Sarah Schuman

Introduction  

Because commercials for girly “Barbie,” “Bratz,” and “Polly Pocket” dolls dominate the television stations that little girls most often tune into, they naively perceive that all girls their age play solely with these frilly toys. The commercials for toys requiring more efficacy and inventiveness, like “Legos,” more often feature and appeal to boys. The “GoldieBlox” campaign, introduced in the fall of 2012, introduces alternative, more empowering toys and dolls for girls with the goal of getting them building. The verbal and spatial skills that “GoldieBlox” products tap into inspire the potential for girls to develop an interest in engineering, eventually improving the global imbalance in total number of engineers by sex. Through campaign videos and blogs, “GoldieBlox” demonstrates the ways in which their products can help “disrupt the pink aisle” and inspire little girls to re-think their potential. In doing so, the company targets both these girls, who play with the toys, and their mothers, who control what their daughters play with. This campaign can be theoretically analyzed through the Social Cognitive Theory, the Spiral of Silence Theory, and through Framing Theory to determine the extent of its success according to best practices for communication campaigns. After reviewing the literature relevant to the preceding theories in light of the “GoldieBlox” campaign, a more in-depth description and analysis using these theories will be conducted. To conclude, the extent of the existing success and outlook of the “GoldieBlox” campaign for the future based on the analysis will be discussed.

Literature Review

Social Cognitive Theory

Albert Bandura developed Social Cognitive Theory in the 1960s in an effort to explain how individuals interpret messages from their environment. 50 years later, the key elements of the Social Cognitive Theory can be used to build effective campaigns today. It was one of the first theories to expand on older learning theories, which had traditionally argued that learning behaviors is a two-step process. According to those traditional theories, first, one observes, and then they mimic that behavior.  The development of Social Cognitive Theory was the first to focus on the role of human cognition in this observational process (Rhodes, Brickman, & Bushman, 2007). More concretely, the theory provides a framework for examining how symbolic communication influences human thought, affect, and action through “triadic reciprocal causation” (Bandura, 2001). Thus, campaign organizers are best off incorporating symbolic communication and the features of “triadic reciprocal causation” into their advertisements. According to Bandura, humans have a capacity for agency. This personal agency interrupts the traditional causal behavioral learning process and influences and is influenced by behavioral and environmental determinants (Bandura, 2001). Hence, the triad: Personal agency, behavioral determinants, and environmental determinants. Personal agency includes the capacity to symbolize, self-regulate, self-reflect, and for vicariousness (Bandura, 2001). Behavioral changes are influenced by dual paths of media influence: one direct and one mediational.

Environmental determinants have much to do with the social construction of reality (Bandura, 2001).

Personal agency, one element of the triad of causation in the social cognitive theory, involves a capacity to symbolize. As humans self-reflect and self-regulate, they use symbols to give meaning to what they experience. Put together, these symbols create cognitive models that guide their future behavior (Rhodes, Brickman, & Bushman, 2007). Symbols can be shortcuts for the formation of quick cognitive associations with an aspect of a campaign. If campaign organizers hope for their message to lead consumers to change their behavior, they should introduce symbols into their campaigns. Optimally, consumers will interpret these symbols, add them to an existing cognitive model or create a new cognitive model based on the symbols, and utilize that model when making behavioral choices. Agency also involves a self-regulatory capacity. Part of self-regulation involves discrepancy reduction, or the striving of humans to reduce the disparity between the evaluation of their own performance and how they perceive a behavior should be performed. The other part involves discrepancy production, or proactively setting behavioral goals and mobilizing resources, skills, and effort to fulfill those goals (Bandura, 2001). Effective communication campaigns should target consumers’ vulnerabilities and offer potential behavioral alternatives to address those vulnerabilities. On the other hand, they could also introduce a product or idea involving a behavior new to a consumer, and demonstrate ways that their product or idea could contribute towards that goal. In addition to self-regulatory capacity, in which people are agents of action, people have the capacity to self-reflect, or self-examine their behavior (Bandura, 2001).

