – gendered retail stores and websites cultivate the idea of boy-appropriate and girl-appropriate places and spaces (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Lemish, 2013). In turn, this instructs children to operate in gender structures (Lorber, 1994). The location and layout of retail stores fuel inequalities and cement gender differences by socialising children through gendered worlds. Retail aisles presented as ‘for girls’ are embedded in passive domestication of femininity, whereas boys are socialised into a larger-than-life conception of manhood embedded in action, adventure, and sports (Cook and Kaiser, 2004; Fine and Rush, 2018). Gendered places encompass clear gender differences (Cook and Kaiser, 2004), communicating regressive and harmful boundaries around masculinity and femininity (Greer, 1971; Millett, 1971) with implicit social sanctioning of gender crossing, especially for young boys (Kane, 2006; Martin, 1997; Masters et al., 1979; O’Driscoll, 2019). These gendered boundaries and, consequently, children’s gender socialisation is further entrenched through websites. Gendered websites act as virtual representations of gendered places, dividing children’s toys through gendered tabs that act as boundaries between gendered social worlds populated with stereotypically masculine toys for boys and feminine toys for girls (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Black et al., 2013).
Gender socialisation is reinforced through gendered promotion, as children learn and absorb cues from gendered advertisements (Smith, 1994) impacting their attitudes, behaviour, and values (Eisend, 2019; Millett, 1971; Ruble et al., 1981). Through gendered advertisements, young girls observe and internalise messages of sexualisation and objectification (Kahlenberg and Hein, 2010; O’Driscoll, 2019) and measure their self-worth against a restrictive definition of attractiveness (Leaper and Farkas, 2015; Lemish, 2020). Boys absorb and recreate traditional concepts of manhood predominant in advertising for decades (Gentry and Harrison, 2010). These gendered messages act as cues, guiding children’s choices and reinforcing gendered expectations through gender socialisation (Friedan, 1973; Millett, 1971; Stockard, 2006). Gendered advertising cements social rules that guide children’s behaviour (Kane, 2006) and exploit children’s quest for gender identity, whilst instructing children with gendered expectations regarding the societal norms around how they should look, think and act (Cherney and London, 2006; Spinner et al., 2018). Distinct and traditional gender roles (King and Douai, 2014; Martin, 2005) are communicated through portrayals of loud boys playing outdoors with action and adventure-oriented toys and girls in quiet, domestic settings playing with toys centred on family and friendship (Kahlenberg and Hein, 2010). In turn, this socialises children into gender roles by communicating socially acceptable templates of masculinity and femininity (King and Douai, 2014; Martin, 2005). This socialisation impacts children’s worldviews, restricting their development (Antoniou and Akrivos, 2020; Cherney and Dempsey, 2010) and alienating children whose interests do not conform to traditional gender roles (Gutwald, 2017; Martin, 2005).
The gendered marketing mix operates as a powerful tool of gender socialisation, which impacts children’s development and subsequent equality. In highlighting this, we offer a novel contribution by focusing on an overlooked area in gender and marketing scholarship, namely children’s markets. Interdisciplinary research on how marketing genders children’s markets is highly fragmented across disciplines. We unite this body of research under an overarching conceptual umbrella of gendered marketing, highlighting the tools and tactics through which it is operationalised. Through our review, we frame how marketing operates as a gender socialisation agent that drives gender inequality. This advances previous scholarship that has implied that marketing acts as a socialisation agent, typically through advertising exposure in mass media (Gutmann et al., 2022; Royo Vela et al., 2006). Moreover, in offering a comprehensive understanding of how gendered marketing operates, we offer scope for how these practices can be challenged, redressed, and possibly dismantled. In doing so, we adopt the feminist of praxis of naming/identifying a gendered problem to, in turn, challenge the problem. The next section considers the problem of gendered marketing and how this can be addressed through a de-gendering agenda.
De-gendering agenda
Mapping how gendered marketing operates as a gender socialisation agent provides a crucial baseline for setting an agenda to challenge and redress gender inequalities. De-gendering is a practice that weakens the power of gender in everyday lives, structures, and institutions by challenging ubiquitous binary gendered categories (Lorber, 2005). In focusing on marketing as a structure that creates and perpetuates gender differences, we use de-gendering as an organising principle to guide scholars to engage in transformational practices that resist gender structures (Lorber, 2000) to envision a de-gendered marketplace (Maclaran and Chatzidakis, 2022a).