The most central self-reflective thought is that of self-efficacy, or how capable one perceives oneself at producing the desired effect of one’s behavior (Bandura, 2001). Effective communication campaigns will clearly demonstrate the ways in which one can use a product/idea to produce a desired effect. A final element of personal agency that Bandura developed is that of vicarious capacity. According to Bandura, almost all behavioral, cognitive, and affective learning from direct experience can be achieved by observing people’s actions and its consequences for them (Bandura, 2001). Much social learning, especially for children, occurs when they observe models in their environment. Communication campaigns can use the element of vicarious capacity as a shortcut for encouraging self-efficacy in campaign consumers. If, in their campaign, strategists portray how one would use a product or adopt an idea and show the effective result, people will be more likely to perceive themselves as capable of that behavior, learn from it, and mimic that behavior in the future.

Another part of Bandura’s triad, behavioral determinants, illustrates a dual path of influence on behavior. Media can directly influence audiences, leading to behavior change. Or, there could be a mediator, such as social networks that provide incentives and/or social supports for a behavioral change, as a step between the media influence and the behavioral change itself (Bandura, 2001). In a perfect world, a campaign’s message would directly influence an audience and produce a change. Realistically, however, campaigns should aim to target the networks that are likely to provide social supports for those deciding whether to make a behavioral change.

The last element of Bandura’s triad, environmental determinants, is widely a social construction of reality. When audiences are consistently exposed to a “reality” in the media, their perception of reality reflects what gets presented in the media (Bandura, 2001). Their environment becomes, to them, a reflection of a media “reality.” Controlled laboratory studies by Flerx, Fidler, & Rodgers in 1976 and by O’Bryant & Corder-Bolz in 1978 have demonstrated that television portrayals shape viewers’ beliefs. Thus, campaign organizers must recognize the ways in which they impact viewer’s perceptions of reality with their campaign messages, and carefully construct messages that will lead viewers to interpret those messages as reflective of “real life.”

Spiral of Silence Theory

Developed by German survey and communication researcher Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in the 1960s-70s, the Spiral of Silence Theory argues at a basic level that those who feel the minority holds their opinion tend to fall silent in public. Neumann asserts, “If public opinion arises from an interaction of individuals with their social environments, we should find at work the processes which Asch and Milgram have confirmed experimentally. To the individual, not isolating himself is more important than his own judgment” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 43). To prevent a spiral of silence, campaign leaders should create a forum or environment for non-dominant opinions to be voiced. Or, those practices should have strong rebuttals for the dominant opinion. When people believe reactions to their opinions will include objections, laughter, and scorn, they keep them to themselves. When they perceive that their opinions will be met with approval, they will voice those opinions freely and gladly. This creates a “spiraling” effect in which the dominant camp, those holding public opinion, becomes louder and more self-confident while the minority opinion-holders fall silent (Petersen, 2008). Neumann created 5 hypotheses for public opinion formation. She also introduced a quasi-statistical organ for determining when an individual will isolate oneself.

In her hypotheses, Neumann first established that individuals form an idea of the distribution of and trend of an opinion within their environment. The intensity of their attention to the environment depends on the individual’s interest in the opinion and how public they are willing to be in exposing themselves publicly on a particular subject. Second, she explained that an individual’s willingness to expose their views publicly varies according to whether they believe their view will be the dominant or non-dominant one. This degree of willingness to express an opinion openly will influence their assessment of the distribution of opinion in favor of opinions shown most publicly. Third, one will deduce that the divergence between the assessment of the current distribution of opinion and the actual distribution occurs because the opinion whose strength is overestimated is displayed more in public. Fourth, whichever opinion is considered to be the prevailing one is the one likely to be considered prevalent in future assessments. And lastly, when a divergence exists in the assessment of present and future strengths of a particular opinion, one will determine the extent to which one is willing to expose themselves based on the future position. If convinced that the trend of opinion moves their way, one will not be as worried about exposing one’s opinion views in the future (Noelle-Neumann, 1974).

Thus in establishing an effective communication campaign while keeping in mind the Spiral of Silence theory, certain questions should be answered through campaign strategy (Noelle-Neumann, 1974).

1. Questions about the respondent’s opinion on a controversial subject

2. Questions about the respondent’s view of what the majority think about a subject

3. Questions concerning the trend for the future

4. Questions concerning the respondent’s willingness to expose himself in a public situation

Campaigns should address both sides of an opinion on a controversial subject. They should address what is typically the dominant view on that subject. Then, they can make a suggestion through their campaign that supports the future trend of the opinion and in turn, the spiral of silence, or one that contradicts the future trend and breaks the spiral. Lastly, they can employ campaign features that will either encourage a respondent to expose their opinion in a public situation or provide support for those whose opinion does not dominate.

All of this depends on the quasi-statistical organ, or how one decides when to isolate oneself. They observe their social environment, assess the distribution of opinions for and against their ideas, and most importantly, evaluate the strength, urgency, and chances of success of certain proposals and viewpoints (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p.44). Productive campaigns will encourage this isolation and the interruption of the spiral of silence by painting a picture of a social environment in which a contradictory opinion can be supported. Certain ideas and products advertised through campaigns can have the potential to interrupt the spiral of silence through this quasi-statistical organ.

Framing Theory

The creation of framing theory expanded on the agenda-setting theory, which addressed how messages are presented and the impact of that presentation of audiences, but focused on particular issues rather than general topics (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). At its root, framing theory encompasses frames, or modes of presentation that communicators use to present information in a way that resonates with existing underlying schemas among audiences (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Framing theory has psychological and sociological origins, but many current framing studies have been related to communications and the media. Typically, the media frames issues in either episodic or thematic terms. Episodic frames depict issues in terms of specific events or instances, while thematic frames places issues in a larger general context (Iyengar & Simon, 1993). While episodic framing is less time-consuming and can be more exciting for viewers, thematic framing, which requires interpretive analyses, can be more impactful on audience perceptions. Communication campaigns attempting to address underlying schemas among audiences are best off utilizing thematic frames. In framing a campaign goal thematically, strategists can demonstrate how their argument/product/idea can address a current issue by placing that issue in a more important social context.

One framing study conducted by Simon and Iyengar in 1993, assessed the degree to which news coverage of the Gulf oil crisis was episodic and the effects of exposure to television news during the crisis on respondents’ policy preferences (Iyengar & Simon, 1993). Viewers attributed the issues that were episodically framed to actions of particular individuals and groups. Under thematic framing, the issues presented were attributed to societal and structural sources (Iyengar & Simon, 1993). Thus, episodic and thematic frames can each present advantages and disadvantages for campaign organizers. Self-efficacy, and in turn an increased chance of one adopting a new behavior, can increase when one sees an episodic frame and has the ability to put oneself in the place of whichever person/event is being framed. If a campaign frames its ideas or products thematically, consumers may be more likely to adopt what the campaign suggests if a greater societal or structural impact is introduced. Campaign organizers choice regarding how to frame their messages has much to do with the content of the message, the target audience, and the goals of the campaign.

Review of Campaign for Analysis

Today, just 11% of the world’s engineers are women. Similar studies show that girls lose interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers as early as age eight (“GoldieBlox,” 2014). Contributing to these disparities are the fashion dolls lining toy store shelves; dolls like Barbie, Bratz, and Polly Pockets teach girls to value beauty over brains and one of these products gets sold every 3 seconds (Dockterman, 2014). Girls are regularly presented with the same unrealistic, un-motivating messages these dolls send; that they should put efforts into their appearances before academics or aspirations.

The “GoldieBlox” campaign, the brainchild of founder and CEO Debbie Sterling, was introduced in 2012. Sterling, a graduate of Stanford University, reflected on her engineering class experiences, in which she had almost all male peers. She set out to create a line of books, toys, and games to teach girls aged four to nine about invention, problem-solving, and engineering. Essentially, she aimed to produce “Toys for Future Innovators.” Through Kickstarter, she initially marketed a boxed toy-set including a storybook and the wheels, gears, and other building materials necessary for girls to construct machines for “Goldie” and her friends. Sterling set a 6-month goal to raise $150,000 for production (“GoldieBlox,” 2014). She ended up raising that amount in four days, and soon “GoldieBlox” had transformed from an idea to a product on the shelves of major toy stores.