De-gendering Agenda.
In extant literature, gender-neutrality (Maclaran and Chatzidakis, 2022a) and gender inclusivity (Witmer, 2019) are framed as key mechanisms to drive the feminist de-gendering agenda forward. We present a de-gendering agenda that identifies gender-neutral products, gender-neutral pricing, gender-inclusive place and gender-inclusive advertising as tools that singularly and collectively align with the conceptualisation of de-gendering by weakening binary divisions in the marketplace. Specifically, we present gender-neutral products (Auster, 2016; Saguy and Williams, 2019) and gender-neutral pricing (Lau and Ying, 2024) as means to challenge traditional gender norms and weaken the gender binary; whilst gender-inclusive places (Boyd et al., 2020) and gender-inclusive advertising (Eisend et al., 2023) signal inclusion and diversity of representation that can challenge gender binaries.
The first de-gendering tool, gender-neutral products, challenges traditional gender norms through product offerings considered appropriate for everyone, regardless of gender. Thus, gender-neutral products challenge the binary prevalence and the omnirelevance of gender in everyday life (Auster, 2016; Saguy and Williams, 2019). In the context of children’s toys, gender-neutral toys are inclusive of de-gendering marketing tactics such as gender-neutral colours, gender-neutral product names, gender-neutral product design, gender-neutral product functionality, and gender-neutral packaging.
Gender-neutral colours are colours not divided along the pastel/primary and pink/blue binaries (Auster, 2016). Gender-neutral colours is a broad term and is understood differently in myriad contexts. Auster and Mansbach (2012) labelled yellow, tan, blue, orange, green, and white as gender-neutral colours, whereas Nash and Sidhu’s (2023) participants noted that authentic gender-neutrality in colours would entail a mix of ‘boy colours’ and ‘girl colours’, highlighting that red, black, white or purple could be considered gender-neutral colours. Future research could focus on this and explore how gender-neutral colours are understood in children’s toy markets. Scholarly research indicates that merely positioning products as neutral does not erase gendered perceptions around colours (Kane, 2006; Nash and Sidhu, 2023). Future research can focus on gender-neutral colours as a de-gendering tactic and examine how marketing can eliminate gender stereotypes and stigma around colours. This is especially important as gendered colours serve as easily recognisable gender markers that influence how children see the world, shape their preferences and construct and reinforce gender differences (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Cunningham and Macrae, 2011). Gendered appropriateness of colours is deeply ingrained in children’s minds. Thus, it is important to explore how children respond to gender-neutral colours in toys and clothes.
Gender-neutral product names are free of stereotypes and use gender-neutral language that does not alienate either gender (Pugh, 2005). In children’s toy markets, gender-neutral toy names are free of stereotypes of masculinity or femininity. Research has particularly highlighted the importance of language in situating children’s consumption (Spotswood and Nairn, 2016); thereby, studies should focus on interrogating how de-gendered language is understood by children. For example, research could examine how the language of de-gendered product names is understood and interpreted by children. Moreover, research can examine the measures marketers are taking to ensure de-gendered language, specifically in product names.
Gender-neutral product design eliminates gender markers from products (Potvin, 2019). Gender-neutral product design ensures toys are free of gendered design elements. Research has highlighted the benefits of gender-neutral toys for children’s development (Bloch and Lemish, 1999; Buckingham and Sefton-Green, 2003; Coyne et al., 2021; Eschenfelder, 2019; King et al., 2019; Kollmayer et al., 2018; Leaper, 2000; Raag, 1999; Raag and Rackliff, 1998; Wohlwend, 2012a; Wood et al., 2002). Future research could build on this, examining design and marketing of gender-neutral toys and explore how such toys are designed and/or marketed to non-binary and gender non-conforming children and how these toys are received by both parents and children. This offers an important direction for research enabling a view of gender beyond the binary. Future research could focus on consumption-driven market emergence (Martin and Schouten, 2014) as a means towards de-gendering marketing practices and explore measures parents take to design DIY gender-neutral toys for their children. Over the past few years, there have been initiatives in the marketplace to focus on designing dolls as more inclusive, focusing on inclusivity in terms of skin tones and body shapes (Hains and Jennings, 2021; Ono and Buescher, 2001; Schwarz, 2005). However, research highlights that simply making a diverse range of dolls may not be enough to encourage body positivity (Harriger et al., 2019). It would be interesting to explore this further, focusing on whether diversities in doll design are communicating a move away from gender stereotypes or replicating the same gendered ideals embedded in girls’ dolls.