Debbie Sterling created GoldieBlox with the intention of giving girls the toys that she wished she had growing up. She wants those girls to refer to “Goldie,” an action figure that is relatable, built for action, and makes mistakes, as a role model rather than to the impossible perfection of a “Barbie” doll (Dockterman, 2014). Through a variety of media, Sterling and the GoldieBlox campaign convince mothers that their daughters may never be “Barbie,” but if they put their mind to it, they could become Goldie.

“GoldieBlox” is one of the first companies to avoid perpetuating problematic stereotypes in creating toys that teach girls engineering. Other companies, like LEGO Friends, solely encourage girls to decorate and embellish, while “GoldieBlox” allows them to reinvent, recreate, and reimagine (Dockterman, 2014). The company successfully brands their products across multiple social media channels including Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn. These social media channels serve as platforms for the creative campaign videos. In November of 2013, “GoldieBlox” created a viral video with girls using traditional pink toys to build a Rube Goldberg machine. One year later, in November of 2014, they produced a “Big Sister Machine” video, a riff on George Orwell’s “Big Brother” from his classic book, “1984”. Both videos demonstrate the essential principles of breaking the mold through “GoldieBlox” products. To further their commitment to make girls inventors, engineers and more than just princesses, the “GoldieBlox” website has a “BloxTown”; this town has a shop with how-to building videos.

The press has provided copious support for the “GoldieBlox” campaign over the past few years. Articles in news and business magazines like Fast Company have praised GoldieBlox for going from a “scrappy Kickstarter to making important toys for girls.” (Schwartz, 2012). In 2014, the company won Toy of the Year. In the winter of 2014, the success of the campaign was validated in a major way; the company entered a contest called the “Big Game Challenge” and ended up winning a 30 second spot in the Super Bowl (“GoldieBlox,” 2014). The success of the campaign makes it a viable candidate to analyze using best practices from the field of persuasive communications.

Campaign Analysis

Through three viral campaign videos and a blog, the “GoldieBlox” campaign attempts to convince families that through their products, girls will discover their potential for invention. These three videos and blog can be examined through three theoretical lenses: Social Cognitive Theory, Spiral of Silence Theory, and Framing Theory.

“GoldieBlox” Website “About” Video

 The first major component of the GoldieBlox campaign is the “about” video that welcomes viewers to the website (“GoldieBlox,” 2014). This video acknowledges an aspect of the Social Cognitive Theory: rather than behavioral learning being a two-step causal process, it involves personal agency as well and thus can be considered a triadic process (Bandura, 2001). The video effectively addresses mothers by convincing them their daughters have the agency to learn and be excited about engineering through GoldieBlox toys. According to the Social Cognitive Theory, symbols should be introduced into campaigns to aid in forming quick, hopefully positive cognitive associations with a campaign product (Rhodes, Brickman, & Bushman, 2007). In this video, girls collaborate on projects while wearing work-hats, safety goggles, and carrying toolboxes. At one point, they triumphantly storm down an all pink toy-store aisle. If little girls see this video, and form the idea that girls like them are choosing toy tools over dolls, they are more likely to remember symbols like work-hats, safety goggles, and toolboxes and ask for those types of toys in the future.

An element of this “about” video is a set of images in a grid showing a variety of girls diverse in terms of geographical location, age, and race simultaneously building with “GoldieBlox” products. This set of images utilizes self-efficacy principles in demonstrating the ways that other girls have successfully used the products, which will in turn make mothers think their own daughters have that potential for creation (Bandura, 2001). Images of girls completing projects using products from start to finish further provide support for the self-efficacy theory. This grid simultaneously attends to the Spiral of Silence theory. If mothers and daughters perceive that playing with construction toys rather than dolls and makeup is commonplace now according to the examples set by girls of all ages, races, and locations all over the country, they are more likely to adopt this new way of playing, which historically had been non-dominant.

While the “about” video successfully answers certain questions that Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann established as part of her Spiral of Silence theory, it does not necessarily attend to questions concerning the trend in toys for girls for the future  (Noelle-Neumann, 1974).  Mothers may have been more likely to purchase “GoldieBlox” toys for their daughters in the future if presented with statistics about upward trends in construction and invention toys for girls and the positive academic and career implications of adopting those toys.

“GoldieBlox ‘Princess Machine’” Video

In November 2013, “GoldieBlox” introduced a “Rube Goldberg ‘Princess Machine’” video, a riff on wacky inventor Rube Goldberg’s complicated machines.  (“GoldieBlox,” 2014). It opens with three bored-looking young girls who watch girls on TV dressed in pink as “princesses” dance around with tiaras and wands. As the video progresses, the once-bored girls invent a complicated machine using all of their traditionally “girly” pink toy parts; this machine is a symbol of a “Rube Goldberg” machine. Throughout the video, one does not know the final objective of this complicated machine composed of traditionally “girly” pink toy parts. Ultimately, viewers realize the girls’ objective to utilize their machine to change the channel on TV. The last image of the video is of a television screen with “Goldie,” the “GoldieBlox” original doll, turning on her own “princess machine.” This video successfully utilizes both episodic and thematic framing. By framing the advertisement in terms of these three specific girls and their choice in toy, self-efficacy can be applied to little girls who see girls of three different races inventing through “GoldieBlox” toys, associate themselves with those girls, and perceive themselves as capable of producing something quite fun through the product like the girls in the advertisement did. The video also frames the issue of antiquated ways of play and the potential of invention for girls thematically. Traditionally, men use “Rube Goldberg” machine principles in engineering projects. The machine was even created by a man. However, in the case of this “GoldieBlox” advertisement, the impact of which toys girls decide to play with is larger, and disproves the lack of invention by women. A “Rube Goldberg” machine, created by a man and typically used by men, is composed of pink items and used by little girls. The changing of the channel from a girly princess show to the powerful Goldie addresses the current schemas mothers may hold about how inventive girls can be and serves as a metaphor of the progressive and more accepting social context for women in engineering.

“GoldieBlox v. Big Sister Machine” Video           

“GoldieBlox v. the Big Sister Machine,” another “GoldieBlox” campaign video, was introduced one year after “Princess Machine” (“GoldieBlox, 2014). The video, a riff on George Orwell’s “Big Brother” of 1984, replaces big brother with big sister, who ensures all little girls are constantly under surveillance. The video intends to introduce an action figure for girls to get them building. “Big Sister,” in this case, resembles a typical pageant girl with sparkly pink eye shadow and pink lip-gloss. As she repeats “You are beauty, and beauty is perfection” over a loudspeaker, an assembly of girls wearing the exact same pink outfits, representing dolls, make their way down a conveyor belt, meant to resemble a doll-making assembly line. Eventually, a real-life “Goldie” makes her way down the conveyor belt, steps off it, and destroys the “Big Sister” machine and cameras from which “Big Sister” had been watching. Instead of a typical “Barbie” doll coming out of the “Big Sister” machine, out pops a Goldie action figure.

Aspects of this video can be analyzed in term of discrepancy reduction, an aspect of the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001). If mothers view this video and associate their own daughters with the carbon-copy, frilly, pink girls being sent down the conveyor belt, they will feel uncomfortable and try to reduce the discrepancy; this discrepancy lies between how they view their daughters, as potentially similar to these clone-like little girls, and how much more imaginative they wish their daughters would be. However, the symbol of these doll-like girls on the conveyor belt could have a boomerang effect for little girls. They may see the actresses dolled up in pink, heavy makeup, and tiaras and quickly make a cognitive association using those symbols. They could be vulnerable and associate the image of those girls with previously held positive symbols of beauty. The video could also have an opposite, more intended effect of building a social construction of reality (Bandura, 2001). If little girls are more often exposed to a “reality” in the media, such as this doll breaking the mold, their real-life environment will become to them a reflection of that media reality.