Gender-neutral product functionality ensures neutrality in play regardless of gender. Thus, gender-neutral toys offer equal play and learning opportunities for all children. Research has long established the broader harms of gendered play through different learning opportunities toys offer (Benton, 2013; Cherney et al., 2003). Marketers have the potential to revise this and design toys that are neutral; thus, we suggest that future scholarship should examine how the marketplace can create inclusive product options to encourage equitable play and learning. It would be important to examine the impact of de-gendered play opportunities on children’s lives. Future research can focus on this by examining how neutrality in product functionality impacts children’s play and learning.
Gender-neutral toy packaging is free of gender labels, promotes equity, challenges the binary and promotes inclusive play (Dimaandal and Espineda, 2023). In children’s toy markets, toy packaging serves as the first point of contact between children and toys. The gendered design of and portrayals on packaging guide children’s interests, highlighting how toys are meant to be played with and who is meant to play with them (Klugman, 1999; Mzoughi et al., 2017). To envision gender-neutral products, future scholarship should explore what gender-neutral packaging can look like. Future scholars should further explore how gender-neutral packaging is received by children of all genders.
The second de-gendering tool, gender-neutral pricing (Lau and Ying, 2024) adheres to equity, equality, and fairness (Maxwell et al., 2009) and does not perpetuate the pink tax (Guittar et al., 2022). Gender-neutral pricing ensures all toy prices are equal and fair, without any gendered disparities. In children’s markets, girls’ toys are often overpriced compared to boys’, creating and perpetuating differences in children’s purchase power (Powers, 2019). Future research can explore this, focusing specifically on how the marketplace can be de-gendered through gender-neutral pricing as a tool and examine where pricing discrepancies exist, and which products are attributed (and to what extent) to a pink tax. Moreover, future research can examine what measures can be taken to ensure gender equality in pricing. Pricing is a topic that is broadly under-researched when it comes to gender and its impacts, with manifold opportunities available for researchers.
The third de-gendering tool, gender-inclusive places signals diversity, and inclusion and does not discriminate or restrict access based on gender (Boyd et al., 2020). Thus, gender-inclusive places’ design reflects inclusivity and does not restrict accessibility for children based on their gender through both physical gender-inclusive places (retail stores) and virtual gender-inclusive spaces (websites).
Gender-inclusive places ensure children’s toys and consequently children’s interests are not divided along gender lines, rather places are divided according to diverse interests. Over the years, there has been significant media discourse around certain retail stores, such as Target in the United States and United Kingdom planning to ‘de-gender’ their store aisles and toy websites by moving away from gendered signage (Collins and Rothe, 2017; Horton, 2014). There is a need to explore this further, researchers can examine the extent to which removing gendered labels can promote inclusivity for children. Of course, the conscious division between boys and girls goes beyond the signage and labels (Fine and Rush, 2018). Thus, we suggest future research should examine what alternative measures can be taken to design gender-inclusive places.
Gender-inclusive spaces ensure inclusivity in the virtuality of marketing spaces so they are free of societal boundaries and do not limit or restrict children’s interests. Future research should explore inclusivity in virtual spaces and examine what gender inclusivity in websites may look like. Research has established that gender websites guide children’s interests by creating virtual boundaries through gendered tabs (Auster and Mansbach, 2012). It would be important to explore how gender inclusivity in websites may impact consumers’ shopping behaviour patterns.
The fourth de-gendering tool, gender-inclusive advertising, moves beyond the binary of masculinity and femininity to include diversity of gender representation (Eisend et al., 2023) and embraces an outcome-oriented approach that considers differing impacts (Zayer et al., 2023). In the context of children’s toys, gender-inclusive advertising entails gender-inclusive portrayals, gender-inclusive voiceovers, and gender-inclusive formal features.
Gender-inclusive portrayals are non-stereotypical, diverse, and inclusive portrayals of masculinity and femininity (Eisend et al., 2023). Research has highlighted that gendered and non-diverse portrayals alienate consumers, as consumers are increasingly expecting advertising to reflect a diverse and inclusive society (Burgess et al., 2021). Considering these growing expectations around diversity and inclusivity in advertisements, future research should explore how advertisers can be more inclusive in their portrayals of genders beyond the binary. This would allow future scholars to examine the holistic incorporation and valuation of inclusivity in advertisements. In examining inclusivity in advertising, future scholars must draw on an intersectionality lens and examine how intersections between gender, race, religion, or social class and other identities can challenge pre-existing stereotypes.