The Spiral of Silence Theory can apply to the “Big Sister” video as well. The girls in the video, who follow the lead of “Goldie” by whipping off their high heels and stepping off the conveyor belt, could be a model for girls who are concerned about adopting behaviors that go against dominant expectations for girls in real life. One could observe that when resisting the Spiral of Silence in the video and following “Goldie,” frizzy hair, tool-belt, and all, the conveyor belt girls were met with mutual support rather than scorn. They will in turn be more likely to adopt the untraditional behavior of forgoing princess dolls for action figures. The image of “Goldie” smashing the “Big Sister” screens and surveillance cameras could be a metaphor for a greater element of social change, that being “breaking the mold.” By framing the simple act of deciding which type of toy to play with in broader ideas of social change, the “GoldieBlox” campaign impacts audience perceptions of the power to make a large social change. 

“BloxTown” Blog

“GoldieBlox” campaign creators disseminate a final element of the their campaign, the “BloxTown” blog, amongst a target audience of young girls (“GoldieBlox,” 2014). Optimally, those girls should ask their parents to purchase “GoldieBlox” products for them. As previously discussed, many of the strongest elements of the “GoldieBlox” campaign utilize self-efficacy principles. The “BloxShop,” a subset of the “BloxTown” blog, effectively utilizes these principles. At the “BloxShop,” little builders can watch short, engaging “how-to” videos demonstrating ways to apply “GoldieBlox” toys to DIY projects. Through these videos, girls have the potential to build anything from a zip-line to a Ferris wheel. Campaign creators productively utilize self-efficacy principles in relation to the Social Cognitive Theory. An increase in self-efficacy, an element of personal agency that influences and is influenced by behavioral and environmental determinants, makes one more likely to learn and adopt an aspect of a campaign. When girls see through clear visuals and step-by-step instructions how realistic these projects are, they engage in social learning. They use the element of vicarious capacity, or observing actions and internalizing the consequences for them, to watch the videos and internalize the belief that they have the potential for invention. These effects could have the even broader impact of building these girls’ interest in engineering.

Conclusion    

Overall, the “GoldieBlox” campaign has successfully applied theoretical best practices for communication campaigns to their own campaign. In light of the Social Cognitive Theory, Spiral of Silence Theory, and Framing Theory, “GoldieBlox” products have the potential to reach their target mothers and daughters. The campaign seamlessly taps into existing schemas about toys for girls, appeals to their potential for efficacy, and strategically frames their campaign ideas to change people’s perceptions of what an engineer is and can be. Still, Beau Lewis, VP Digital at “GoldieBlox,” has said that giving girls the confidence to get building is only the halfway point (Perez, 2014). The implications of the most recent “GoldieBlox” campaign tools, like the “Rube Goldberg” video and “BloxShop” blog that introduce “Goldie” can have an even farther reach. In creating “Goldie,” a smart, inventive role model for little boys and girls alike, the perception of who an engineer can be shifts. The influence of “Goldieblox” product principles can stick with girls later in life as they decide to actually study or work in the field of engineering, and can even in-directly influence the perceptions people who do not necessarily play with the toys.

References

Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03

Dockterman, E. (2014, November 5). Rebellious new GoldieBlox ad aims to disrupt 'perfect' beauty standards. Time.

GoldieBlox. (2014). Retrieved November 5, 2014, from http://www.goldieblox.com/

Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the Gulf Crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming and framing. Communication Research, 20(3), 365-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365093020003002

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x

Perez, S. (2014, October 16). GoldieBlox, the toymaker trying to get girls hooked on engineering, goes digital with new iOS app. Tech Crunch.

Petersen, T. (2008). Spiral of Silence. Encyclopedia of Political Communication, 2, 758-762. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.4135/9781412953993

Rhodes, M., Brickman, D. W., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). Social Learning Theory/Social Cognitive Theory. In J. J. Arnett (Author), Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 781-783). http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.4135/9781412952606

Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x

Schwartz, A. (2012, September 20). GoldieBlox: A toy and book series designed to get young girls interested in engineering. Fast Company.