Gender-inclusive voiceovers are free of gender stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. In children’s toy markets, narrations are often loaded with stereotypes and caricatures (Johnson and Young, 2002). This influences children’s understanding of gender and cements gender differences. Advertisers have the potential and opportunity to ensure that they are inclusive and intentional in the voiceovers they use. Future research can focus on this by examining how advertisers can be encouraged to employ inclusivity in voiceovers. In ensuring inclusivity in voiceovers, advertisers can redress the negative connotations of advertising narratives. Future scholarship can further focus on the varied effects of inclusive voiceovers for children consumers.
Gender-inclusive formal features would ensure advertisements are designed in ways that ensure inclusivity, including in production, camera techniques and sound design. This is especially important as the gender stereotypes embedded in formal features are translated into the advertisements’ content, namely gendered portrayals and voiceovers (Huston and et al., 1984). Future research should focus on this and examine what measures can be taken to ensure formal features do not replicate gender stereotypes. In examining formal features, future scholars can further examine whether inclusivity in formal features translates to inclusivity in ad portrayals.
Future scholarship could build on our de-gendering agenda and examine how de-gendering can be operationalised beyond the tools and tactics we have identified, for example, how gender identities are perceived and communicated in the services industry and how these can be de-gendered. Moreover, future scholarship can explore other facets of children’s markets, for example, the de-gendering of books, uniforms, clothes, games, and movies. This would enable this agenda to be applied in cognate contexts to see if it operates as conceptualised in this paper, as well as beyond children’s markets. Moreover, how gender operates in relation to other intersections through gendered marketing would be an important future development of our gender socialisation framework, for example, through consideration of race, religion, or social class. This includes how children learn how to ‘do gender’ in relation to other intersections when socialised through gendered marketing. We also acknowledge that the articles in this review are largely based on research conducted in the Global North. Accordingly, future research could purposefully focus on integrating differing perspectives from the Global South. Finally, our framework could be further developed through a harm-based approach (Nairn and Fine, 2008) to interrogate the broader harms of gendered marketing in the construction of a gendered childhood. This expansion of the framework would draw out the impacts of gendered marketing, which are often overlooked when examining harms of marketing to children.
Conclusion
Gendered distinct and traditional categories of masculinity and femininity are entrenched in markets and marketing, with gendered divisions particularly pronounced in children’s markets (Fine and Rush, 2016; and Kolbe, and Muehling, 1995). In this paper, we focused on the site of children’s toys to examine both how gendered marketing persists and how it can be challenged. To do so, we offer an integrative review of the interdisciplinary literature on the gendered marketing of children’s toys to conceive the key role marketing can play as a gender socialisation agent that socialises children into harmful and limited gendered identities. In doing so, we map how gender socialisation is enacted through the tools and tactics of gendered marketing. Our integrative review highlights how gendered marketing acts as a gender socialisation agent through gendered products, gendered price, gendered place and gendered promotion tools that construct, communicate, and emphasise gendered differences to children. Mapping how gender socialisation is enacted through gendered marketing furthermore guides us in setting an agenda to dismantle and take action against gender injustices in markets (Hein et al., 2016; Peñaloza et al., 2023) by devising an agenda for de-gendering marketing to children. We offer four key de-gendering tools as possibilities for future researchers to explore namely: gender-neutral products, gender-neutral pricing, gender-inclusive place, and gender-inclusive advertisements. In doing so, we highlight how gendered marketing can be ‘undone’ through de-gendering marketing. We conclude with the hope that the marketplace and marketing practices can move beyond patriarchal boundaries and in writing this paper, we aimed to pass a baton with the hope that future feminist scholars can work to redress, challenge, and possibly dismantle the gendered structures in markets and marketing.
Footnotes
Author’s note
In this paper, we conduct an integrative review on the gendered marketing of children’s toys highlighting the tools and tactics through which gendered marketing acts as a gender socialisation agent for children. Moreover, in offering a comprehensive understanding of how gendered marketing operates, we map out how these practices can be challenged, redressed and possibly dismantled through a de-gendering agenda. We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere nor is it under consideration to be published elsewhere.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
